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

No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 528 posts

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#501

Post by AnthonyMouse »

timr wrote: post #448
treyd wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Companies often use it to acquire other companies, which is the worst. We also used to enforce antitrust law.

> We also used to enforce antitrust law. I've been reading the Chernow biography of Rockefeller, and this simply isn't true. We've almost never enforced "anti-trust law", and it's basically never been particularly effective. The Sherman Act was widely considered a failure (even after passage in 1890). It did little/nothing to affect the fate of Standard Oil, which actually grew for a decade after passage, to over 90%…

Laws mostly don't work by actually filing cases. They mostly work by deterring malicious activity because people don't want a case brought against them. The cases are only for the ones who fail to be deterred, which is pretty uncommon for large corporations because they can afford lawyers to tell them what not to do.

The problem comes when you erode what was meant to be a strong antitrust law through decades of narrowing interpretations and then it's not deterring them anymore.

> the law ends up being used to punish declining companies for prior bad behavior.

The solution to this one is to take the politicians out of it and allow customers to file antitrust class actions.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#502

Post by zaphar »

zarenor wrote: post #494
zaphar wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they do know. Nor do I think most of the shareholders know. If they did they would know that they can make way more money with forward thinking and planning beyond a quarter. The lack of that is the clearest indication I can imagine that they do not know.

See, this is the thing. An investor isn't tied to the fortunes of any one company. An investor can bail when things go south, and investors who care enough to be writing to executives or the board are also the ones most sensitive to signals things are going badly. This is why 'activist' investing works - you can take on debt, or drive a debt-funded acquisition so that the immediate value of a share goes up, bail whil…

Most large investors are actually big groups like pension funds that do need to think longer term though. This is really just a combination of laziness and ignorance. Not a factor of evil individual investors. Those do exist but I really don't think they have as much impact as people think they do.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#503

Post by MichaelAO »

Reading The Economics Laws of Scientific Laws rocked my world on this topic. Tldr is that the basic to applied science pipeline proposed by Francis Bacon and now assumed as physical law is a fiction that legitimizes the state, wastes taxpayer money, and retards science.

More science will happen with less government funding (see crowding out effect). This is why it's important to look not just at the intention of a policy, but at the actual outcome.

This author has the tail wagging the dog. I'd rephrase it... more startups, more science.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#504

Post by anthonylevine »

philipallstar wrote: post #429
fragmede wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, companies like UCLA + MIT (TCP), USC/ISI (DNS, Email/RFC 822), CERN (HTTP, World Wide Web), UC Berkeley (Unix sockets / BSD networking stack). IETF (BGP,TLS), University of Delaware (NTP), MIT/CSAIL/W3C (HTML, CSS, Ethernet).

Do you mind removing all the work done that was sponsored by companies before I proceed with a response on what's left?

What kind of person sees a claim like "No, not all major breakthroughs were done at private companies. Like the internet, for example" and immediately feels the need to tell them private companies are doing stuff?

Are you not reading the reply chains before commenting? What motivates you to interject with information that is meaningless?

The only thing I can think of is that you've voted for the people who are currently slashing the funding and have to continuously try to convince yourself it's okay.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#505

Post by NickC25 »

astrange wrote: post #485
NickC25 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shares of a company are indeed money - or can be used as money in a roundabout way. They can be placed as collateral in exchange for a loan or other similar ways to access capital immediately. If Zuck walks into a bank and asks for a million dollars cash on the spot and is willing to place a few thousand shares up as collateral, he gets that done in minutes.

He can get millions, but he can't get his entire net worth. His net worth is quoted as if the marginal price of one Meta share is the price you'd get for selling every Meta share at once. Which of course doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense, until it does - because Mark's shares are quite literally a separate class from all other shares and IIRC have 10x the voting power as common class A stock.

If he announced he is selling them all at once, I have no doubt in my mind he could get someone (or a group of investors, or a bank) to purchase all those class B shares almost immediately at a VERY healthy premium. Meta shares are currently around USD $715. There's absolutely zero doubt in my mind that if he was to sell them in a block, with the outsized voting power, he could command roughly USD $950-1100 per share with ease.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#507

Post by philipallstar »

anthonylevine wrote: post #504
philipallstar wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind removing all the work done that was sponsored by companies before I proceed with a response on what's left?

What kind of person sees a claim like "No, not all major breakthroughs were done at private companies. Like the internet, for example" and immediately feels the need to tell them private companies are doing stuff? Are you not reading the reply chains before commenting? What motivates you to interject with information that is meaningless? The only thing I can think of is that you've voted for the people who are curren…

Lots of the internet was and is powered by research from private companies. The internet is not particularly public sector.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#508

Post by triceratops »

robotresearcher wrote: post #450
triceratops wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It seems like your assumption is that a stock buyback is a short term gain. My argument is a stock buyback isn't a gain for a long-term, buy-and-hold investor. Unless a) they sell some of the stock or b) it pays dividends they don't see the benefit of a higher stock price or reduced share count. Qualified dividends and long term capital gains are taxed at the same rate. So anyone who says "buybacks are more tax-adv…

If a buyback gives stockholders the choice of selling or holding, realizing the gain now or later, and a dividend does not, why not prefer the buyback?

Why should the company reward shareholders who are selling over shareholders who hold?

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#509

Post by triceratops »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #116
bulletsvshumans wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But dividends also result in a concrete financial reward for all shareholders, yes?

dividends and capital gains are taxed differently

Not in the US.

Re: No science, no startups: The innovation engine we're switching off

#510

Post by rapatel0 »

rapatel0 wrote: post #403
uolmir wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In fact up until a recent funding method change from the Trump Administration, most grant money was subject to "overhead"--a nebulous nonsensical accounting trick that allowed the university administration to get upwards of 60% of the dollars that are earmarked for grants. We're better than this here. Don't spread misinformation. First of all overhead is listed as a percentage, such as 55% or 60% or whatever but th…

It's not misinformation. You are repeating a misleading talking point. Here's what happens. - Professor & students get a grant application for 100K. - University charges indirects at a ratio (0.55) - 155K gets transferred from treasury to the university account. That extra 55K comes from the money that congress allocated for grants, so if congress allocates 1 billion dollars -> 450 million will actually go to profess…

Edit: my last calculation is wrong. I inverted it 350 Million will be allocated for indirects (650 Million for research)
Post reply on HN