The point is that the successful businesses produce lots of value for people, and for risky bets to work out on average you need some to do very well to balance out the ones that do only OK.

If you have an ideological opposition to economic growth, then yeah, venture capital isn't going to make much sense to you. As was mentioned up thread, there are other funding sources better suited for people who aim to sustainably make 1-2x returns.

Actually, no. It's at least a > 1x return to make the investor whole.

Here's why: a dollar invested today has an opportunity cost for the amount of time it's not available for another investment. And the longer that dollar remains locked up, the bigger the cost.

If an investor chooses to invest in another investment--let's say a money market returning 5% annually, compounded--then anything less than that after N years is a bad investment. This is the calculus that investors make with every investment.

I know we aren't likely to agree about the ideology of capitalism, but consider that in a free and open market, investors are free to pick and choose the opportunities they want--including young, talented individuals with good ideas.

In a controlled market, investors would only be able to invest in what the "controllers" choose. By "controllers" I mean those who would be in charge, e.g. the government.

How many "controllers" do you trust to do the right thing and identify the young, little guy who has a great thing to share with the world?

Anything above a 2x return is necessary, because investors will have an entire portfolio of companies. About 66% of them do nothing at all. But a few will do well. And that results in a modest return, on average. Make your own simulated portfolio and do the math. You will see.