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

What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

vicki.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 129 posts

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#101

Post by anigbrowl »

euroPoor wrote: post #58
hummusoiler wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"willingly" is a bit of a stretch considering the difficulty of doing so, and gives off a different connontation.

Of course it’s difficult, but we all have the means to build social movements, companies or sue if we feel that there’s something terrible going on. But we all like our flights, our cars, our cheaper and cheaper phones, stable policy in the West and perceived security. It’s hard but you can go against it. Just always saying ‘it’s the elite’ and then sitting it out seems really easy to me. Everyone has a conception of…

we all have the means to build social movements, companies or sue if we feel that there’s something terrible going on

That's nonsensical. We all have the potential to do such things at some point in our lives, but that is not at all the same as having the means.

Just always saying ‘it’s the elite’ and then sitting it out seems really easy to me.

So there are some people trying to build an anti-elite social movement of the sort you just said anyone had the means to build, yet you're saying they don't crave justice badly enough. I'm getting the impression that you're just saying you don't want to get onboard with anything unless it's already at the threshold of success.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#102

Post by anigbrowl »

euroPoor wrote: post #65
hummusoiler wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a tremendous amount of intertia that needs to be overcome when starting a competing company or a movement to replace any of those. A lot of the competing companies have a large vertical integration in their field, and can refuse your supply for any of it

Of course, that’s the whole point. But you can build inertia. Take a look at Europe where there’s tremendous protesting going on regarding Climate Change, and we slowly see some change in for one, public opinion and two in policy making. It’s slow and painful and frustrating but you gotta work and not always blame the ‘global elite’. I know it’s hard to build inertia, I failed in court, I failed at building companies…

You build momentum to overcome inertia. Inertia is the tendency of things that are at rest to stay put.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#103

Post by anigbrowl »

bilbo0s wrote: post #93
tasty_freeze wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please state what you think the alternative is, since you used the singular. To me, there is a range of alternatives, so it is hard to understand your objection because I don't understand what you are imagining. One alternative is a French Revolution, part 2. Another alternative is a system of wealth, income, and inheritance taxes that helps prevent concentration of power in a few families. Another is more aggressive…

Yeah. People are scared. There are alternatives to another French Revolution, which no one wants. (Well, no one other than the tyrants waiting in the wings who want to be the global elite.) Why are people too scared to challenge the global élites? Because they don't acknowledge those alternatives. In my experience, it boils down to being fearful of being ruled by the people who want to be the global élites. Which wou…

Incrementalist low risk solutions have their place, but they are not the whole story. If you found a fire in the kitchen of your home you wouldn't just make a mental note to purchase a new fire extinguisher.

Incrementalism works great in periods of relative stability. In other contexts it can be dangerous and inhibit necessary action.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#104

Post by TuringNYC »

nostrademons wrote: post #96
jofer wrote: post #12

One thing to point out: Oil is still _huge_ when it comes to investment and sheer amount of financing available. Anything involving large-scale finance will have oil money involved in it in some way. Frankly, even at the height of the tech boom, the tech industry has never had significant capital available compared to the oil industry. I've worked in both... Folks in tech think 100 million in capital is a lot. In oil…

I agree with your main point, but capital investments in tech are getting significantly larger, and most people in "big" tech don't think $100M is all that much. Google's spent billions on self-driving cars. Many acquisitions are now in the $3-10B range (eg. Doubleclick @ $3B, GitHub @ $7.5B, Motorola @ $12.5B). A new semiconductor fab is around $8-10B. It's still possible to start a new company with just a laptop an…

Not only that, but quarter-to-quarter investors and activist hedge funds often bully companies (tech or otherwise) to issue dividends and/or conduct buybacks instead of investing for the long-run. Google and Amazon are rare cash-cows able to support earnings growth and continue to invest for the long term, and even they get pressure to spend differently.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#105

Post by isoskeles »

> But, if we do some major, major rounding, and assume that the tech industry is the sum of its top companies, at $1 trillion/year, $45 billion is about 5% of the industry.

> So, what happens when 5% of any industry is controlled by parties that are not direct shareholders?

This seems like an odd comparison to force arrival at a number as high as "5%", not including the rounding. Why would you compare a single investment of $45B to annual revenue? Control would imply ownership, so I'd expect the comparison to be to the summed market cap of those companies, which is obviously higher than $1T.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#106

Post by dr_dshiv »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #84
dr_dshiv wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand anti-elitism, given the alternative.

Please state what you think the alternative is, since you used the singular. To me, there is a range of alternatives, so it is hard to understand your objection because I don't understand what you are imagining. One alternative is a French Revolution, part 2. Another alternative is a system of wealth, income, and inheritance taxes that helps prevent concentration of power in a few families. Another is more aggressive…

The alternative is rule by non-elites. America has been an aristocratic democracy; when that aristocratic ruling culture is replaced by an anti-elitist culture, it might look worse than you think. I'd argue that the "elite" culture is less self-serving and more noble than the alternative.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#107

Post by dr_dshiv »

anigbrowl wrote: post #103
bilbo0s wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. People are scared. There are alternatives to another French Revolution, which no one wants. (Well, no one other than the tyrants waiting in the wings who want to be the global elite.) Why are people too scared to challenge the global élites? Because they don't acknowledge those alternatives. In my experience, it boils down to being fearful of being ruled by the people who want to be the global élites. Which wou…

Incrementalist low risk solutions have their place, but they are not the whole story. If you found a fire in the kitchen of your home you wouldn't just make a mental note to purchase a new fire extinguisher. Incrementalism works great in periods of relative stability. In other contexts it can be dangerous and inhibit necessary action.

Wow, I agree and disagree. How to know when the kitchen is on fire? Most revolutions of the past 200 years have been a disaster. We live in a constitutional democracy that supports incremental improvement. The alternative is almost certainly, probabilistically, worse. Entropy and all that.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#108

Post by prewett »

wffurr wrote: post #92
shay_ker wrote: post #79

A lot of FUD, but no evidence that Saudi investors are using their influence to make tech companies do bad things. If you follow the money, you'll likely find a questionable source. Americans benefit from US military raining drone strikes in other countries. By being an American citizen, are you tacitly approving drone strikes? No. By paying taxes that fund drone strikes, are you tacitly approving drone strikes? No.…

Actually, paying taxes that fund drone strikes on civilians means you have blood on your hands. I wish more people realized that...

That's a pretty unhelpfully polarizing statement for something that is a matter of opinion, or at least situational.

Suppose you are a citizen of a country (through no choice of your own) that uses public taxes to . Further suppose that you have no ability to influence how your taxes are spent. You have to pay taxes, but it's not at all clear that you are morally complicit for the immoral actions taken with them. You could argue "well you shouldn't pay taxes". Well, then you lose your liberty via jail or worse. Is that better than being arguably morally complicit?

And, are you putting your actions where your words are? Are you not paying your taxes, or are you accepting blood on your hands?

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#109

Post by anigbrowl »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #107
anigbrowl wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incrementalist low risk solutions have their place, but they are not the whole story. If you found a fire in the kitchen of your home you wouldn't just make a mental note to purchase a new fire extinguisher. Incrementalism works great in periods of relative stability. In other contexts it can be dangerous and inhibit necessary action.

Wow, I agree and disagree. How to know when the kitchen is on fire? Most revolutions of the past 200 years have been a disaster. We live in a constitutional democracy that supports incremental improvement. The alternative is almost certainly, probabilistically, worse. Entropy and all that.

Well if you look into the kitchen and see smoke and flames then you have a fire in your kitchen...I cannot understand why you think this a difficult decision to make.

Where do you get the idea that most revolutions have been a a disaster? Your concept that only incremental improvement is valid seems counterfactual and naive. You are just dismissing anything that you do not understand out of hand without even considering it.

Re: What does it mean for American innovation to be backed by oil wealth?

#110

Post by ibeckermayer »

wffurr wrote: post #92
shay_ker wrote: post #79

A lot of FUD, but no evidence that Saudi investors are using their influence to make tech companies do bad things. If you follow the money, you'll likely find a questionable source. Americans benefit from US military raining drone strikes in other countries. By being an American citizen, are you tacitly approving drone strikes? No. By paying taxes that fund drone strikes, are you tacitly approving drone strikes? No.…

Actually, paying taxes that fund drone strikes on civilians means you have blood on your hands. I wish more people realized that...

That’s not true, you’re forced to pay your taxes by threat of violent force. It’s difficult enough to resist state-mandated injustice from outside of prison, taking your position to its logical conclusion would mean that all ethical people should be martyring themselves, which would only lead to even worse outcomes.
Post reply on HN