Summary: there appear to be more (how many more? who knows?) startups; they appear to be less (how much less? who knows?) innovative; ergo returns will decrease 30-40%.
This entire article has little more content than its title, which is itself completely made up.
Maybe news.yc needs a [fluff] designator, similar to [dead], so that articles bearing it can be optionally made invisible (the difference being that [fluff] might be visible by default).
(Or maybe [fluff] articles can be subject to downvotes! ;-)
Just counting the potential fallacies in this article makes me tired.
Does average mean the mean, the median, or the mode?
Why should we care about the average anyway? The average Web page is probably a piece of SEO spam, but that doesn't mean much to me or to the world's best-read web sites.
"Recently there hasn't been any significant innovation." This is typical bad-investor thinking: stock prices are flat or declining, so this must be a terrible time to buy! I will wait and buy stock once the prices have gone up!
This is maybe the dumbest thing I've ever seen on the front page here. I love how it has a factual title, giving some concrete numbers, then goes on to give no specific derivation for those numbers at all.
And then there are sentences that don't even make sense like "In the US investors lost millions of dollars and when the “big guys” that share prices reached completely unrealistic levels far from what economists call fundamentals."
This article forgets to factor in that there are a large number of investors that relish buying low during times of recession. The overall size of the pie may be decreasing but there may be more slices to go around.
This entire article has little more content than its title, which is itself completely made up.