经济与社会科学2020papers.ssrn.com
迈向非创业型经济？Veblenian 企业家的兴起
Towards an Untrepreneurial Economy? Rise of the Veblenian Entrepreneur (2019)
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：凡勃伦炫耀性消费理论、创业经济学基础
导读
这篇论文探讨“创业”是否正在从经济行为演变为一种凡勃伦式的炫耀性消费：越来越多的人创业并非为了盈利或创新，而是为了展示身份与地位（所谓“想创业者”现象）。论文分析了降低创业门槛的服务业兴起、低效市场供给等现象，提出“凡勃伦式企业家”这一概念来解释创业热潮背后的社会动机。
HN 关注点：是因为它用炫耀性消费理论解释了 wantrepreneur（想创业者）现象，引发了对创业动机、社会地位信号以及研究方法是否严谨的争论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：支持 1 质疑 1 补充 2
补充认为底层人群的对应现象是传销和网红梦，本质都是被利用的地位焦虑
很有意思。论文顺带提到，特权阶层可能通过消费“非物质”商品来彰显地位，而没那么特权的人则进行更传统的昂贵商品炫耀性消费。那么如果“想创业”是特权阶层（或渴望成为特权者）的炫耀性消费，不那么特权的人的对应形式是什么？我认为是传销（MLM）和 Instagram 网红。想创业者想成为迷你版乔布斯，而 MLM/网红梦者想成为迷你版卡戴珊，靠光鲜形象兜售产品。但他们的欲望被一个承诺成功、实则大多掏空钱包的系统无情利用。尽管如此，很多人仍觉得必须继续，主要因为他们已公开买入了这种形象。也许关键在于一个人接触到什么样的成功范式、看到同伴中流行什么。
neilk查看英文原文
This is fascinating. In passing, they mention how the highly privileged may conspicuously consume 'immaterial' goods for status, and the less privileged do more traditional conspicuous consumption of expensive goods. So if wantrepreneurism is a form of conspicuous consumption for the privileged - or those who desire to become so - what's the equivalent for the less privileged? I think it has to be MLM and Instagram influencing. The wantrepreneur wants to be a mini-Jobs, but the MLM/Insta dreamer wants to be a mini-Kardashian, hawking products with a glamorous image. But their desire is exploited ruthlessly by a system that promises success but will mostly drain their wallet. Nevertheless a lot of them feel the need to keep going, largely because they've publicly bought into the image. Maybe it's about what forms of success one is exposed to and what one sees is popular among one's peers?
支持认为任何大众化活动最终都会沦为炫耀性消费，因为多数人追求社会认可
所以大学是炫耀性消费，实习是炫耀性消费，创业也是炫耀性消费。也许事实很简单：大多数人被社会认可的需求驱动，只有极少数人被求知欲、助人/解决社会问题等驱动。因此任何向足够多人开放的活动最终都会变成炫耀性消费。现在科研是炫耀性消费（MIT 媒体实验室？），写书是，竞选公职也是。还有什么活动没变成炫耀性消费吗？
scottishcow查看英文原文
So universities are conspicuous consumption, internships are conspicuous consumption, entrepreneurship is conspicuous consumption. Perhaps the simple fact is that most people are motivated by the need for social validation, and only a tiny tiny fraction of the population is driven instead by things like intellectual curiosity, desire to help others / solve societal problems, etc. So any class of activity that becomes open to a sufficient number of entrants will eventually turn into a form of conspicuous consumption. Now scientific research is conspicuous consumption (MIT Media Lab?), book authorship is conspicuous consumption, and political candidacy is conspicuous consumption. Are there any activities left that doesn’t function as a form of conspicuous consumption?
质疑质疑论文混淆因果，认为降低门槛和所谓低效供给其实是良性的市场竞争
我读了原研究，觉得作者混淆了很多东西。1）专业化服务的兴起降低了进入门槛——是的，SaaS 让普通人更容易开公司，意味着很多本不该当老板的人当了老板，但这很难说是坏事；反过来说，很多本该创业的人也得以创业了。2）想创业者现象很复杂，但很难把 Mailchimp 之类服务企业归咎为原因——如果按研究前提推出这个结论，说明前提本身不牢靠。3）所谓“低效市场供给”即服务提供者多于需求能维持的数量，这在行业变动期很正常，实际上是好事，促进竞争，让存活下来的品牌更精更强。我真不确定人们在这篇论文里看到了什么……
NicolasGorden查看英文原文
I read the actual research and it seems to me the authors are confounding a lot of things. I believe people with a decent background in business and economics should see this. A few things that jumped out at me: 1- The rise of specialized services that lower the entrance bars for many industries. 2- The rise of the wantrepreneur. 3- "Inefficient market offerings" that reduce innovation. The answer to these: 1- Yes by lowering the entrance bar with SAAS products, regular people can create companies more easily. This means many people that shouldn't be company owners are now. But this is hardly a bad thing. The converse to this is that many people who should be entrepreneurs that weren't are. 2- This is really complex. And yes, the ease of starting a business and businesses that service businesses will always play into this segment. But it's hard to blame mailchimp for the rise of the wantrepreneur, which seems to be a logical conclusion if we follow the premise of the study. Since that's not a logical conclusion, it follows the study's premise isn't very sound. 3- As I understand it, inefficiencies in the production of services means more people offering a service than can be sustained by the demand of such services. Such events are normal when industries are in flux. It's actually a good thing, as it fosters competition and the surviving brands are stronger, leaner and smarter than they would be if there wasn't such 'inefficiencies'. I'm really not sure what people see in this study. Even the language used is... emotional? lacking? I mean, it's just not language that lends to nuance and understanding. It's almost marketing like. And I say this as someone who is a digital marketeer, so I'm not using it as an insult. It just feels out of place, I expect analytical language in a study.
补充认为用鲍德里亚的符号消费理论解释比凡勃伦更贴切
我觉得这个前提与其说是凡勃伦式的，不如说是鲍德里亚式的，或者说鲍德里亚涵盖了凡勃伦。本质上：对“创业者”这一符号的元消费——假设它日益比任何经济产出更具社会价值——在我看来，把这种行为扩展到了单纯的凡勃伦式（炫耀性）消费之外。
0x00B664查看英文原文
I find the premise to be rather Baudrillardian than Veblenian, or perhaps it's simply that Baudrillard encompasses Veblen. In essence: the meta consumption of the symbol of entrepreneurship, on the assumption that it increasingly holds more social value than any economic output, imo extends the behavior beyond mere Veblenian, i.e. conspicuous, consumption.
历次讨论
- 2020Hacker News 讨论帖147 分 · 81 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选