DISQUS

Also: a lot of the job losses (as at Caterpillar) are the result of a cyclical downturn and will be reversed by a cyclical upturn, whereas most of the VC-created jobs hopefully represnt a secular increase.

Another category of job losses is those resulting from bad management---I'd put Sprint in this category, for instance--and many of these jobs will sooner or later be replaced by a transition of the customers of these companies to more competent firms.

1)You are probably understating the number of jobs that have been created by your work. Jobs are also created at the suppliers of these companies, and the suppliers of *those* companies, down through multiple levels of the product structure. Also, some of the products created by your venture companies have probably improved productivity and have enabled job creation by their *customers*.

2)The current VC model does not work well for very capital-intensive projects, such as many energy- and transportation-related projects tend to be. But a bigger inhibitor to such projects in the endless litigation and regulatory hurdles that they face, driven by environmental concerns, NIMBYism, lawyer greed, and sheer cussedness.

Interesting. One thing I wonder about is the impact of wind direction on performance. The company website says that the wind needs to be at least 70 degrees off the bow, but I couldn't find anything on propulsive force as a function of wind direction.

I'd think the economics would be far better if the system can be used on both legs of a round trip, rather than only one way.

Also: interesting to compare this list with Jack Welch's characterization of the good leader, which I summarized based on a WSJ article he wrote.

link

A good list. I don't totally agree with #4...sometimes, division and conflict are necessary if positive change is to occur.