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

The Refragmentation

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 461 posts

Re: The Refragmentation

#31

Post by iandanforth »

cronjobber wrote: post #7

He takes the easy way out on the war theory: It would be awful, of course, so let's not think about it. But think about it. Would historical WWII be possible in today's United States? Introduce the draft and send current US population off to die in Europe? I think you'd see intense levels of political resistance, draft dodging and desertion in the field. Fragmentation means you probably can't unite the whole country…

If we generalize to say that foreign threats can be used to create massive economic, policy, and social change through government fiat, then this is absolutely possible. We're still living with the Patriot act after all.

Also recall that prior to WWII there were "intense levels of political resistance" but as soon as our territory was directly attacked that changed. (It took 4 days from Pearl Harbor to our declaration of war)

Re: The Refragmentation

#32

Post by sce »

Regarding income inequality, I recommend listening to some of the speeches/debates with Bernie Sanders.

E.g. he argues that the greatest receiver of welfare in the US is the wal-Mart family, because they get even richer paying their workers so little that the workers have to live on welfare. (In other words the welfare is "paying" the workers so that Wal-Mart don't have to.) He proposes to rise the minimum wage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYFueqv0iIQ

Re: The Refragmentation

#33

Post by AJ007 »

cronjobber wrote: post #7

He takes the easy way out on the war theory: It would be awful, of course, so let's not think about it. But think about it. Would historical WWII be possible in today's United States? Introduce the draft and send current US population off to die in Europe? I think you'd see intense levels of political resistance, draft dodging and desertion in the field. Fragmentation means you probably can't unite the whole country…

A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast. Perhaps there is little to nothing to compare with WWII. A war in Europe could happen again but it would be quite different.

The use of militarism and nationalism does not require a full scale global war. Certainly it is being used right now in several nations under structural duress. The enemy may be real or imagined, and if you oppose or speak out against the changes you may be the enemy too.

Re: The Refragmentation

#34

Post by dhimes »

cronjobber wrote: post #7

He takes the easy way out on the war theory: It would be awful, of course, so let's not think about it. But think about it. Would historical WWII be possible in today's United States? Introduce the draft and send current US population off to die in Europe? I think you'd see intense levels of political resistance, draft dodging and desertion in the field. Fragmentation means you probably can't unite the whole country…

I don't know. After 9/11 you probably could have convinced Americans to invade anybody.

Re: The Refragmentation

#35

Post by sfk »

rpgmaker wrote: post #24

Disappointing article filled with pseudo historian rubbish.

It's an essay, not a comprehensive treatise that might fill 1000 pages.

I was glad to see some of the old pg back. His startup essays tended to be bit artificial, as if he had to force himself to write them.

Re: The Refragmentation

#36

Post by golergka »

rsync wrote: post #3

"Obviously the spread of computing power was a precondition for the rise of startups." If you live in San Francisco (or are visiting) you can visit the USS Pampanito - a retired WWII submarine.[1] One thing I think you will notice is the manufacturers plaques attached to every little piece of equipment in the submarine ... every one of them the plaque of some tiny little supplier that you have never heard of . Some l…

That seems to be just small businesseses, not startups. Startups either go Facebook or go bust, they're not created to stay stable at small scale.

Re: The Refragmentation

#37

Post by golergka »

> Version 1 of the national economy consisted of a few big blocks whose relationships were negotiated in back rooms by a handful of executives, politicians, regulators, and labor leaders. Version 2 was higher resolution: there were more companies, of more different sizes, making more different things, and their relationships changed faster. In this world there were still plenty of back room negotiations, but more was left to market forces. Which further accelerated the fragmentation.

I find this curiously close to a description given by a late-soviet economist who was working on economic reforms in the 80s: he described soviet economy as a bunch of heavy hard rocks, incredibly powerful, but without any flexibility and connection to each other, and small new cooperative movement as a sand that should've taken all the space in between.

Re: The Refragmentation

#38

Post by msandford »

AJ007 wrote: post #33
cronjobber wrote: post #7

He takes the easy way out on the war theory: It would be awful, of course, so let's not think about it. But think about it. Would historical WWII be possible in today's United States? Introduce the draft and send current US population off to die in Europe? I think you'd see intense levels of political resistance, draft dodging and desertion in the field. Fragmentation means you probably can't unite the whole country…

A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast. Perhaps there is little to nothing to compare with WWII. A war in Europe could happen again but it would be quite different. The use of militarism and nationalism does not require a full scale global war. Certainly it is being used right now in several nations under structural duress. The…

> A full scale war today, excluding skirmishes, between two large conventional armies would be nuclear. It would be over very fast.

The problem with this line of thinking is you assume that the enemy doesn't care if there's a world left for them to have greater power/influence/wealth/whatever in. Nobody really wins a nuclear war, some people just lose a little less.

Re: The Refragmentation

#39

Post by msvan »

I think this is one of the most interesting essays he's written in a while, and it echoes many of my own thoughts better than I could express them.

PG seems to argue that the fragmentation of society is a question of efficiency. A natural effect of this is that the world will become more cut-throat. Efficient systems turn hyper-competitive, as seen in university admissions, startups, financial markets. It seems to me that too much "liquidity" mostly causes burnout, depression, dumb risk-taking, and a few really successful winners. Tech is really guilty of this phenomenon by tending to produce one winner for every thousand losers.

In many ways the 20th century was an anomaly -- the wars were more violent, the rate of growth was faster, the cultural shifts were huge and multifaceted -- but we still use tend to see it as a normal state of things. A hundred years into the future we'll be looking at an entirely different world and consider it normal.

Re: The Refragmentation

#40

Post by harryh »

sce wrote: post #32

Regarding income inequality, I recommend listening to some of the speeches/debates with Bernie Sanders. E.g. he argues that the greatest receiver of welfare in the US is the wal-Mart family, because they get even richer paying their workers so little that the workers have to live on welfare. (In other words the welfare is "paying" the workers so that Wal-Mart don't have to.) He proposes to rise the minimum wage. http…

This assumes an obligation on Wal-Mart's part to pay people according to their need. In a market economy, people are paid according to their ability.
Post reply on HN