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

Silicon Valley: Abandoned

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 47 posts

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#11

Post by [deleted] »

Alex3917 wrote: post #8
anamax wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cap-and-trade is basically the last chance to fix the economy of the valley, and frankly it's not looking for good right now. Cap-and-trade is intended to increase govt control and pass out goodies to well-connected folks. It's unclear how either of those will "fix the valley". (Yes, there are well-connected folks in the valley who will benefit, but ....)

It's unfortunate that it has proved impossible to get a bill through the house/senate without adding various handouts for specific industries or even companies. That being said, creating a system that assigns a monetary value to each ton of carbon will still create the biggest economic boom in US history. What's more, like the dotcom boom it will be one that anyone can participate in, not just those who are well conn…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#14

Post by timcederman »

baguasquirrel wrote: post #2

Ostensibly, this is good as it means cheap office space. There's a catch though... have any of you folks actually seen these buildings? They're not exactly in nice neighborhoods (I actually used to work next to one of these). Most of them are over the 101 which means it'll be a 15-20 minute drive to downtown for food. While it's true that Google is also past the 101, they can also afford to hire their own chefs. An a…

I used to work right next to Google. It was fine - plenty of small cafes in office parks, and the incredibly awesome Country Deli a 10 minute walk away. I miss those sandwiches a lot.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#15

Post by Alex3917 »

protomyth wrote: post #9
Alex3917 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate that it has proved impossible to get a bill through the house/senate without adding various handouts for specific industries or even companies. That being said, creating a system that assigns a monetary value to each ton of carbon will still create the biggest economic boom in US history. What's more, like the dotcom boom it will be one that anyone can participate in, not just those who are well conn…

Where does the money driving the boom come from? I am unclear how increasing the cost of production of good and energy will generate an economic boom.

First, you're not increasing the cost of goods and energy, you're increasing the cost of carbon. The idea is that the money flows to whoever can create those goods and services using the least carbon. While the cost of goods does go up, the increase is minimal because the system is designed to find the least expensive solution. The money comes in because the entrepreneurs who are able to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce carbon will get billions of dollars. So tons of highly intelligent and competent people will flock to the valley in an attempt to make it rich, creating dozens of public companies and several million jobs in the process.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#16

Post by albertcardona »

timcederman wrote: post #13

I can't recommend http://burbed.com enough for people around here for some good perspective on Silicon Valley real estate.

The columns remind me of the let's-converge-to-the-classics-in-the-safest-way-possible-because-we-lack-guts-and-imagination in "The Fountainhead", by Ayn Rand.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#17

Post by Alex3917 »

perkoff wrote: post #10
Alex3917 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunate that it has proved impossible to get a bill through the house/senate without adding various handouts for specific industries or even companies. That being said, creating a system that assigns a monetary value to each ton of carbon will still create the biggest economic boom in US history. What's more, like the dotcom boom it will be one that anyone can participate in, not just those who are well conn…

Well, you could explain _how_ this will happen. Many of us, including me, simply don't get the argument. What differs this from assigning a monetary value to, let's say, _any_ new government license? (e.g. for opening a restaurant, or virtually anything) Seems like a rehash of the broken window fallacy.

"Seems like a rehash of the broken window fallacy."

Unlike with the broken window fallacy, you're not just breaking a window and creating jobs to create that same window again. The jobs created are actually going to make an entirely different set of products that the market wasn't creating before due to a flaw in the way the market was designed by the people who set it up.

That's also why assigning value to carbon is different than assigning value to restaurants. Because of the way the market was designed we have the roughly the right number of restaurants, but way too much carbon.

The important thing to realize is that the market didn't just happen, it was designed by people, and it can be designed differently. In the same way that we don't allow people to, say, dumb garbage in a public park just because they may want to under some idealized market fantasy, we shouldn't allow people to dump unlimited carbon in the atmosphere either.

The market is a tool, invented by people, as the most efficient way to distribute resources to those who value them the most. But as a tool, we need to understand how it works, where it breaks down, and how to apply it effectively to create the kind of society we want to live in. We can't just treat it as some kind of religious construct, where it's magically going to write the laws, vaccinate the children, clean up dogshit from the street, etc.

That's why cap-and-trade is so good, because it uses the power of the market to create the kind of society we want to live in. (As opposed to those who argue that we should live in the kind of society the market wants to create, whatever this means, frankly I have no idea and I don't think the people who advocate it have thought it through enough to realize that it literally doesn't make any sense, it's just empty words.)

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#18

Post by [deleted] »

Alex3917 wrote: post #15
protomyth wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the money driving the boom come from? I am unclear how increasing the cost of production of good and energy will generate an economic boom.

First, you're not increasing the cost of goods and energy, you're increasing the cost of carbon. The idea is that the money flows to whoever can create those goods and services using the least carbon. While the cost of goods does go up, the increase is minimal because the system is designed to find the least expensive solution. The money comes in because the entrepreneurs who are able to find the most cost-effective…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#19

Post by yummyfajitas »

Alex3917 wrote: post #17
perkoff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you could explain _how_ this will happen. Many of us, including me, simply don't get the argument. What differs this from assigning a monetary value to, let's say, _any_ new government license? (e.g. for opening a restaurant, or virtually anything) Seems like a rehash of the broken window fallacy.

"Seems like a rehash of the broken window fallacy." Unlike with the broken window fallacy, you're not just breaking a window and creating jobs to create that same window again. The jobs created are actually going to make an entirely different set of products that the market wasn't creating before due to a flaw in the way the market was designed by the people who set it up. That's also why assigning value to carbon is…

If we adopted broken windows as a policy (rather than a one-off surprise event), you'd be creating jobs making an entirely different set of products that the market wasn't creating before: unbreakable windows, windowless buildings and wall hangings of the outdoors (to make windowless buildings less depressing).

So your argument (if valid) would seem to support equally well an economic benefit from a broken windows policy.

It's possible that a carbon tax might stave off a future disaster, but that's vastly different from creating "the biggest economic boom in US history". That's nonsense. A carbon tax will harm our economy, though perhaps not as much as the predicted disaster to come.

Similarly, a "no dumping garbage" law would also not create an economic boom, even if it is less harmful than garbage filled parks.

Re: Silicon Valley: Abandoned

#20

Post by perkoff »

Alex3917 wrote: post #15
protomyth wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the money driving the boom come from? I am unclear how increasing the cost of production of good and energy will generate an economic boom.

First, you're not increasing the cost of goods and energy, you're increasing the cost of carbon. The idea is that the money flows to whoever can create those goods and services using the least carbon. While the cost of goods does go up, the increase is minimal because the system is designed to find the least expensive solution. The money comes in because the entrepreneurs who are able to find the most cost-effective…

These "tons of highly intelligent and competent people" will probably not sit down and roll their fingers in either case. Rather, programs like this drains brain power from other sectors of the economy. There is an alternative usage for most resources! ANY new program would not increase our wealth. Building pyramids, for example, is just a waste of resources. Even if it would "create" a great deal of jobs for construction engineers, it would take away resources from _useful_ production.

The increased demand for carbon licenses does not come out of thin air. Someone does pay for it - while reducing other expenses!

Post reply on HN