Live data from Hacker News

The dictatorship of the articulate

florentcrivello.com

91–100 of 409 posts

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#91
There's a reason we don't just "let the builders build". We used to do that (certainly to a massively greater extent than we do now), and the result was that although a few of them managed to construct monuments we can all be proud of, most of them built a pile of crap and/or damaged the places they built in and the people they nominally built for. This is true of literal buildings, but it's also true of a great many other things that we "build".

The author of this delightfully titled but almost content-free piece seems not to consider Chesterton's Fence at all: before you criticize let alone dismantle regulation, you should be able to demonstrate a sound understanding of why it came to exist in the first place. For bonus points, a rigorous explanation of why the reasoning no longer applies in the current time period is helpful. TFA provided neither.

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#92
> This problem of “too many seats at the table” is pervasive: you actually have to ask for your competitors’ permissions before you can open anything, from a hospital to an ice cream shop. We’ve never had so few rights over our own property, and so many over that of others.

This rang particularly true for me. A long time ago I had gotten into trading as a hobby. I took it seriously, and made some money. However, due to regulatory controls I was kneecapped. Unless I was willing to trade with $25,000 and willing to maintain that balance (PDT requires >= $25,000) I couldn't just have my fun. The kneecapping came in the form of not being able to get out of trades. Not being able to stack into trades because despite liquidity and signing agreements to pay back margin I was still being held back by regulation. So maybe I collect capital and start a hedge fund? Also regulated. Capital requirements are even higher and taxes, fees, etc are insane. Sure, I could trade futures without PDT but there's fewer opportunities because there are fewer markets.

Ostensibly the regulation in the markets was "to protect people" but in fact it simply hurts the majority of people who are responsible and willing to take risk. The only people protected by these regulations are the big banks, trading desks, and hedge funds who by executive fiat trade only amongst themselves. The rules for day trading are simple. You have to sign paperwork to say you're experienced enough to trade options. This should be enough.

I mention this example because it's not unique to trading. Regulation has a purpose. If there's something that is dangerous, and also you can reasonably expect a person of reasonable intelligence to not understand the risk, then it makes sense. Regulations on the car industry make sense. Medical regulations make sense, etc. Last mile regulations? Makes no sense. Regulations for laying your own copper? Make no sense.

But there are so many rules to everything these days. It gets harder to start up anything because there are so, so many hoops to jump through. Capital requirements, paperwork, licenses, etc. All for mundane things. Want to build a fence for yourself? Great. Want to build one for a few friends? Pray the government doesn't find out.

When you read the stories of these millionaires and billionaires, professional traders, construction company owners, etc the majority of them got their start when regulations were low. It allows you to experiment and the vast majority of people don't set out to intentionally damage society. The trade off is risk to the population. Again, if the thing is dangerous and hard to understand regulation makes sense. But we are far too "protected" (deliberate scare quotes) by the government. It makes it impossible for the small guy to start anything truly revolutionary. Regulation is a fantastic scam for insurers and big business in a vast majority of otherwise mundane and borderline trivial industries.

I would challenge a small team of people to try to build a powerful engine without fighting regulators. I imagine we will very soon hit a period where everything is regulated and controlled by vast cabals of business with significant regulatory capture. We've enabled this, and we already do. Most people would be shocked at how many congress critters are on FAANG payroll. How many are on ISP payrolls, etc.

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#93
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, that supports my point. Go look at Sydney's property market and the related alleged corruption.

Source? I’d like to go look.

For details of widespread defects. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/14/more-...

For specific instances of corruption relating to construction, this is detailed across a few FriendlyJordies videos but I'm strung for a link right now. Will comment if I find it later.

Edit: there's also this https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/n...

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#94
> While our competitors are still sucking their thumbs trying to make the design perfect, we’ve already gone through five rounds of testing. By the time our rivals are ready to begin development, we are on version No. 10. It gets back to planning versus acting. We act from day one; others plan how to plan—for months.

In practice, the case of builders get spaghetti that no one wants to work with later.

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#95
post #24
post #18

It’s a funny coincidence that the field where we’re seeing the most innovation happens to be the one we regulated least, and that the fields that got worse are the most regulated ones. --------- As Marc Andreessen remarks, in every case, the culprit is regulation. Ho hum. And the 5 year old AEI chart that's been bumping around awhile. IIRC TVs are so low because they use a trick called 'hedonic averaging' where a 27…

>> What’s the most important change that happened in the world of atoms in the last 30 years? Uber may be near the top the list Oh you mean a scheduling app that's lost billions of dollars via explicitly lawless business practices? Yes, it sure is no running water

The funny thing about ridesharing is that the "innovation" is literally just circumventing regulations designed to stop independent depression-era drivers from filling up the roads (e.g. medallion and licensing systems). If those regulations didn't exist, it wouldn't take a massive company to get them changed, and we might have ended up with distributed local markets for drivers rather than a few competing multinationals.

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#96
> "30 years ago was 1990. What’s happened since then? The Internet and smartphones, mostly."

GPS devices, eBook readers, smart assistants and displays, streaming media boxes, DVDs and MP3s, a million medications and therapies, electric cars, pod coffee makers, advanced video game consoles, VR... That's just off the top of my head.

What is this guy talking about?

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#97

"Dictatorship of the Articulate" is a quality phrase. The actual piece is a waste of time. Andreesson capitalism build worship supplemented by for instance American Enterprise Institute propaganda that does not reflect reality. Would downvote if I could.

Thought the same thing as I got to the middle of the article.

The title got me, the article lost me. Typical capitalist worship, government regulations bad drivel.

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#98
post #63

Unspoken and underlying the author's entire worldview seems to be, "the more new things, the better," a not uncommon tunnel view in the engineering world. The purpose of regulation, ideally, is to ensure that whatever activity/process is being regulated is worth the cost(s) for the majority of people. Defining those terms and making that decision is precisely the job of regulators, who are ideally accountable to a de…

Is access to these resources really an engineering problem, rather than a matter of political fact? The people with the power to expand access, politicians, don't have any real incentive to.

It's definitely a political problem more than any other, yes. What would give politicians more incentive to operate this way would be real campaign finance reform. Check out represent.us

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#99
Yes! I propose we start with the aviation industry which is in dire need of innovation. It’s been a while since we’ve seen a new type of airplane with pointy nose or funky looking wings. We need more new stuff and we need it now. We should regulate it less. Or better, let the manufacturers do it themselves. They build the thing and they know better after all. What could possibly go wrong?

Re: The dictatorship of the articulate

#100
The dictatorship of the articulate? So the author is clearly saying, "people" should not be in the room, or if in the room, be unable to speak, or if able to speak, be ignorant of their rights-- unless they support whatever he values. And then where will these people be? In which room? And what ability to speak should they have? And what about their rights should they know?

"In the old days, it was so cheap and easy and quick to steal indigenous lands. But now? What a fuss those guys make!" said the author, in my imagination as I hypothesize about how he thinks.

I guess the most charitable thing I can say is that maybe the author truly believes that once it's too late to stop the destruction of a historical building, or neighborhood, or wetland habitat, people will just shrug and learn to enjoy their new... Amazon distribution center or whatever he is so passionate to build for the world.

Post reply on HN