CarlShulman comments on The Craigslist Revolution: a real-world application of torture vs. dust specks OR How I learned to stop worrying and create one billion dollars out of nothing - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Kevin 10 February 2010 03:15AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (219)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MBlume 10 February 2010 07:26:45AM 13 points [-]

I think this is a very strange situation. There's a billion dollar bill in the middle of the road, and it's been there for four years. Yes, we should figure out how we can pick it up, and use it to purchase utilons, but I think as a sub-question, we really really need to figure out why it hasn't been picked up. Because what Kevin is proposing sounds easy. I spend time on Facebook, and I've been invited to, and often joined, a ridiculous number of advocacy groups -- one million strong for Darfur, support breast cancer awareness, etc. I do not understand how a group hasn't already been started to claim this money for some popular cause, and I don't think we're going to be able to claim it ourselves unless we can understand that.

Comment author: CarlShulman 10 February 2010 11:35:56AM *  2 points [-]

The claim that Craigslist is far from long-run profit maximizing is pretty dubious. It's compatible with the evidence as far as I can see but not very likely. That claim may just be a nice excuse in one interview. Craigslist has for-profit investors, even if they claim to be hands-off.

Comment author: gwern 10 February 2010 11:00:51PM 0 points [-]

What investors?

"It is believed to be owned principally by Newmark, Buckmaster, and eBay (the three board members). eBay owns approximately 25%, and Newmark is believed to own the largest stake."

Given how eBay got its own Craigslist clone and is suing them, I'd say CL is far from long-run profit maximizing.

Comment author: CarlShulman 10 February 2010 11:27:36PM 0 points [-]

I wasn't familiar with the lawsuit, that's good evidence.

Comment author: Kevin 10 February 2010 11:39:48PM *  0 points [-]

Yeah, eBay is a hostile shareholder. I believe Craig gave an early employee/cofounder 25% of the company in a verbal agreement and that verbal 25% later became worth a lot of money.

Comment author: [deleted] 10 February 2010 04:23:34PM *  -1 points [-]

Reading that comment left me with an aftertaste of comma.

ETA: Judging by the downvote, this was a bad way of pointing out that the parent comment ended in a comma.