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

The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 414 posts

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#291

Post by nickpp »

james4k wrote: post #135
nickpp wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Countless ways. From sheer governmental incompetence like when regulating the competition out of markets. To simply not understanding second order effects when “helping markets” with patents and humongous copyright terms. To not understanding supply and demand when pressed to fulfill voter promises like when attempting to control and fix prices. To being captive to interest groups that end up controlling a huge chunk…

And who are the highest bidders?

Incumbents, of course. The ones holding the largest interest in preserving the status-quo and freezing competition. Professional organizations needing power to preserve the barrier of entry. Huge, trans-national Unions.

But other power brokers as well. Other politicians with more money. Their own stock holdings. Foreign powers. Well moneyed interest groups. Ideological organizations siphoning old money.

Occasionally even the scrappy start-up trying to game the system. These usually fail, see SBF - but they are not saints either.

There is no shortage in interests vying to corrupt politicians. Somehow they never mind and always succumb.

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#292

Post by nickpp »

TheDong wrote: post #175
nickpp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Free markets are naturally resistant through free competition (startups!) and, you know, laws.

> Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Microsoft famously made deals with laptop vendors to prevent Dell, HP, and so on from selling computers with any operating system other than Windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_of_Microsoft_Windows Similarly, Intel stifled AMD by providing financial incentives to vendors who offered no AMD-based products:…

Government's action did had zero effect against Microsoft. Slap on the wrist. Their monopoly was naturally made irrelevant by the market moving onto the next tech frontier: mobile & cloud.

The free market lead to that. Countless startups trying everything under the sun made sure incumbents like Apple or Google had to innovate, acquire and evolve to avoid Microsoft's fate. In a free market there is always a chance a new startup will spring up and upend the order. Tons of VC money are continuously trying exactly that.

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#293

Post by nickpp »

lmm wrote: post #148
nickpp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Free markets are naturally resistant through free competition (startups!) and, you know, laws.

> Free markets are naturally resistant through free competition That's circular logic. Free markets are defined as those in which competition happens. Unregulated markets often tend towards cartelization and monopoly. > and, you know, laws. Which need to be enforced by governments. > Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. The whole robber baron era is a coun…

Nobody said anything about not having governments. Rule of Law is required for societies to even exist.

Read some more on the robber baron era - you'll find out Standard Oil was already losing to competition before government action. For another great example how the free market broke a cartel, read up on how Dow Chemical fought the German bromine cartel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow#Breaking_a_m...

No government intervention necessary.

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#294

Post by nickpp »

winphone1974 wrote: post #145
nickpp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point me to a resistant monopoly or cartel and I will show you a government granted/supported one. Free markets are naturally resistant through free competition (startups!) and, you know, laws.

Any capital intensive project can become a resistant monopoly for the first mover, who then manipulates pricing to prevent competition.

> who then manipulates pricing to prevent competition

How exactly? Reducing profits defeats the purpose of becoming a monopoly, while any sliver of profit is the startup's opportunity.

To create a monopoly you need to restrict competition some other way, like through governmental regulation.

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#295

Post by nickpp »

tomComb wrote: post #212
suoduandao2 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with the idea that we should judge people based on their popularity with customers rather than their peers. Credential are very often indicative of the former

Who has a better idea whether a lawyer or a surgeon is actually good at their job - their clients or their peers?

When you book a hotel do you base your decision on reviews from other customers or other hotel owners?

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#296

Post by KaiserPro »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #160
akprasad wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Luddites were not anti-technology per se . Rather, they were against an unequal distribution of that technology because it was destroying their community and livelihood, precisely because that technology concentrated power in the hands of the capital class [1]. Given the rest of your comment, it seems the Luddites are your natural allies. Related HN discussion on [1] from 3 weeks ago: [2] [1]: https://archive.ph/…

> Rather, they were against an unequal distribution of that technology because it was destroying their community and livelihood, precisely because that technology concentrated power in the hands of the capital class [1] I find discussions about the Luddites online to be deeply illustrative not of the Luddites themselves but of a person's political beliefs. The Luddites did indeed fight for their community and livelih…

> dismantled the subcontinent's dominant position in the market

That doesn't happen until after the luddite's first appearance in ~1816 [1]

> This created the skilled textile jobs that were eventually mechanized and displaced.

No, The displacement is what the Luddites were railing against. Weavers had been highly paid, profitable and skilled occupation from the "dark ages" onwards. Technological advances meant that they were ruined almost overnight. The concept of high minded observations on empire are anachronistic embellishments[2]. The weavers just weaved, the merchants sourced the raw materials. the concept that the average weaver knew the conditions, circumstance, much less people that produced it is on very shaky ground. I suspect that given that the producers were Christian, much less protestant, would have meant that sympathy would have been limited. Given how xenophobic people were back then.

The wool trade supplied wealth to large parts of the cotswolds, east anglia, the lowlands and other places.

The weaver's guilds had a hand in various wars, revolutions and many other social developments between 1100 and at least 1500.

[1] https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/2534... page 39, turning point is 1830

[2] https://www.marxists.org/history/england/combination-laws/ne... They are literally talking about powered frames, and nothing else.

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#297

Post by stevenhuang »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #239
TheLegace wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if you have been on the other side of what market makers do, but its not exactly a day at the beach. Once you gain enough insight to see whats going on the charts you just see it as a graveyard of traders positions, stop losses and their capital. This happens every minute the market is open at every timeframe. Have you ever wonder why the markets appear so irrational? Great economic data and the worse dr…

I think you intended to reply to me (GP), not the parent. You're ignoring my objection to this stuff, which has nothing to do with immorality and everything to do with with the waste and misdirection of resources. Why do people participate in this stuff? Because someone might get rich. From my POV, that's a waste and misdirection of resources. People getting rich is not the right motivation for pareto or utilitarian…

Capitalism and people getting rich is for better or worse exactly the stabilizing factor that has lead to the success of the modern world we take for granted. Capitalism is the worst except for all the others.

I empathize that it appears the case it's not an optimal allocation, but to say you know it's a misallocation leans overly simplistic.

What you see as misdirection of resources is the product of competitive market forces that drive innovation and efficiency. And the market often finds value in ways not immediately apparent.

Is less efficient resource arbitration (futures, forex) worth the trade-off? Producers can make their own market and set their own prices. But do that in an information vacuum and there will be increased deadweight loss in the form of higher bid-ask spreads, increasing costs, reducing economic activity.

There are more benefits in the form of reducing volatility and increasing liquidity.

It is not at all as obvious as you make it that society would be better off had HFTs and similarly received sorts of "financialization" not exist.

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#298

Post by stevenhuang »

skulk wrote: post #163
stevenhuang wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't understand market making and it's not ok to pretend you do.

Instead of reaching for this horribly irritating snark (I'm sure GP understands market making enough to understand why HFT exists), why not be charitable and consider the opportunity cost of the smartest people spending their mental energy to create a slightly more efficient market? Is this really a responsible use of this resource?

Consider a similar irritation when seeing those with a superficial grasp of a complex topic oversimplify and make unwarranted conclusions.

And it's precisely the GPs unwavering certainty that HFTs are net negative that accurately informs they do not understand the full implications of what HFTs offer.

Because when you're aware of the full picture, it is not at all obvious society will be better off without it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37912662

Re: The Techno-Optimist Manifesto

#299

Post by meiraleal »

chrisco255 wrote: post #289
meiraleal wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The U.S. may have had bread lines at the time, but people weren't dying of mass starvation. Only if you consider the millions that suffered mass extermination, incarceration and forced labor in the US not to be humans.

Mass extermination never occurred in the United States, what are you even talking about? Forced labor, in the 1930s through 1960s? No. Just no. Half of the early U.S. had slavery up til 1865 when a brutal Civil War that cost 600K plus people their lives settled the question. That was all the way back in the 1800s when Russia was still a medieval serfdom indistinguishable from a slave based economy ( https://en.wikipe…

> Mass extermination never occurred in the United States, what are you even talking about?

You've made me curious about how the American media describes US history. It's interesting that the mass extermination of Native Americans is referred to as the "Indian Wars". It sounds almost patriotic.

> Forced labor, in the 1930s through 1960s? No. Just no.

Right. Because with the Indian Citizenship Act, the US magically transformed into a different country and therefore shouldn't be held accountable for anything that happened before 1930. But Russia...

Post reply on HN