A Local Revolution? • Hacker News Board

Re: A Local Revolution?

#11

Post by prospero » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:07 PM UTC

tjic wrote: post #3

> There are already signs that startups may not spread particularly well. The spread of startups seems to be proceeding slower than the spread of the Industrial Revolution Government was much smaller at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The theory of "regulatory capture" says that government is responsive to those firms that are affected by government regulation and have the money to buy favorable legislation. T…

Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? A walking, talking lawyer should be personally responsible for the quality of the documents being generated. If there's no such person, you're putting the onus of validation on the client, which I think misses the entire point.

In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners.

These laws do not exist solely to frustrate you. Part of being in a uniformly free society is ensuring that naive people are not at the mercy of the better informed or less scrupulous. Things can't work any other way.

Re: A Local Revolution?

#12

Post by biohacker42 » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:10 PM UTC

Two nit picks:

1. Innovation over the past couple centuries has not spread evenly. Cities always got a disproportional deal. That is why even today small towns all over the developing AND developed world are still losing people to the big cities.

2. A big part of the high-tech startup concentration seems to be VC clustering. But if startups are to be a truly revolutionary change I hope we get away from the investor model and move closer to the paying customer model. And this would make the valley's regional advantage smaller.

Re: A Local Revolution?

#13

Post by icey » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:22 PM UTC

Am I the only one who sees the irony that so much localization is required for an industry that specializes in remotely connecting resources?

Re: A Local Revolution?

#14

Post by warfangle » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:25 PM UTC

ChristianPerry wrote: post #4

I felt the effect of being in Silicon Valley the moment I moved out here. The area is not only teeming with endless talent, energy, and enthusiasm, but (and this is important) we have an entire culture that makes this talent, energy, and enthusiasm possible in the first place. When I moved to San Francisco from Chicago, I felt the change immediately. People simply get me out here. They understand why I'm doing what I…

Funny story: I was sitting at a bar out here in Bushwick, Brooklyn, just finishing up my dinner and sipping on a nice stout. Woman next to me glances up from her book and says, "You aren't a programmer, are you?"

"Um.. yes, actually. I do user interface development. How'd you know"

"Oh, I just moved here from the Valley... I guess I just know the type when I see it."

Weird, but eye opening!

Re: A Local Revolution?

#15

Post by davidw » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:26 PM UTC

I'd still like to see you talk some more about the economic factors that point to startups being very common (Coase et al). In other words, what fundamentals have changed so that starting your own company is the best option for a sizable number of people. I think to predict a true revolution, you'd have to demonstrate that these conditions don't just exist in a particular high tech sector with amazingly low capital requirements, but across a much broader swath of the business world. For one thing, will capital requirements drop in other sectors too? Or is the web just a blip, and eventually capital requirements will eventually rise again as it takes more 'stuff' just to get off the ground? What other things come into play that mean that more people will strike out on their own. Are there historical precedents?

Re: A Local Revolution?

#16

Post by mechanical_fish » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:27 PM UTC

tjic wrote: post #3

> There are already signs that startups may not spread particularly well. The spread of startups seems to be proceeding slower than the spread of the Industrial Revolution Government was much smaller at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The theory of "regulatory capture" says that government is responsive to those firms that are affected by government regulation and have the money to buy favorable legislation. T…

Government was much smaller at the time of the Industrial Revolution.

Is this true? Is it really such an open-and-shut case?

In some senses it is obviously true: There were a lot fewer people, a lot fewer filing cabinets and a lot fewer regulations. A lot of the tools needed for our big modern system -- hygiene, communications, literacy -- just weren't there yet. There were essentially no worker protections in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution; there were few environmental regulations. And travel and communications were harder, which made it easier to evade certain regulations -- they say that, as late as the 20th century, movie companies relocated to Hollywood in large part because it was the US city farthest from Thomas Edison's patent lawyers.

But government-sanctioned monopolies are not a new invention. (That's what the British East India Company was all about.) Enormous tariffs levied on mass-produced goods are not a new invention. Taxes are not a new invention. Gangs of Luddites (not metaphorical Luddites -- the real thing) who break your equipment and sabotage your business model are not a new invention.

Wine monopolies? Here's a book that deals, in part, with how the English ban on French wine imports boosted the English brewing industry in the 17th century:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Wine-Taxes-Political-Anglo-French/...

And here's a Wikipedia article on mercantilism, the dominant theory of international trade for over 250 years, starting in 1500:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

Mercantilism was all about big-government management of the economy through tariffs and subsidies. But, of course, that was arguably a big improvement over the medieval model: Small-government "management" of the "economy" by private armies who threatened to burn your crops and besiege your house unless you paid tribute.

Re: A Local Revolution?

#17

Post by david927 » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:28 PM UTC

I agree technology may represent a new economic phase -- but startups are just the way they're introduced. And it has nothing to do with productivity and everything to do with uniqueness of vision. If big companies did more things like Google's 20% project, you'd have the same effect.

Also, I think you ignored that VC is becoming less and less important. And as it gets less important, the big funding hubs will become less important. I see a future of micro-equity and the big hits coming out of everywhere.

Also, the hubs have a horrible self-delusional feedback loop. Once you get an entire environment that thinks the same way, these feedback loops are inevitable and you spiral into silliness, e.g. Twitter.

Re: A Local Revolution?

#18

Post by mattmaroon » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:28 PM UTC

It is pretty neat to wonder if, during the Industrial Revolution, people had nearly-free ways to ship their manufactured products and electricity, if there'd have been more than a few hubs, or if it would have worked out about the same.

Re: A Local Revolution?

#19

Post by pageman » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:30 PM UTC

Paul, this post gives me hope. I'm now in a university belt and we're about to turn up the research heat and our students are seriously looking into startups - perhaps your localization will materialize before our very eyes. And yes, still no Silicon Valley equivalent to contend with at the moment!

Re: A Local Revolution?

#20

Post by dantheman » Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 9:31 PM UTC

prospero wrote: post #11

tjic wrote: post #3

> There are already signs that startups may not spread particularly well. The spread of startups seems to be proceeding slower than the spread of the Industrial Revolution Government was much smaller at the time of the Industrial Revolution. The theory of "regulatory capture" says that government is responsive to those firms that are affected by government regulation and have the money to buy favorable legislation. T…

Why is it bad that in order to automatically generate binding legal documents, someone involved needs to be educated in the subtleties of legal language? A walking, talking lawyer should be personally responsible for the quality of the documents being generated. If there's no such person, you're putting the onus of validation on the client, which I think misses the entire point. In most of these cases, it's not the g…

>>In most of these cases, it's not the government protecting existing companies, it's the government protecting the naive population. You won't fire someone after six months of unpaid labor, but someone else will. Your expert system might create air-tight contracts, but someone else will cut corners.

This untrue, throughout history companies get laws to make upstarts more difficult. There is no reason you need to go to law school or even pass the bar, if the buyers don't think it is a good tool they won't use it.

In fact things can work the other way, you are protected the few who may be swindled (they're clearly visible), but ignore all those who are harmed by the lack of new products. It's very hard to look at the other side of the equation, but it is normally quite significant.