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

Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

notesfrombelow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#111

Post by rixed »

api wrote: post #73
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is clearly written from a bit of a Marxian perspective and I think there's a lot assumed ... presuppositions about exploitation and value theory. So yeah, even though on first skim I think I agree with the thrust of this article, I think you're right it's poorly defended, assuming it's at all for an audience outside of people who already think this way.

Marxism is back in vogue again. I guess people have tried reviving Naziism/fascism so now they’ve got to try reviving the other failed early 20th century totalistic political ideology. I get that the status quo has huge issues, but can we have some new ideas maybe instead of continuing to try to revive late 19th century ones that have repeatedly and disastrously failed?

Certainly, to get new ideas it's better to start from a good knowledge of past ideas? If we had thrown an anathema on physics each time a rocket blowed up, nobody would have ever landed on the moon :)

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#113

Post by godelski »

sumuyuda wrote: post #35
omarhaneef wrote: post #11

At the heart of this article is the claim that buying equity is a form of theft. That is an extreme claim (in the sense of surprising, remarkable, unusual, and one that needs a lot more support than ordinary claims). It is inadequately defended here. The argument that it violates fair exchange is tautological.

I think the main argument that it is theft, is that they contribute nothing to the continued surplus generated after their loan was repaid. So they effectively steal the profits like a parasite. Why should they get ownership of the business? When you get a mortgage for your house, the bank doesn’t permanently own part of your house after you pay it off.

I think the main problem is that investors are investing in the wrong thing. They invest because they believe they can make a return, not because they think a valuable product will be made.

There's a subtle difference and it shows by how we even see wealth. We associate wealth with utility to society. That is, after all, why we create economies. We want to reward those who make society better.

But that's where there's been a disconnect. We figured out we could make money without pushing society forward. We'd historically refer to those people by different names... worse than that, we are focused on the short term. Silicon Valley has perfected the hype cycle. You get in cheap, pump up the price, sell, and do it all over again. It does not matter if it is vaporware, it matters that you can make a profit.

The problem is alignment. The economy is not aligned with its intentions.

Do we see much innovation these days? Is there even an incentive? No doubt there's innovation, but people are claiming it is accelerating. I'm unconvinced we're innovating faster than we did in the 90's. That decade changed society more than the 00's and 10's, even with the advent of the smartphone.

Unlike the author, I'm actually in favor of capitalism, yet I firmly believe that an economy still needs to by well regulated. There's very few economists who believe such regulation does not need to exist (we listen to partisans more than actual economists), and I've found even the most staunch free-market believers (often not actual economists) will have concessions. It's no secret that an unregulated market is not a free market. An unregulated market is a market regulated by the largest entities of the market.

It is probably no surprise that those who cannot think long term are unable to realize that the rise in popularity of socialism is due to the abuse of capitalism. Most people do not have a strong foundation in economics (why should they! They're spending years learning other skills than years reading textbooks, analyzing, and going to school). But people do know our system isn't working. Is it really more cost effective to build bunkers and buy private islands than it is to make the lives of the people better? I doubt it. But that's the same myopia I've discussed in my entire comment. The problem is how myopic we've become

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#114

Post by ffsm8 »

HumanOstrich wrote: post #106
ffsm8 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naw, you're making a claim that's just not true. The company will have some value left on default. E.g if it's a software company it will have the IP for the software etc pp Now wherever that's enough for anyone to be willing to take that risk with the loan is another story and thus I could now quote my previous comment in its entirety

The residual value in the failed startup will be such a small fraction of the funding. You aren't making a convincing argument.

Did either of you actually read my comment?

I acknowledged as much... In both comments even.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#115

Post by immibis »

kstenerud wrote: post #41
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #8

[flagged]

Property is the only way that we can build complex things. We couldn't have airplanes if property didn't exist. Anyone could just walk away with parts off the airplane if they felt like it. And in fact that's exactly what happens if you leave an airplane unprotected for too long. Hydroelectric dams would be impossible. You couldn't even have light bulbs or computers because their production methods require so much co…

If it's about controlling access, why do we need both property rights and guns?

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#116

Post by immibis »

fluoridation wrote: post #101
immibis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're only reacting to a part of the system. You're starting from the axiom that businesses need a level of risky funding that only VCs will provide, and then congratulating VCs for swooping in and saving the day. But would it be possible to have a system where startups to require less funding? For example, by UBI, or normalizing bootstrapping?

Sorry, but your reply is so utterly disconnected from my question that I'm just going to assume you replied to me by mistake and ignore it. If it wasn't a mistake then you've completely missed the point.

You said this: "If to someone it makes sense to pour money into an apparently non-viable business on the off chance that it succeeds, what exactly is it that you're saying is not functioning properly?"

But this comment only makes sense when starting from a whole bunch of assumptions, which happen to be true right here and now, but are in no way universal.

Let me make a comparison: "If to someone it makes sense to carry a flamethrower to the grocery store to defend against thieves, what exactly is wrong with that?" What's wrong is a society where that kind of defense is necessary! We shouldn't be debating whether the individual should carry a flamethrower to the grocery store, we should be discussing how to improve society so they don't have to.

Also, rich people don't get to create a problem and also claim credit for solving it (with money).

Edit: much better analogy.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#117

Post by queenkjuul »

api wrote: post #73
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is clearly written from a bit of a Marxian perspective and I think there's a lot assumed ... presuppositions about exploitation and value theory. So yeah, even though on first skim I think I agree with the thrust of this article, I think you're right it's poorly defended, assuming it's at all for an audience outside of people who already think this way.

Marxism is back in vogue again. I guess people have tried reviving Naziism/fascism so now they’ve got to try reviving the other failed early 20th century totalistic political ideology. I get that the status quo has huge issues, but can we have some new ideas maybe instead of continuing to try to revive late 19th century ones that have repeatedly and disastrously failed?

Ask the Chinese how poorly Marxism is treating them

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#118

Post by fluoridation »

immibis wrote: post #116
fluoridation wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but your reply is so utterly disconnected from my question that I'm just going to assume you replied to me by mistake and ignore it. If it wasn't a mistake then you've completely missed the point.

You said this: "If to someone it makes sense to pour money into an apparently non-viable business on the off chance that it succeeds, what exactly is it that you're saying is not functioning properly?" But this comment only makes sense when starting from a whole bunch of assumptions, which happen to be true right here and now, but are in no way universal. Let me make a comparison: "If to someone it makes sense to car…

>Let me make a comparison: Me: "People should be able to walk to work" You: "If someone can't walk 10 miles to work along the side of a road with cars whizzing by at 100mph, why should they be able to walk to work?"

Yeah, like I said, you completely missed the point of my comment. Here, let me fix the analogy for you:

A: The fact that people drive cars on roads is a bug, not a feature.

B: A bug where? Like, in people's minds for thinking that driving cars on roads is a practical mode of transportation?

C: People should be able to walk to work.

Do you see how C's reply to B is a non sequitur? It doesn't answer the question that was posed, it presents an irrelevant "should", and even if one is generous enough to grant that people should be able to walk to work, it doesn't make choosing to drive cars on roads for other purposes an irrational decision. And, and, it most certainly doesn't make it irrational in the world we actually live in.

EDIT:

>We shouldn't be debating whether the individual should carry a flamethrower to the grocery store, we should be discussing how to improve society so they don't have to.

I don't appreciate being told what is or isn't okay to talk about.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#120

Post by tucnak »

fluoridation wrote: post #118
immibis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said this: "If to someone it makes sense to pour money into an apparently non-viable business on the off chance that it succeeds, what exactly is it that you're saying is not functioning properly?" But this comment only makes sense when starting from a whole bunch of assumptions, which happen to be true right here and now, but are in no way universal. Let me make a comparison: "If to someone it makes sense to car…

>Let me make a comparison: Me: "People should be able to walk to work" You: "If someone can't walk 10 miles to work along the side of a road with cars whizzing by at 100mph, why should they be able to walk to work?" Yeah, like I said, you completely missed the point of my comment. Here, let me fix the analogy for you: A: The fact that people drive cars on roads is a bug, not a feature. B: A bug where? Like, in people…

I'm sorry, but it is you who completely misses the point, and have so far failed to engage with your opponent's rhetoric on any meaningful level. (Using latin words like sequitur does not count!)

To borrow your analogy: there is, in fact, major issue in people driving cars on roads. This is why many cities elect to reduce car use by means of policy. This is accomplished because there's a dialectic where "should" translates into "must." It's called governance.

Post reply on HN