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

Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

cjohnson.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 212 posts

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#51

Post by cgh »

21echoes wrote: post #50
crusso wrote: post #44

The thing about capitalism, and our dismal history with capitalism-at-large, the "assume the other party is a shitbag" idea is so fundamentally ingrained in our cultural What's that got to do with Capitalism? Correct me if I'm making a straw man, but the alternative to capitalism is to remove negotiation from individual interactions by implementing more State-heavy mechanisms like Communism. Isn't creating a crap-ton…

There are plenty of alternatives to Capitalism that do not involve State-heavy mechanisms. For instance, in Communism, despite your assertion to the contrary, there is actually no state at all.

Can you name a historical example where such a system has been successfully implemented?

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#52

Post by [deleted] »

cgh wrote: post #51
21echoes wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of alternatives to Capitalism that do not involve State-heavy mechanisms. For instance, in Communism, despite your assertion to the contrary, there is actually no state at all.

Can you name a historical example where such a system has been successfully implemented?

[deleted]

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#54

Post by deciplex »

crusso wrote: post #44

The thing about capitalism, and our dismal history with capitalism-at-large, the "assume the other party is a shitbag" idea is so fundamentally ingrained in our cultural What's that got to do with Capitalism? Correct me if I'm making a straw man, but the alternative to capitalism is to remove negotiation from individual interactions by implementing more State-heavy mechanisms like Communism. Isn't creating a crap-ton…

Honestly, what does regulation have to do with capitalism - where did this meme start and how can I kill it? Capital markets are a tool for allocating resources. They're pretty good at it in that they tend to work better than e.g. palace economies and mostly everything else humans have tried. But there is absolutely nothing to the way that capital markets work that suggests regulation somehow breaks it or whatever other brain-damaged Koch-inspired bullshit they're selling on Fox News nowadays.

It's like looking at a hammer lying on a table, stating 'that is for pounding nails', then leaving the room and expecting the hammer to pound nails for you.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#55

Post by cubancigar11 »

"I believe the current skepticism around Silicon Valley's "Make The World a Better Place" mentality is deeply rooted in historical anxiety about institutional capitalism."

I am sorry, but that statement shows misunderstanding the issue at such level it is hard for me take his argument as something based on facts.

No. The skepticism around Silicon Valley has always been because of its coziness with the gub'mint. From internet to Siri, DARPA funds large parts of our research. And when this research reaches the public via SV, it automatically divides people into two groups - those who can use it and those who have been replaced. The group which can trump this research, though, keeps disappearing.

It doesn't, by definition, follow the principals of capitalism. That institution in 'institutional capitalism' is the government and it cannot be whitewashed over.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#56

Post by arg01 »

rayiner wrote: post #35

The idea that the Pareto-optimal situation is the one where everyone freely copies from each other may be appropriate for the market Tesla finds itself in, but is in general directly contradicted by the actual experience of the technology industry. The experience of the technology industry is that innovation happens in periods of monopoly. That monopoly might arise from first-mover effects, network effects, lock-in e…

The innovation only seems to come from the fact that the monopoly has a large enough war chest but it's the competition that distributes the fruits of that innovation to the public.

Which really seems more like an argument for high funding for centralized research that can be distributed to multiple competing companies.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#57

Post by highCs »

In the prisoners dilemna, you know the outcomes - mostly because the game has a short life span. In life, you don't know the outcomes since the game has no end. So you never know if you've ultimately chosen the right solution. It's all about your own moral at some point.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#58

Post by thaumaturgy »

rayiner wrote: post #48
thaumaturgy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AT&T developed the transistor, but it was government pressure that prompted AT&T to release control of its patents on the invention, and it was licensees like Motorola, Texas Instruments, and Fairchild (which gave birth to Intel) that did the bulk of the work in the transistor market. AT&T wasn't even sure what to do with it; they were just looking for something better than the vacuum tube. The Alto was first built i…

I don't see where we disagree. Bringing a product to market isn't innovation in the way developing something new is. You can't bring products to market using technogies that don't exist, and history has shown that monopolies are a fertile ground for developing such technologies. Your Microsoft example is consistent with the ones I presented, so is Intel. Intel heavily relies on trade secrets to ensure that its compet…

> Bringing a product to market isn't innovation in the way developing something new is.

I think this is where we disagree. I view the technology of production as equally (but not more) important to the success of a new product -- where success means, "in the hands of as many people as possible".

I have a poor view of the importance (and therefore value) of inventions that never reach their markets. Dean Kamen is a great example here; he's an inarguably brilliant man who's developed new technology in a stunning number of fields -- a far better inventor than Musk -- but Deka, the company, consistently struggles to get the technologies to market, so Musk is having a far greater impact on humanity.

> Intel heavily relies on trade secrets to ensure that its competitors don't have access to its fabrication technology.

And I read this part as supporting that point. Intel's processor technology is certainly valuable, but to Intel, its production technology is even more valuable.

I don't know how to ensure that inventors are treated fairly. Perhaps this is one of those things that requires a cultural shift, where inventors begin to realize that an invention without accompanying developments in production technology is not worth very much.

That's why I'm excited by what Tesla is doing. I hope that this is another step in that direction.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#59

Post by tempestn »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #28
nostromo wrote: post #14

I've been thinking of patents as nukes during the Cold War lately. Superpowers (US/USSR, Apple/Google) acquire very large nuclear/patent arsenals under the guise of protection/defense. These arsenals are relatively cheap for superpowers to build, but they are expensive for small states (small countries/small businesses) to acquire. The US and USSR were roughly equivalent in their arsenals so it made little sense for…

Personally, I see nukes as more ethical than patents. You can make the argument that MAD-based nuclear deterrence has saved us (at least so far) from a third world war. Not everyone will agree, of course, but a strong case can be made. On the other hand, to defend patents, you have to show that there are things on the market that we can buy that would not have been made available to us if not for patent rights. Nobod…

Two things:

First, you might want to clarify in the first paragraph that you're talking about the existence of nukes, as opposed to the use of nukes. It's clear from reading your entire comment, but I find it's good to play it safe with that sort of topic! ;)

Second, to play devil's advocate, is it possible that landmines could have a net positive impact if they could somehow be properly, globally regulated? For and extreme example, say that only the UN had access to landmines, and they were only deployed as a last resort to enforce DMZs. (Also measures would be taken so that they could be safely removed.) Seems like they could be a positive thing if used correctly. I expect patents are much the same. Certainly overused and abused currently, but not necessarily negative if they could be used 'correctly'.

Re: Anti-Tesla sentiment and the death of optimism

#60

Post by thaumaturgy »

arg01 wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #35

The idea that the Pareto-optimal situation is the one where everyone freely copies from each other may be appropriate for the market Tesla finds itself in, but is in general directly contradicted by the actual experience of the technology industry. The experience of the technology industry is that innovation happens in periods of monopoly. That monopoly might arise from first-mover effects, network effects, lock-in e…

The innovation only seems to come from the fact that the monopoly has a large enough war chest but it's the competition that distributes the fruits of that innovation to the public. Which really seems more like an argument for high funding for centralized research that can be distributed to multiple competing companies.

> Which really seems more like an argument for high funding for centralized research that can be distributed to multiple competing companies.

Yes. I have no idea if that would work, but it would be neat to try.

Post reply on HN