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

The only moat left is money?

elliotbonneville.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 398 posts

Re: The only moat left is money?

#301

Post by laffOr »

scoofy wrote: post #256
laffOr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a tailor is scalable, that's way there are way, way more cheap machine produced clothes today than in the past. Surely he did not miss that the textile industry was at the core of industrial revolution. So being a tailor is more like a post-scaling job - the automation has already happened and now there are only remnants left. But how can you be sure a job is peak-automated? A few years ago, I would have said m…

I mean a tailor who adjusts clothes and occasionally makes something bespoke. Tailors typically operate a launderette and act as middlemen to a local dry cleaner. I’m not talking about a fancy man making clothes for rich people, I’m talking about the talented old lady in you neighborhood who adjusts your clothing for $50 and runs a wash and fold.

Yes, but this is simply the remnants of the old tailor occupation, post automation. The talented old lady would have had a lot more business in clothes making in the past, no need for a wash & fold.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#302

Post by hn_acc1 »

pier25 wrote: post #192
scoofy wrote: post #184

So, I really felt like more people should be reading Nassim Taleb's Incerto series of books. A lot of the issues that fall out of AI he dealt with in his books like ten years ago. He gives one the best pieces of advice I've ever heard: if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable. If you do something that isn't really scalable, like being a welder or a tailor, then you only have to comp…

> if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable I guess it also means that if you build something for a niche audience then big companies will never be interested in it.

I'm sure someone else on Etsy will undercut your price if you sell more than a few.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#303

Post by fuzzfactor »

scoofy wrote: post #292
noosphr wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switching jobs from electrician to teacher to nurse will take around 3 to 5 years of education or apprenticeship in most countries. It also requires new licenses or certificates if you ever move country.

I'm trying to respond to this stuff in good faith. Yes, I agree with you. I don't see how this is relevant to the argument. If you are in a non-scalable industry that gets taken over by technology, that sucks. My point was being in the startup game in the first place. "Becoming a teacher" takes years. "Becoming a successful scalable business" has no known time frame. It either happens or it doesn't. And whether it do…

Almost typed the same thing in different words at the same time :)

Your above point can not be upvoted enough.

You do have to wonder what some people are thinking ;)

Good message from Taleb too, he may not be the most likeable or agreeable person in the world, but he is quite brilliant at synthesizing logical meaning from the inputs he does have.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#304

Post by stuartaxelowen »

speak_plainly wrote: post #97

In Republic I, Socrates distinguishes the art of medicine from the art of wage-earning. One is about the work; the other is about getting paid. Historically, the craft was the primary goal, and the money was an extrinsic side effect. Today, the money-making side has staged a hostile takeover. The attention conundrum is just a symptom of a deeper financialization. Multi-billion dollar companies have turned profit into…

It seems that we have forgotten how to distinguish between value and profit, and now celebrate the latter instead of the former. Currency enables ever broader and more niche markets, but the financialization of everything is the Faustian bargain; we gained niche hobbies but lost our souls?

Re: The only moat left is money?

#305

Post by bccdee »

mothballed wrote: post #242
bccdee wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulation is what enables monopolies That's patently false. AT&T was a monopoly and they were broken up by antitrust regulation. The absolute most you can say is that some regulations enable monopoly. I contend that we simply should pass the good kind of regulations instead. Monopoly is enabled by market forces such as economies of scale. Monopolization is a natural market process which happens on its own unless i…

>> Regulation is what enables monopolies >That's patently false. AT&T was a monopoly and they were broken up by antitrust regulation. This is patently false in the context of the reply you have made -- after the invention of the telephone more and more and eventually hundreds of telephone services popped up. Then in 1918 (circa WWI), the government effectively quasi- nationalized AT&T by controlling it via a commissi…

> the whole idea of a "natural market process" here is absolute and utter hogwash

Might I introduce you to the concept of a "natural monopoly"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Anyway, what regulation is responsible for Walmart and Amazon putting local retailers out of business?

> the government effectively quasi-nationalized AT&T

After a big merger put AT&T in charge of the majority of telephone lines in the US, the company used its control over infrastructure to drive its competitors out of business and increase its portfolio. The Justice Department tried to break up AT&T but failed; it was in the settlement of this case that AT&T was first federally regulated in 1913. Yes, AT&T's monopoly grew between 1913 and 1982, but your causality is backwards. They regulated it because it was already a monopoly.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#306

Post by fuzzfactor »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #299
scoofy wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean a tailor who adjusts clothes and occasionally makes something bespoke. Tailors typically operate a launderette and act as middlemen to a local dry cleaner. I’m not talking about a fancy man making clothes for rich people, I’m talking about the talented old lady in you neighborhood who adjusts your clothing for $50 and runs a wash and fold.

My mom altered clothing when I was younger - and she darned socks too. My M-I-L still sews the occasional seam for pants that are too long and were cut for my wife or daughters. But me? I buy a pair of $30 jeans at Costco. If they don't fit great, I buy a different pair of $30 jeans. I don't spend $50 to have them altered, or take it to a laundrette. If it can't be washed in our home washer/dryer, I don't buy it. And…

Well, that's why there are so few people doing this full-time any more.

But at least they're not going to disappear completely.

And now there's nowhere to go but up :)

They have had the internet a while too, keep in mind a select few have gone viral on Etsy while so many SaaS things don't return a fraction of their potential.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#307

Post by scoofy »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #303
scoofy wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to respond to this stuff in good faith. Yes, I agree with you. I don't see how this is relevant to the argument. If you are in a non-scalable industry that gets taken over by technology, that sucks. My point was being in the startup game in the first place. "Becoming a teacher" takes years. "Becoming a successful scalable business" has no known time frame. It either happens or it doesn't. And whether it do…

Almost typed the same thing in different words at the same time :) Your above point can not be upvoted enough. You do have to wonder what some people are thinking ;) Good message from Taleb too, he may not be the most likeable or agreeable person in the world, but he is quite brilliant at synthesizing logical meaning from the inputs he does have.

People not liking Taleb and then dismissing him because he can be rude has always been one of the strangest things that so many people do.

I remember about halfway through Skin in the Game, after being put off by most of what I'd been reading, that the gestalt shift happened and it finally clicked. It's probably one of the best texts I've ever read on a specific type of conservatism. I don't like that I agreed with it, but the guy makes a very, very convincing argument.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#308

Post by pier25 »

fuzzfactor wrote: post #289
pier25 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you are going to do something for a living, make sure it is NOT scalable I guess it also means that if you build something for a niche audience then big companies will never be interested in it.

I like doing things for big companies that they actually could afford easily, but their costs are so high it's a better deal to have me do it. One of my favorite niches :) Some clients are good enough at math to figure it out, and you don't actually need that many of them if they are big enough.

how do you approach big companies to offer them these custom niche services?

Re: The only moat left is money?

#309

Post by scoofy »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #299
scoofy wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean a tailor who adjusts clothes and occasionally makes something bespoke. Tailors typically operate a launderette and act as middlemen to a local dry cleaner. I’m not talking about a fancy man making clothes for rich people, I’m talking about the talented old lady in you neighborhood who adjusts your clothing for $50 and runs a wash and fold.

My mom altered clothing when I was younger - and she darned socks too. My M-I-L still sews the occasional seam for pants that are too long and were cut for my wife or daughters. But me? I buy a pair of $30 jeans at Costco. If they don't fit great, I buy a different pair of $30 jeans. I don't spend $50 to have them altered, or take it to a laundrette. If it can't be washed in our home washer/dryer, I don't buy it. And…

This is an effective strategy if you're a fit model, or close to one. If you're within the standard deviation of the sizing chart, you'll probably do fine most of the time.

I like golf. Most people use a standard shaft. In fact, that shaft length is standard because most people use it. That doesn't mean there isn't an entire industry for "golf fittings" because "most" people isn't even close to everyone.

Re: The only moat left is money?

#310

Post by mothballed »

bccdee wrote: post #305
mothballed wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Regulation is what enables monopolies >That's patently false. AT&T was a monopoly and they were broken up by antitrust regulation. This is patently false in the context of the reply you have made -- after the invention of the telephone more and more and eventually hundreds of telephone services popped up. Then in 1918 (circa WWI), the government effectively quasi- nationalized AT&T by controlling it via a commissi…

> the whole idea of a "natural market process" here is absolute and utter hogwash Might I introduce you to the concept of a "natural monopoly"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly Anyway, what regulation is responsible for Walmart and Amazon putting local retailers out of business? > the government effectively quasi-nationalized AT&T After a big merger put AT&T in charge of the majority of telephone lines…

>Anyway, what regulation is responsible for Walmart and Amazon putting local retailers out of business?

Walmart + Amazon combined are only ~16% of the retail business. They're not monopolies. The fact they put a small minority of businesses out of business does not mean they're a monopoly. This is likely part efficiencies and also part regulatory capture via the insane zoning/building regulations in this country and tax breaks that can favor large corporations.

> After a big merger put AT&T in charge of the majority of telephone lines in the US, the company used its control over infrastructure to drive its competitors out of business and increase its portfolio. The Justice Department tried to break up AT&T but failed; it was in the settlement of this case that AT&T was first federally regulated in 1913. Yes, AT&T's monopoly grew between 1913 and 1982, but your causality is backwards. They regulated it because it was already a monopoly.

... It was not already a monopoly. Hundreds of phone companies emerged and by shortly before your noted date of "regulation" those competitors held the majority market share. It became a "monopoly" after the government literally quasi-nationalized them (AT&T) to the point the fucking Postmaster General was basically in charge of it, they became intertwined with regulators, and then the drive for "universal telephone service" and regulatory commissions ensured the regulatory compliance pushed exactly into AT&Ts business model. AT&T intertwined lawmakers even brought in economics quacks to talk up natural monopolies to argue for policies to create the regulations that made AT&T a monopoly. So you have it backwards -- the regulated it from a minority market holder to an unnatural monopoly and lawmakers created this monopoly under the auspices they essentially needed to legislate a "natural" (misnomer) monopoly into existence.

Post reply on HN