61–69 of 69 posts
Capitalism is inherently flawed as it relies on infinite growth in a finite world, to put it simply.
That isn't true in both ways. The "world" is effectively not finite (we keep learning new ways to more efficiently make use of stuff), and capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did read the article. Rent only happens when cost is high and supply is constrained. Look at housing. Rent seeking isnt sustainable as compute gets cheaper and cheaper. Access is knowledge, sewing, second hand cars: access is portion of knowledge.
Companies are increasingly using lock-in strategies too keep their users in their own walled gardens. Apple and Google can collect rent from the entire app economy solely for the privilege of being listed in app stores (while at the same time controlling the rules of that economy and being able to advantage their own offerings). Amazon can do the same with the Amazon marketplace. There is lots of rent seeking going o…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXS6lTYSgCw
Again, what is NEW about what google/apple are doing vs what IBM did? Nothing really. And for as much as the HN crowed likes to hint at the word monopoly, they are a duolopy, and this isnt the same thing (by a far margin)... for as much as they might look close from a consumer perspective.
The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it does not account for every corporation that came before tech. What about RCA, GE, Westinghouse? What about US Steel, what about Standard Oil, what about AT&T. IBM, Intel have already started to fall. What makes this crop of companies any different than all the ones that has come before them. Nothing. The singer sewing machine came out at 125 bucks per unit. The annual…
ATT was broken up by antitrust.
ATT throws unix out the car window, at speed, to any one and every one who will take it because they did NOT want any more heat.
A lot of stuff escaped Bell Labs because of anti trust.
The old att rotary phone is part of the impression of how durable goods can be (that thing was a tank).
The final breakup of att leads to baby bells, and we have seen how that experiment went...
Could we have co-op or regional public utility for internet/cable/phone today? Yes we could, but I dont think we would have gotten to this place with out AT&T's rise and fall.
It and IBM are the examples of squandered dominance of technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't true in both ways. The "world" is effectively not finite (we keep learning new ways to more efficiently make use of stuff), and capitalism doesn't rely on infinite growth.
What it costs in resources to maintain the modern lifestyle and civilization, is quite finite. We learn new ways to spend and consume, and innovation in sustainability is not the priority in a Capitalist economy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty much exactly it. Oye Beltalowda!
If his envisioned space experience is known or planned to be shitty, why would Bezos say so? How would he sell it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may lack the background reading to understand him, but he is certainly not incoherent.
I do not disagree that I may lack sufficient background for this. It was clearly written for "those in the know," people who already share a common viewpoint and vocabulary, and only differ on minor nuance. A bit like getting a bunch of mechanics to argue about cars. In this regard, the writing is definitely rambling and incoherent. It's one big mutual academic exercise (I am avoiding the use of a sexual term here).
If I didn't have a software background, I'd likely find much of the more interesting articles here to be similarly dense and impenetrable, because expert discussion often assumes a certain level of expertise from the reader.
There is no feudalism without violence. No one is forcing anyone to host stuff in the cloud, no one is forcing anyone to use Gmail, no one is forcing anyone to use iPhone or Android device, use Facebook or Twitter, etc. Everybody does it because with their personal calculation they figured out they rather suffer some loss in freedom than spend time on alternatives. There are just some good old fashion monopolies/olig…
> no feudalism without violence Just because it's not physical violence it does not mean it doesn't exist. Violence was a means by the people with power to coerce the ones without. We have that today in the for of: debt, non equitable contracts, lobbying, etc.
Lobbying could maybe be considered violence by proxy because state can use violence.
Violence has meaning, and trying to abuse it to put every single thing someone finds "unfair" under the umbrella of violence is ridiculous thing to do, and leads to all that idiots who start violence thinking that someone else's non-violent acts or even thoughts justify it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty much exactly it. Oye Beltalowda!
If his envisioned space experience is known or planned to be shitty, why would Bezos say so? How would he sell it?
The word "beltalowda" comes from the sci-di series "the expanse" which is a great watch and explores some of these themes.