I have been listening to Yanis a lot lately. His ideas are quite provocative. His economic ideas are quite refreshing, to hear an economist talking about what a post-subjective-money world may look like. Today, we have a new class of people, who to borrow Yanis's metaphor I would call Techno-peasants, who exist in a grand subjugation. Any reader of these comments would do well to listen to a few interviews of his.
Let's not forget economic minister of Greece, as disastrous as that was. I do like his ideas, but he just really did not seem to play nice in politics.
Technofeudalism
51–57 of 57 posts
Re: Technofeudalism
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being rate-limited by LinkedIn isn't a contemporary analog to being extorted by force. You're choosing to use their service. You can choose to not use it. The closest contemporary analog to being extorted by force is, of course, our relationship to our governments. One of the most interesting aspects of libertarian thought is their notion that the liberal revolution (which began in 1776 and spread to Europe in 1789)…
> Being rate-limited by LinkedIn isn't a contemporary analog to being extorted by force. You're choosing to use their service. You can choose to not use it. If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice? For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app, I've tried…
> If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice?
The network effects just increase the value-add of the platform, making foregoing the platform more costly (in terms of unclaimed utility). There is still a choice.
> For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app... I'm not really choosing it
Having a compelling reason to use a service is not remotely the same as being forced to use a service.
> it's shadier than that
High-value-add services are not shadier than violence.
Re: Technofeudalism
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being rate-limited by LinkedIn isn't a contemporary analog to being extorted by force. You're choosing to use their service. You can choose to not use it. If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice? For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app, I've tried…
> If you include network effects, does everyone really have that choice? The network effects just increase the value-add of the platform, making foregoing the platform more costly (in terms of unclaimed utility). There is still a choice. > For example, I can't choose not to use WhatsApp to keep in touch with my family and friends in Brazil. It's simply not possible because some of them won't use another messaging app…
> Having a compelling reason to use a service is not remotely the same as being forced to use a service.
Hence "shadier", violence is not shady, it's pretty in your face, it's shady I'm forced to use an app not by choice but just because such apps have captured enough of the market that there is absolutely no way for a competitor to be a suitable replacement.
Sure, I have the choice to simply lose contact with 50% of my family if I would like to stand up to my principles and cut Meta from my life.
Is that really a choice?
Re: Technofeudalism
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are cherry picking a bit there. Take a look at [bank stocks]( https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/best-bank-stock... ). The reason banks don't "like" high interest rates is it devalues the market rate all the bonds they usually hold. I guess Chase has done a good job navigating. Regardless, it isn't long term bad for banks because they are getting great rates now. But it still goes to show that banks are…
I am always talking about large banks. The main business is not holding bonds, but they can suffer a transitional effect on their portfolios, that's all. Btw., Bank of America just under $8B in Q3. You and I have a different experience regarding unidirectional pricing power, but maybe that is related to the different banks we have in mind.
Yeah, we would be fairly in trouble if banks just depended on low rates indefinitely. But more expensive debt is worse for them in the short term - that's what banks sell. I'm talking about in principle. At the end of the day, a healthy dollar that doesn't inflate super hard is better for US banks.
Banks are such an odd thing to bring up as proof of a capitalism still working in a macroeconomic sense, because they don't "do" anything. Sure they provide financing, but they don't build roads or bridges or software, or medical equipment, or make movies or anything productive that is supposed to improve our quality of life. Meanwhile, 40% of Americans can't afford a 400 dollar emergency. How is that a sign of healthy finance? I think it is worth considering - how is there a system of life where banks are super profitable, and no one can afford any credit? Yanis puts forward a theory in Technofeudalism - that it is really technology enabling all of this, but there are stark economic consequences. Whether or not that theory is right or wrong, it is compelling to consider.
I'm fairly familiar with enterprise software deals at Well's Fargo, from the vendor side. That's all I'm going to say about that. Everyone wants to make a deal, but at the end of the day there are really only 2 cloud providers: AWS and Azure, Amazon and Microsoft. They set the pace, they set the price. Even on bigger deals than banks. At least from where I sit.
Re: Technofeudalism
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, I tried to read it and mostly managed to, although I ended up skimming the end. It is really everything that is wrong with bitter overintellectual leftism: endless babble littered with pointless historical references and a neverending adoration of 'theory' while totally misunderstanding the rest of the world's moral opinions on, well, anything. The worst passage I found was this: >If these are lazy waterfall-own…
Techno-feudalism is more than that. I noticed in the early 2010s that a friend of mine was essentially a loyal vassal of a former EA exec "game industry legend", and followed him to multiple startups. There were a couple other such retainers, including the nobleman's brother and receptionist / HR manager. I've never played in the start up major leagues, but it sure isn't a meritocracy in regards to who gets funding (…
Interesting, I hadn't considered that that could be seen as another aspect of technofeudalism. I don't think it's really what people are talking about with the word, but it is an interesting connection.
Re: Technofeudalism
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most times you are getting something else of value in return when viewing advertisements. free services, etc What we're doing is more capitalistic so I'm uninterested in drawing parallels with feudalism personally, I guess fan-fiction economics are not for me.
But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time. Instead the opposite is happening. That's kind of the greater goal of the book - contextualizing our interactions with cloud companies within a larger macroeconomic picture. It is a compelling enough topic to consider. I don't really think it is fair to ca…
>But if this deal follows a Capitalist system, if we have greater supply of "valuable" content, than the price should go down and we should view less ads over time.
The prices are not going due to an economic change of form. It's happening because capitalism facilitates it. I think the writer is using an old view of capitalism and ascribing developments in modern capitalism to something brand new.
We can't stop the markets and tell them they're not being good old boy pure capitalists when they are doing exactly what capitalism promotes, albeit secretly. If a system develops differently than anticipated due to how it's used, it doesn't make it not the original design. You can repurpose the design, and make people view it differently, but the design remains static and people will react to the system appropriately based on the conditions allowed and not the conditions predicted or requested.
The need for a new definition arises solely from the person attempting to persuade you to accept it, better so if it confirms bias, uses half-truths to explain, and catchy language like Technofeudalism.
I guess it has provoked my thought, maybe I will read it.
Re: Technofeudalism
#57Yanis Varoufakis: Welcome to the age of technofeudalism from UnHerd on YouTube [36:22]