4 ms·

Rather, people with a naturally anti-authoritarian attitude tend to become attracted to programming. I was actually a staunch progressive before entering the s

Rather, people with a naturally anti-authoritarian attitude tend to become attracted to programming. I was actually a staunch progressive before entering the startup world. A few things turned me into a libertarian: 1) I realized that nearly every instance of what my college professors called a "market failure" was really an instance where there was a web of government regulations preventing me from starting a business to solve the problem ( such as health insurance, education, or corporate governance). Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically. 2) The software industry is so new it hasn't had the time to earn government favors and protection. Thus an engineer pays a lot to the government, but gets virtually nothing in return. Other professions used to be this way, and were much more libertarian ( farmers being the original case, but also doctors, bankers, etc.). Long ago those professions started getting either direct government funding or laws protecting entry into their industry. They became dependent on government. Engineers are also wealthy enough that they are net losers from income redistribution. And finally, by working in the startup world, most engineers see the free market at its best, rather than only seeing the soulless corporate side. 3) I decided to actually read about this "Austrian economics" nonsense. I read a bunch of books from both sides and scoured the internet for arguments and counter-arguments. At the end, I was shocked to realize that Ron Paul was right. Before, I thought he was a nut-job and Austrians were just ignoramuses who had never even taken a college macroeconomics course. After, I was ready to don my tin foil hat :-)

dualogy 18y ago
Great, one more Austrian, welcome to the Club! :)
byrneseyeview 18y ago
" Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically." I have yet to encounter a critique of capitalism that can't be rephrased as a business plan. I think libertarianism as an ideology has survived for so long because it's adaptable in that way.
nradov 18y ago
The software industry gets a heck of a lot from the government. It has been one of the top funders of development work, both as a customer and a direct employer. Many of the common software tools and technologies we use today wouldn't exist if not for government-sponsored research. In general I agree with your other points, but let's have a little balance.
- parenthesis 18y ago
  E.g. Lisp, Darpa.
- corentin 18y ago
  The money the government took to fund stuff would have been used in another way. But maybe they are better investors than the market; how would we know?
sethg 18y ago
Software engineers in the US get "government favors and protection" from US immigration policy. If anyone in the world could move to the US and work here, without jumping through the hoops of visa regulations, then American programmers would face a lot more competition from non-citizens than we do now; the pointy-haired bosses could get most of the cost benefits of cheap foreign labor without the headaches associated with managing workers ten time zones away. (Many other professions would also benefit from cheap labor and therefore we, as customers of the labor, would benefit from lower prices, but I think geeks are at risk of losing more than we gain.) I hear a lot of libertarian geeks complain about the unfairness of the progressive income tax or the welfare state, but not so many complaining about the unfairness of our immigration policy.
- geebee 18y ago
  Interesting comment. I agree with you somewhat in the absolute, but completely disagree with you when you consider the degree of protection relative to other fields. Consider the difference between an American consumer who wants to 1) have a simple spreadsheet extension written, or 2) have a simple legal will drafted. In case 1, the consumer can 1) hire someone with a PhD, MS, BS, or no degree at all in any field, 2) send the work overseas with minimal oversight and regulation, 3) bring a foreign worker into the US on an H1B or L1 visa (to a limited extent). In case 2, the consumer can 1) hire a member of the state bar who attended an ABA accredited school. That's it. No other options. Law is an extreme example, and lawyers are, as members of the judiciary, quasi-government officials themselves, so maybe this isn't representative. But even in relatively unregulated labor markets here in the US, there's still no specific visa program to bring people on. In fact, the late nobel prize winner in economics Milton Friedman, champion of free markets, actually called the H1B program a subsidy for the tech industry! Milton Friedman scoffs at the idea of the government stocking a farm system for the likes of Microsoft and Intel. "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." link: http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/story/0,10801,72848,00.html http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/stor... So while US immigration policy, by not allowing everyone and anyone in, does indeed mess with free global labor markets, if anything it skews immigration in favor of foreign engineers who would like to come here, and against US Citizens in these fields. But I don't know anyone other than extremists who think that the US can have a truly open door immigration policy. The numbers would simply be too great. Instead, the US "only" accepts well over a million legal immigrants a year, not counting hundreds of thousands of work-related visas. Keep in mind, in a true free labor market, I, as a programmer would face more competition, but I'd also benefit as a consumer from an increase in competition in the services I consume. By targeting high tech specifically with work visas, but leaving the other fields untouched, the market is probably more skewed than it would have been enforcing a skills-blind approach. Lastly, plenty of high tech workers most definitely do complain about the unfairness of the policy. Most of the programmers I know are much angrier about the corporate control over the H1B's life than the presence of foreign workers. I know that the economic world is a positive-sum game, especially in wealth creating industries like high tech. But the current approach of skewing immigration toward high tech workers while allowing employers to control the residency rights and green card application? I'm looking for the free market with a microscope dude, and I ain't seeing it.
Prrometheus 18y ago
> I decided to actually read about this "Austrian economics" nonsense. The Austrians are too doctrinaire for my taste. They do have some good insights that have been ignored by the mainstream. For example, the idea that cheep Central Bank credit leads to boom/bust economic cycles has gained a lot of mindshare in the wake of the mortgage mess. However, they tend to close their minds to cool ideas from other schools of thought.
- dfranke 18y ago
  > However, they tend to close their minds to cool ideas from other schools of thought. That they definitely do. They reject positivism as an approach to economics on the basis that you can't do repeatable experiments with entire societies, preferring a deductive approach that yields statements that are correct but weak. But as a result, they miss out on theories that aren't quite rigorous but nonetheless have good (but imperfect) predictive value.
- bokonist 18y ago
  The trouble is, cheap central bank credit also led to the Great Depression and the 1970's stagflation, yet no one seems to learn the lesson. Perhaps that's why Austrians tend to sound like a broken record. I think the reason no one learns the lesson is that cheap credit is just too tempting for politicians ( and the people that vote for them). It seems like a free lunch - until the malinvestment piles up and the credit pyramid starts to topple. Also, I'd note that Austrians tend to be much more knowledgeable of "mainstream" economics than mainstream economists are of Austrian economics ( see http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/austrian-economics.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/austrian-economics.ht... and http://www.slate.com/id/9593 http://www.slate.com/id/9593, the latter article by Paul Krugman shows a stunning ignorance of what the Austrians are saying ). The three biggest economic issues today are: 1) the stagnation of the American standard living since 1970 2) the massive trade deficit and the hollowing of the American economy 3) the financial crisis All three of these problems are related to fiat currency, maturity mismatching, and inflationary policies by various banks. That's why I think the Austrians, while not perfect, are much closer to the truth than the other economic schools.

dualogy 18y ago

Great, one more Austrian, welcome to the Club! :)

byrneseyeview 18y ago

" Once you stop thinking, "How could the government solve this problem?" and start thinking, "How can I start a business to solve this problem?" your perspective on the world change dramatically." I have yet to encounter a critique of capitalism that can't be rephrased as a business plan. I think libertarianism as an ideology has survived for so long because it's adaptable in that way.

nradov 18y ago

The software industry gets a heck of a lot from the government. It has been one of the top funders of development work, both as a customer and a direct employer. Many of the common software tools and technologies we use today wouldn't exist if not for government-sponsored research. In general I agree with your other points, but let's have a little balance.

parenthesis 18y ago
E.g. Lisp, Darpa.
corentin 18y ago
The money the government took to fund stuff would have been used in another way. But maybe they are better investors than the market; how would we know?

sethg 18y ago

Software engineers in the US get "government favors and protection" from US immigration policy. If anyone in the world could move to the US and work here, without jumping through the hoops of visa regulations, then American programmers would face a lot more competition from non-citizens than we do now; the pointy-haired bosses could get most of the cost benefits of cheap foreign labor without the headaches associated with managing workers ten time zones away. (Many other professions would also benefit from cheap labor and therefore we, as customers of the labor, would benefit from lower prices, but I think geeks are at risk of losing more than we gain.) I hear a lot of libertarian geeks complain about the unfairness of the progressive income tax or the welfare state, but not so many complaining about the unfairness of our immigration policy.

geebee 18y ago
Interesting comment. I agree with you somewhat in the absolute, but completely disagree with you when you consider the degree of protection relative to other fields. Consider the difference between an American consumer who wants to 1) have a simple spreadsheet extension written, or 2) have a simple legal will drafted. In case 1, the consumer can 1) hire someone with a PhD, MS, BS, or no degree at all in any field, 2) send the work overseas with minimal oversight and regulation, 3) bring a foreign worker into the US on an H1B or L1 visa (to a limited extent). In case 2, the consumer can 1) hire a member of the state bar who attended an ABA accredited school. That's it. No other options. Law is an extreme example, and lawyers are, as members of the judiciary, quasi-government officials themselves, so maybe this isn't representative. But even in relatively unregulated labor markets here in the US, there's still no specific visa program to bring people on. In fact, the late nobel prize winner in economics Milton Friedman, champion of free markets, actually called the H1B program a subsidy for the tech industry! Milton Friedman scoffs at the idea of the government stocking a farm system for the likes of Microsoft and Intel. "There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy." link: http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/story/0,10801,72848,00.html http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/labor/stor... So while US immigration policy, by not allowing everyone and anyone in, does indeed mess with free global labor markets, if anything it skews immigration in favor of foreign engineers who would like to come here, and against US Citizens in these fields. But I don't know anyone other than extremists who think that the US can have a truly open door immigration policy. The numbers would simply be too great. Instead, the US "only" accepts well over a million legal immigrants a year, not counting hundreds of thousands of work-related visas. Keep in mind, in a true free labor market, I, as a programmer would face more competition, but I'd also benefit as a consumer from an increase in competition in the services I consume. By targeting high tech specifically with work visas, but leaving the other fields untouched, the market is probably more skewed than it would have been enforcing a skills-blind approach. Lastly, plenty of high tech workers most definitely do complain about the unfairness of the policy. Most of the programmers I know are much angrier about the corporate control over the H1B's life than the presence of foreign workers. I know that the economic world is a positive-sum game, especially in wealth creating industries like high tech. But the current approach of skewing immigration toward high tech workers while allowing employers to control the residency rights and green card application? I'm looking for the free market with a microscope dude, and I ain't seeing it.

Prrometheus 18y ago

> I decided to actually read about this "Austrian economics" nonsense. The Austrians are too doctrinaire for my taste. They do have some good insights that have been ignored by the mainstream. For example, the idea that cheep Central Bank credit leads to boom/bust economic cycles has gained a lot of mindshare in the wake of the mortgage mess. However, they tend to close their minds to cool ideas from other schools of thought.

dfranke 18y ago
> However, they tend to close their minds to cool ideas from other schools of thought. That they definitely do. They reject positivism as an approach to economics on the basis that you can't do repeatable experiments with entire societies, preferring a deductive approach that yields statements that are correct but weak. But as a result, they miss out on theories that aren't quite rigorous but nonetheless have good (but imperfect) predictive value.
bokonist 18y ago
The trouble is, cheap central bank credit also led to the Great Depression and the 1970's stagflation, yet no one seems to learn the lesson. Perhaps that's why Austrians tend to sound like a broken record. I think the reason no one learns the lesson is that cheap credit is just too tempting for politicians ( and the people that vote for them). It seems like a free lunch - until the malinvestment piles up and the credit pyramid starts to topple. Also, I'd note that Austrians tend to be much more knowledgeable of "mainstream" economics than mainstream economists are of Austrian economics ( see http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/austrian-economics.html http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/04/austrian-economics.ht... and http://www.slate.com/id/9593 http://www.slate.com/id/9593, the latter article by Paul Krugman shows a stunning ignorance of what the Austrians are saying ). The three biggest economic issues today are: 1) the stagnation of the American standard living since 1970 2) the massive trade deficit and the hollowing of the American economy 3) the financial crisis All three of these problems are related to fiat currency, maturity mismatching, and inflationary policies by various banks. That's why I think the Austrians, while not perfect, are much closer to the truth than the other economic schools.