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

1000 True Fans? Try 100

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#211

Post by AmericanChopper »

claudiawerner wrote: post #209
AmericanChopper wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All economies are made exclusively of economic actors (which include every single living person) making resource allocation decisions. This is the basis of every conceivable economic system, including no system at all (which would just be the ultimate free market), and socialism (which is just a system where resource allocation decision making is taken away from individuals, and placed in the hands of a central autho…

>All economies are made exclusively of economic actors (which include every single living person) making resource allocation decisions All economies are made of people , some of whom do not make resource allocation decisions (because they are unable to or prohibited). I see no reason to start talking in terms of the population of an economy rather than other factors first. Marx, for instance, used property and classe…

> All economies are made of people

Economies are made of economic actors, which includes ALL people as well as other entities like public institutions, companies, charities...

> some of whom do not make resource allocation decisions (because they are unable to or prohibited)

Every single person in the world is an economic actor. Every single person in the world has the ability to make resource allocation decisions, even if they are only using the labor of their own mind. The incarcerated are economic actors, even literal slaves would still be economic actors.

> most forms of socialism (theoretically, anyway) are democratic, in which allocation decision making is given to the people

A theoretical “democratic socialist” country (theoretical because people have voted socialism in, but never in history have they been allowed the privilege of voting it out) would be a country where the people surrender their natural rights to make their own resource allocation decisions (or at least a significant portion of those rights) to the government.

> The "ultimate free market" very clearly has a "system"

It doesn’t at all. It’s just the way humans (and really all animals) behave in absence of governance that prevents them from doing so. Ancient people most certainly had private property, even if it was shared within the tribe or family or whatever other format of social organisation. It would also pay for you to remember that Marx thought familiar or tribal affiliation was a source of evil, as families tend to care for each other, which he considered to be terribly unfair to anybody who didn’t have a family to care for them.

I would very highly recommend that you at least learn some basic economic concepts (what an economy actually is would be a good starting point) before you go around promoting the abolition of private property.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#212

Post by claudiawerner »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #211
claudiawerner wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All economies are made exclusively of economic actors (which include every single living person) making resource allocation decisions All economies are made of people , some of whom do not make resource allocation decisions (because they are unable to or prohibited). I see no reason to start talking in terms of the population of an economy rather than other factors first. Marx, for instance, used property and classe…

> All economies are made of people Economies are made of economic actors, which includes ALL people as well as other entities like public institutions, companies, charities... > some of whom do not make resource allocation decisions (because they are unable to or prohibited) Every single person in the world is an economic actor. Every single person in the world has the ability to make resource allocation decisions, e…

>Economies are made of economic actors, which includes ALL people as well as other entities like public institutions, companies, charities...

But if we're applying hyper-reductionism, as in the case when the economists talk about individual actions and choices, all of those things can be further divided into individual actors. Why stop at the level of "economic actors"? Is there any basis for considering society as "economic actors" rather than individuals? But let's say that we can talk in terms of "economic actors" - how is it any less valid to talk about "class"? After all, the company and the property-owning class are both composed of individuals.

>Every single person in the world has the ability to make resource allocation decisions

Many disabled people (mentally, or maybe even otherwise) do not, and many prisoners are forced to operate in more or less a closed system. If "economic actor" really just means "person", why not say that?

>but never in history have they been allowed the privilege of voting it out

The irony here of course is that socialism is not merely a change in leader, but a qualitative change in the structure of society and the economy. It makes no sense to say that socialism is voted in (or out), since if it is voted out, it follows that there is a system of class and property structure in place. The mistake is to think that socilaism is a set of laws or policies, but nobody informed on socialsim would say that.

>where the people surrender their natural rights to make their own resource allocation decisions to the government.

I am skeptical of the "natural rights" hypothesis, and surrendering to the government (or some other authority) has taken place in every society, from property rights to taxes, even to speech (note the many restrictions on speech in the US, for instance). Why, if I have the natural right to withdraw my labour, do companies and governments engage in union busting, for example? And whose resources are allocated? The prisoner, for instance, has involuntarily surrendered some portion of their resource allocation rights, but not all of them. Laws against hiring a hitman or bribery mean that I have surrendered some of my resource allocation rights. And what use is a right when one cannot take advantage of it? Many people employed today do have resource allocation rights, but they cannot take full advantage of that: they could starve. When I am employed, I do not have full allocation rights of my labour product (instead, they are appropriated at the end of the production cycle to be sold).

I haven't received your plan to monetize HN comments, or your resource allocation timetable for today. You're beginning to make me think you haven't calculated the opportunity costs of posting on HN without pay.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#213

Post by reidjs »

pyrale wrote: post #59
wtracy wrote: post #42

I'm having trouble envisioning very many markets where a "fan" is going to consistently spend $1k/year. The article mentions professional training and education, which makes sense. I can also see certain people spending that kind of money on physical goods (mechanical keyboards, audiophile equipment, one-of-a-kind art pieces) but $1k of revenue from physical goods is very different from $1k of income . Other than tha…

Cults are where people live off "fans". Replacing customers with people emotionally engaged to support you is an exploitative process, involving the takeover of people's mindshare, in a way that can be compared to indoctrination. People rationalizing the means of this indoctrination is deeply disturbing.

Just because you can draw a parallel between the two doesn’t necessarily make it exploitative. Most of the time I’m sure both sides win, the creator gets to follow their passion, the viewer gets to feel they had a part in it by paying some money. There is certainly a potential for exploitation and indoctrination, but that’s really only in extreme cases.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#214

Post by reidjs »

nottorp wrote: post #73
mnsc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well when I was young I spent about $1k/year on little thingamajigs called cd's. That was perhaps "stupid" in a pure economic sense but I did it. And if I were young these days I can't say I wouldn't give that amount to some random "content creator" who could give me the same joy as we 80's kids got from sitting quiet and listening actively to music albums from beginning to end. But me now is like "why the hell would…

Spending 1k per years on cd's was sponsoring what, 50 different creators @20 each? Not the same thing.

Sponsoring 50 record labels

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#215

Post by keiferski »

marcusverus wrote: post #200
keiferski wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To allow people to focus on meaningful pursuits rather than work largely superfluous jobs to survive? Yeah, sounds really trivial.

That's an argument, but not the one you made above. > The idea of basic income seems like a better path forward, in terms of preserving artistic integrity (i.e. not "make money" or "please your fans" as the motive for making things). Everyone will get enough money to survive, no matter how much your ideas go against the zeitgeist. As in, the Patreon model isn't the best for artists, a better model is a complete rewor…

Again, I think redesigning the economy to allow people to explore the human experience and create all forms of art without the need to make a living or be a crowd-pleaser is an extraordinarily noble goal.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#216

Post by nottorp »

reidjs wrote: post #214
nottorp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending 1k per years on cd's was sponsoring what, 50 different creators @20 each? Not the same thing.

Sponsoring 50 record labels

Correct, but he had no choice about that in the vinyl/audio cd era. And possibly didn't even realize it.

Still, he didn't give all his 1k to the same artist. Mainly because most artist launch at most 1 new album per year?

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#217

Post by marcusverus »

keiferski wrote: post #215
marcusverus wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an argument, but not the one you made above. > The idea of basic income seems like a better path forward, in terms of preserving artistic integrity (i.e. not "make money" or "please your fans" as the motive for making things). Everyone will get enough money to survive, no matter how much your ideas go against the zeitgeist. As in, the Patreon model isn't the best for artists, a better model is a complete rewor…

Again, I think redesigning the economy to allow people to explore the human experience and create all forms of art without the need to make a living or be a crowd-pleaser is an extraordinarily noble goal.

Are we talking about a Star-Trek era future, once we've achieved something akin to full automation? Or do you think that this is something that is worth pursuing in the short term? Specifically, I'm curious as to who keeps the lights on in this new economy, and why they are working when work is unnecessary.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#218

Post by pyrale »

reidjs wrote: post #213
pyrale wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cults are where people live off "fans". Replacing customers with people emotionally engaged to support you is an exploitative process, involving the takeover of people's mindshare, in a way that can be compared to indoctrination. People rationalizing the means of this indoctrination is deeply disturbing.

Just because you can draw a parallel between the two doesn’t necessarily make it exploitative. Most of the time I’m sure both sides win, the creator gets to follow their passion, the viewer gets to feel they had a part in it by paying some money. There is certainly a potential for exploitation and indoctrination, but that’s really only in extreme cases.

I don't mind people looking to get paid for what they do. There are plenty of models that let you pay artists more easily, I'm fine with those.

What I am talking about is the rationalization of making "fans", increasing engagement and the promotion of "whale" systems. Those lead to the problem I discussed.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#219

Post by derfabianpeter »

pyrale wrote: post #218
reidjs wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you can draw a parallel between the two doesn’t necessarily make it exploitative. Most of the time I’m sure both sides win, the creator gets to follow their passion, the viewer gets to feel they had a part in it by paying some money. There is certainly a potential for exploitation and indoctrination, but that’s really only in extreme cases.

I don't mind people looking to get paid for what they do. There are plenty of models that let you pay artists more easily, I'm fine with those. What I am talking about is the rationalization of making "fans", increasing engagement and the promotion of "whale" systems. Those lead to the problem I discussed.

You probably also don't mind consuming other people's work for free and for your own advantage. You're arguing from a very emotional and moral point of view. In the end, if the creator doesn't adapt to its audience (monetizing in a way that works) he will probably don't produce the content you value anymore. Nobody wins. People making up sales tactics for "artists" are just realistic. The reason content producers are drawn to manipulation is today's audience that is not able to decide between "valuable" and "worthwhile" content anymore. Everyone expects information to be free and then damns creators if they try to make a living off helping other people to succeed.

At the end of the day, you need to get by. If you want to live off the things you love you will most likely have to adapt to your audience and do sales like everyone else. Might not be an idealist's dream, but it's how humans work. Doing digital stuff doesn't make fans or customers change how they value things. Besides, giving away almost anything for free upfront raises the bar for people to pay anything at all. It's how we work.

Re: 1000 True Fans? Try 100

#220

Post by keiferski »

marcusverus wrote: post #217
keiferski wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I think redesigning the economy to allow people to explore the human experience and create all forms of art without the need to make a living or be a crowd-pleaser is an extraordinarily noble goal.

Are we talking about a Star-Trek era future, once we've achieved something akin to full automation? Or do you think that this is something that is worth pursuing in the short term? Specifically, I'm curious as to who keeps the lights on in this new economy, and why they are working when work is unnecessary.

Eh, I don't think we need full automation. There are plenty of superfluous jobs today and the number of people to "keep the lights" on is probably 5% of the population or less.
Post reply on HN