Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

csmonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#41

Post by kome »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #31
cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

No it wouldn't be better. Wealth is not zero sum. Accumulation of wealth does not mean other people are denied wealth.

> Wealth is not zero sum.

Why are you so sure?

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#42

Post by yazaddaruvala »

noobermin wrote: post #36
josephagoss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

I think the big misunderstanding you and the parent commenter have is that you're conflating "large scale projects" with "far out projects". Just because both are large scale, doesn't make them the same thing.

Technologically complicated, Politically easy, "far out projects" or "moonshots", governments are relatively good. eg. putting the first man on the moon (politically easy: because of the competition with Russia).

Technologically easy, Politically complicated, "large scale projects", governments are (as the data shows) really, really bad at. eg. reforming the education system.

Some rationale: Humans looking for authority that then gain it, don't want to lose it. i.e. The dislike disruption. Government is run by humans with authority. It would then follow that governments don't like disruption.

Its extremely hard to politically justify disenfranchising all the poor performing teachers, administration, budget planners, healthcare workers, etc. even if it is actually in the best overall interest of society. Primarily because governments are a monopoly, and its in the best interest of all management (lower, middle or upper) in a monopoly to keep their controlling interests intact (and happy), regardless of productivity. As they say "keep things churning".

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#43

Post by DonaldFisk »

josephagoss wrote: post #33
cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Really?

http://www.loper-os.org/wp-content/sovcosm.png

Although the manned moon landings were American, they probably wouldn't have happened if the Soviet Union hadn't beaten them into space. NASA were US Government funded. All manned launches since 2012 have been on Russian and Chinese rockets. No manned SpaceX launches yet. So it appears that communism has done more for manned space flight than private enterprise.

There are numerous other major government funded science and technology success stories: Manhattan Project, Concorde, CERN, ...

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#44

Post by PavlovsCat »

josephagoss wrote: post #33
cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

On the other hand, we may never know how many Shakeaspeares never got a chance to write, because they were poor and died young. If you think it takes big investments to "change the world", you're wrong, the combined efforts of millions of people may be less glamourous, and harder to quantify, but that doesn't make them less real. The future of our species depends more on how we treat each other than anything else. Private enterprise won't be able to stop war for water and resources. The incentives will be more aligned with arming those wars, and then we'll be burned out.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#45

Post by josephagoss »

noobermin wrote: post #36
josephagoss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

I'm not saying that Government can't do great things, but it should never be the only player in town when it comes to innovation on a large scale. Denying private citizens the ability to have great wealth basically gives the Government a large scale monopoly on far out projects.

These are the types of projects where a single billionaires great wealth can inspire other investors to come along. If Musk couldn't pour millions into his ventures, it's unlikely the average investor would have followed him into space.

In addition, the USA invested in the internet, space and atomic weapons solely for the purpose of war, even the hubble is based on military technologies. I am again concerned that people are arguing for a future that's dependent on the needs of politicians or the military.

Even China was smart enough to see value in the capitalism model. Allow for the ability of great wealth, allow the private citizen to decide how to deploy the fruits of their work and something good might come out it.

Also, the Government has taken over a billion dollars in tax from Mark Zuckerberg, so the Government has plenty to play with. Remember, it's always easier to play with other people's money, hence the inefficiency regarding the use of tax dollars.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#46

Post by DonaldFisk »

josephagoss wrote: post #45
noobermin wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

I'm not saying that Government can't do great things, but it should never be the only player in town when it comes to innovation on a large scale. Denying private citizens the ability to have great wealth basically gives the Government a large scale monopoly on far out projects. These are the types of projects where a single billionaires great wealth can inspire other investors to come along. If Musk couldn't pour mi…

Facebook paid £4,327 corporation tax to the UK Government in 2014 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34504474).

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#47

Post by albertop »

noobermin wrote: post #36
josephagoss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

A good article on this subject arguing otherwise http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-basic-science-144561.... Continuation of the ideas from the What Technology Wants book.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#48

Post by mgraczyk »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #43
josephagoss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Really? http://www.loper-os.org/wp-content/sovcosm.png Although the manned moon landings were American, they probably wouldn't have happened if the Soviet Union hadn't beaten them into space. NASA were US Government funded. All manned launches since 2012 have been on Russian and Chinese rockets. No manned SpaceX launches yet. So it appears that communism has done more for manned space flight than private enterprise.…

The US and USSR governments' effectiveness at early space travel had less to do with the ability of public entities to innovate and more to do with the existential threat of the Cold War. Constant fear of nuclear annihilation is not worth the increase in practical government research.

The same can be said of the Manhattan project with WWII. CERN is a valid counterargument, but I think it demonstrates that markets need to be occasionally corrected (to acomodate basic science research in this case), not that markets need to be dismantled.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#49

Post by plonh »

noobermin wrote: post #36
josephagoss wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Just curious, but that would deny many millionaires and billionaires the chance to change the world. For sure, SpaceX and Tesla probably would not exist [1]. I'm surprised that this sentiment is growing among many people that somehow they believe the Government is going to be better at experimenting and managing the…

Let's see, going to the moon, the internet, the atomic bomb, the space shuttle...I think the government has proven to be effect in the past. Not that the free market hasn't been effective too, but one might make the mistake of serious selection bias to really believe that the government can't perform "far out projects" well, especially when the will to perform them doesn't exist in the free market yet.

The space shuttle program was a horribly expensive sideways step that help back space exploration.

Re: Zuckerbergs' New “Primary School”: Private but Free

#50

Post by plonh »

mgraczyk wrote: post #34
cptmeister wrote: post #5

That's great for the community, but in a larger sense we should question what the point is of amassing huge concentrated wealth and then giving a small part (or even a large part) back to make isolated positive impacts. Wouldn't it be better if it was impossible to amass that concentration of wealth in the first place? Then the token donations would not be necessary. This is not supposed to be a cynical post, but thi…

Where would the incentive be to try risky experimental business ventures? To invent new things? I think you underestimate the motivating power of economic opportunity. It's wise to let those who are good at allocating resources be in charge of allocating resources. The best way to decide who is good at allocating resources is to create a system in which those who are good at allocating resources have opportunities to…

Extracting profit from a system is different from efficiently allocating resources. At an extremely example, consider bank robbery. Then consider LIBOR.
Post reply on HN