Live data from Hacker News

It’s Time to Build

a16z.com

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s Time to Build

#981

I'm in the process of reading _Why Nation Fails_. The central thesis is that the rich and poor countries are separated by inclusive vs extractive institutions. The extractive institutions are characterised by elites that attempt to defend their own wealth and status by maintaining the status quo and resisting the creative destruction that may threaten that position. It seems to resonate a bit here, when Marc speaks o…

> It seems to resonate a bit here, when Marc speaks of things like regulatory capture. I heard a few years back that a US health insurance startup had to provide on the order of 6000 pages of documentation to be approved. No wonder that there hadn't been another provider for twenty years or so. It seems like some things are hard to build mostly because some people want it that way. Sure, but is this actually a high o…

> The moneyed classes of America don't like redundancy and they don't like long term investments.

This class denigrating language does nothing to elevate the discussion and it is absolutely false (in the sense that it is only a "truth" within your worldview and the worldview of others who share it), and it is false in the sense that it doesn't accurately describe the behaviors of individuals in the "moneyed class".

The "moneyed classes" as you call it if anything have more redundancy and longer term investments that most other classes. It is incredibly rare for anyone in the "moneyed classes" to not have a balanced portfolio of investments that add in fiscal redundancy in case one investment goes bad. The portfolios are also balanced insofar as balancing short term and long term growth depending on their investment horizon.

The problems you've identified have far more to do with a coordination problem than the vices of individuals.

The "moneyed class" is not one coordinated hive mind mass that all conspire with one another to avoid redundancy and eschew long term investments.

The "moneyed class" like the "unmoneyed class" are all individual actors each acting in their own self interest and trying to figure out an optimal solution given limited imperfect information and handicapped by many cognitive biases.

Any system that is going to solve the issue of redundancy and long term investments needs to acknowledge the reality of limited imperfective information and cognitive biases and the impact these have on human reasoning and the subsequent actions of individuals.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#982
post #955

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Communist societies build less, and somehow also pollute more.

Citation needed. The USSR and PRC both went from agrarian societies to industrial powers in under 50 years.

You'd need to argue that they did it faster because of communism. In fact, China starting growing when opening up to markets. Oh and tens millions dead each. And the pollution & resource use is worse too. See https://www.amazon.com/More-Less-Surprising-Learned-Resource...

Re: It’s Time to Build

#983

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. The USSR and PRC both went from agrarian societies to industrial powers in under 50 years.

You'd need to argue that they did it faster because of communism. In fact, China starting growing when opening up to markets. Oh and tens millions dead each. And the pollution & resource use is worse too. See https://www.amazon.com/More-Less-Surprising-Learned-Resource...

No, that would be moving the goalposts. The GP post claimed that communist societies "produced less" (I made no claim about "polluted more," which the GP post also stated). I gave 2 examples showing very large countries that went from zero to world industrial power in 50 years. China is very near the top in world GDP right now. The USSR put both the first human and the first artificial satellite into space in that timeframe. Show me a capitalist country that's accomplished so much so fast.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#984
post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can always find a crazy example of something or other and choose to blow it out of proportion, while ignoring positive developments on the ground. So to be clear, you believe: Cuomo deliberately ignored credible data from his people suggesting that the state would not need 30,000 - 40,000 ventilators in order to attempt to do political damage to Trump? > In the meanwhile I'm glad Trump ignored the political dam…

> Cuomo deliberately ignored credible data Ummm. Yeah? Politics is certainly not be the main reason why he did it, but are you going to argue that it did not factor into Cuomo's initial, confrontational tone? He (and Newsom) seems to be pretty pleased with the federal government now. Trump aired a clip of Cuomo today during his presser which you will never in a million years see on CNN. You should watch it. They at f…

I'm sorry to see you're being downvoted. I think (hope!) it's an unhappy byproduct of your tone not your opinion.

> Yeah? Politics is certainly not be the main reason why he did it, but are you going to argue that it did not factor into Cuomo's initial, confrontational tone?

Cuomo's original criticism of the government came on March 8th, when he said "they've been slow and they continue to be slow". After this, on March 16th, Trump singled him out as a governor who "needs to do more". On March 25th, Trump said Cuomo was "happy with the job we're doing", which prompted Cuomo to reply that he was not happy.

> Trump aired a clip of Cuomo today during his presser which you will never in a million years see on CNN. You should watch it. They at first botched it in the live stream, but then played it again a little later. Had I not told you about it, you wouldn't even know it exists. Think about that for a second before you read further.

I watch his entire press conference every day, and you're right that they did include a clip of Cuomo saying that he was happy with how the response had gone. If I recall (apols if wrong - a lot of these clips are blurring into one!) the same clip outlined the basis for his requesting 30,000 vents. Something he has done elsewhere, too: ""I hope the President's right. I'll go better than what the President said -- I hope I don't need any ventilators. But I can't govern that way -- I govern on the data and on the numbers and on the science," he said, adding that if "you count the numbers and the trajectory, we're looking at 40,000 possible ventilators, 140,000 possible hospital beds -- those are the numbers."

And it doesn't really have anything to do with whether Cuomo was right to go public with the ventilator need.

> You people still don't see that he does this on purpose. He's not speaking to you, anything-but-Trump voter.

I see what he's doing. Every time Trump appears like a moron to me I know that he's engendering support and approval from his constituents. I call that video silly because it was an extremely clear manipulation of events. You might argue (and you might be right) that his misrepresentation of his actions as being perfect is a necessary correction to the media's presentation of his every action as moronic. But you cannot escape that the President was for several weeks comparing COVID-19 to the flu (he's now done a 180 on this) and pushing a dangerous drug cocktail ("What have you got to lose?") which resulted in at least one person dying.

The damage to his credibility is done by his attempt to whitewash his response. The man clearly isn't prone to intense self-reflection, but he has missed a spectacular opportunity to win over moderates by saying, "You know what? I got these things totally wrong." Nobody expects him to be perfect, and doing so would show everyone a contemplative side of himself. (By most accounts he has the capacity to change his mind when wrong privately, and he listens to expert advice.)

> He speaks to his base, and swing voters, and he successfully penetrates the confinement the mainstream press tries (unsuccessfully) to put him into. He really has no other choice.

The way I see this, and I might have bias here, is that his language is so vague and imprecise that he leaves himself room for misinterpretation at every step. The counterpoints he has presented -- what I think you're referring to as the confinements the MSM puts on him -- are not "you said X, but the truth was Y" disproof by counterexample. They are "you guys are nasty and I'm doing a very good job and here are videos of people saying I am doing a good job".

If he was an employee of yours or mine, you'd say that there is an optics issue. He is, in his opinion, maligned and misunderstood and misperceived so frequently that it becomes incumbent on him to take steps to be, if you'll excuse me, "unimpeachable".

> Look, I'm not a fan of his public speaking skills, and I wish he tweeted less, but I can see that it works 100% of the time. Whether you like it or not, this is why he won, and this is why he's going to win again. You can't deny that whatever it is he's doing is effective, even if you don't understand it.

The public speaking skills are, by the way, one further area which builds the composite image of Trump as a man who is not smart. There might not be a correlation between coherence and efficacy as a leader, but to the >50% of voters who did not vote for Trump in the last election, his rambling is a signifier of his being ill-equipped for office.

You could put it another way: part of his job is to be good at communicating to the public, and it seems like the best anyone can say about him is "he talks to his base".

> Shit, the dude maneuvered the DNC into nominating a gaffe-master with dementia and a closet full of extremely damaging skeletons before the real race even starts, while dealing with impeachment (successfully) and then with a country-wide disaster (also, so far, successfully - see the projected vs actual casualty counts).

Whilst I am largely convinced that there is interference in US elections, I'm pretty sure that the DNC did that to themselves :) Biden is not a strong opponent to Trump, I agree.

I don't disagree with your views on decentralisation. I think that Trump's strategy has been fine. I think he has been negligent and it has cost thousands of lives.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#985
post #411

I find this essay to be extremely frustrating, and a good example of the attitude I've personally witnessed Andreessen have in the few interactions I've had with him directly. > Is the problem capitalism? I’m with Nicholas Stern when he says that capitalism is how we take care of people we don’t know — all of these fields are highly lucrative already and should be prime stomping grounds for capitalist investment, goo…

> This overlooks the fact that Marc is in fact one of these folks who has a profoundly outsized role in deciding what he wants. He says what he wants, but then he expects someone else to build it. He's rich: if he wants these things, why doesn't he just pay to get them built? Sure, not all of them, but just pick one and pay to get it built. But, as you point out, he's not interested in long term investments--and that…

> He says what he wants, but then he expects someone else to build it. He's rich: if he wants these things, why doesn't he just pay to get them built? Sure, not all of them, but just pick one and pay to get it built.

There are a lot of things to criticize about Elon Musk, but he does understand this much.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#986
post #726
post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt Marc has anywhere near enough capital to get these things done (by himself). He probably has enough to make a good start on one of them. > maybe this post is a call for help and the billionaires will unite? If enough people in his position each pick a problem and start on it, that in itself would be a big help.

If he did what he is proposing, he would be out of business quickly with no investor money to mess around. This entire post reads like a script for Gavin Belson to me.

Exactly, so to summarize: he doesn't want to put his money where his mouth is.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#987

There are two problems: rapidly ballooning income and wealth inequality, and ladder pulling. That explains everything. Why are schools bad? Because we disproportionally fund schools for rich people's kids, and there isn't money or regulatory freedom to innovate there. Why is transportation bad? Because rich people have drivers and private jets, and there isn't money or regulatory freedom to innovate there. Etc etc et…

> Because we disproportionally fund schools for rich people's kids

I was under the impression that such kids disproportionately went to private school. With a some exceptions (disability programs, ...), private schools don't receive funding from the state.

That is to say, taxes don't disproportionately fund schools for rich people's kids.

Many of these schools are better funded than public schools but that funding isn't through tax dollars.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#989
post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Law = code. Law should be turned into code, and made available to everyone. A great current attempt is https://donotpay.com/

No, law is not code and it’s very important that it’s not code. Law is subject to interpretation, and that’s great. When bugs are discovered in law, they can be retroactively corrected.

Law should be objectively decidable. Thousands upon thousands of pages of enigmatic legalistic nonsense make it impossible to predict a legal decision. When there is this much law, it becomes a paradox where the result is actually lawless - it becomes the whim of a judge's interpretation.

Re: It’s Time to Build

#990

There are two problems: rapidly ballooning income and wealth inequality, and ladder pulling. That explains everything. Why are schools bad? Because we disproportionally fund schools for rich people's kids, and there isn't money or regulatory freedom to innovate there. Why is transportation bad? Because rich people have drivers and private jets, and there isn't money or regulatory freedom to innovate there. Etc etc et…

> Because we disproportionally fund schools for rich people's kids I was under the impression that such kids disproportionately went to private school. With a some exceptions (disability programs, ...), private schools don't receive funding from the state. That is to say, taxes don't disproportionately fund schools for rich people's kids. Many of these schools are better funded than public schools but that funding is…

There are a lot of factors, but AFAIK the main dynamics are:

- We primarily fund schools through states (federal funding is - States are largely funded via regressive taxes (like sales and property taxes)

- Until Trump's tax law this was all deductible from federal taxes. Now it's just property taxes and it's limited to $10k (which is pretty high, we're talking a $333k property w/ 3% property tax)

So effectively what happens is everyone pays a flat tax to fund schools, then people wealthy enough to pay income or capital gains taxes get their school payments subsidized by the federal government.

It's also important to note that many private schools are religious and pay no taxes at all. They also receive lots of federal benefits via federally funded and run intermediary organizations. Finally, charitable giving to religious organizations (including schools) is tax deductible.

The effect of all this is a huge education subsidy for high income earners and the wealthy. Couple this with the total lack of redistributive policies for educational funding, and you get what NPR calls "a money problem" [1].

And if education is the silver bullet, what we're counting on to lift people out of poverty, and what we point to when we talk about "equal opportunity", then the future looks dim indeed.

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-school...

Post reply on HN