Dear Marc Andreessen

I don't think we could necessarily say "hey everyone, do whatever you want" and get more productivity out of most people, but I do think a lot of people would be happier, even if less productive.

If we can enslave atoms/the sun/computers/etc., and use the surplus from that to let some people be less productive than they otherwise would be if forced, but at the same time let other people be massively more productive than if forced to cover basic subsistence, we might be better off.

(I'd sure prefer if "the next Einstein" got to work in a cushy academic/office job while doing his thinking on the side, than if he were working 20h/day in a coal mine to support himself, leaving no time for anything else.)

So I'd use "better" in the sense of "people would individually be happier", and also that the absolute returns might be higher overall -- mainly because a billion people receiving a small subsidy on net productivity which trends toward zero actual cost are insignificant cost compared to be benefit of some thousands or hundreds of thousands being massively productive rather than a tiny bit net productive.

I just don't understand how 2008 was obviously because of deregulation. Not only is that a contestable claim, but you're simplifying the entire crash to a convenient cause that clearly confirms your biases.

Just take a walk over to Wikipedia[1], and you can clearly see that ascribing the crash in 2008 to only deregulation is complete and utter nonsense:

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]

And if you can't ascribe 2008 to deregulation, then your point starts to become watered down: maybe deregulation isn't the "unquestionable failure" you claim it to be.

You can read on to see about other things that government had their hands in, such as the CRA and lower interest rates. (Among other things, such as the institutions of Fannie and Freddie themselves!)

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_hou...

The policies of Nazi Germany were heavily guided by their requirements for war. As you said, they privatized so as to generate considerable revenue for the government.

Cherry picking this fact and proclaiming that Nazi Germany wasn't socialist is a bit sketchy. But there was plenty of nationalization going on, such as the entire steel industry.

Here's a nice summary from Wikipedia on Nazi Germany's pre-war economy:

Due to state control, business had little entrepreneurial freedom[39] in a regime that has been described as "command-capitalism".[74] In place of ordinary profit incentives guiding the economy, financial investment was regulated as per the needs of the state. The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified; Nazi agencies replaced the profit motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy.[75] Nazi government financing eventually dominated private financial investment and heavy business taxes limited self-financing of firms.[citation needed] The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits,[citation needed] however, government control was extensive.[76] Some economists argue that such control was responsible for the rationing, shortages, and low standard of living of Germans during this time.[77]

[1] -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Pre-war...

Apparently this is an unpopular opinion here but fucking mental standing slow clap in my head when I finished that.

That's a nice piece of cogent writing.

I recently took a regular cab from the San Francisco airport. The driver had some choice words to say about Uber, and told me that he's lost 80% of his customers inside San Francisco in recent years. He uses an app to find customers and I ended up paying him with my card using Square. I'm not sure there is a difference between him and an Uber driver, except that he's held accountable by regulation designed to protect those who ride in these cabs.