4 ms·

Fair or unfair doesn't matter; it's an allocation decision and the tech industry and its workers are strategically important to the U.S. That's always the axis

Fair or unfair doesn't matter; it's an allocation decision and the tech industry and its workers are strategically important to the U.S. That's always the axis on which these decisions will be made. > It’s a call for fair treatment for all. This will definitely be the rallying cry in the upcoming political shitstorm/reenactment of "The Merchant of Venice". But it's easy to make arguments about fairness and justice when your words don't become policy and your vote is 1/435. > ...so the U.S. banking system continues to perform its vital roles...in a manner that promotes strong and sustainable economic growth. As Yellen and Powell insinuate, crippling a bunch of startups and making a bunch of pension funds etc. have zero returns -- all because of a monetary system failure -- is not a strategically good decision if they want stability and people to continue investing in tech.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
People who disagreed with this comment: I would love to understand why. Is this not the line of reasoning likely to be used by government officials in the bailout/no-bailout decision?
yunwal 4y ago
> tech industry and its workers are strategically important to the U.S. I think there are a lot of people who don’t feel that this is true to the extent that you (and possibly the fed) do. When I see Calendly being valued at 3 billion dollars, I think that somewhere down the line, someone has mis-valued something. I don’t just accept whatever the market-value is as it’s true importance. There’s a lot of tech that’s overvalued, or valued for reasons that don’t contribute to real economic growth or wellbeing. Part of the point of people’s protests here is to get people in charge to realize/admit this. Tech isn’t actually that important.
- nottathrowaway3 4y ago
  I meant strategically important according to the government. From the 2022 NSS (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-...) > Technology > Technology is central to today’s geopolitical competition and to the future of our national security, economy and democracy. U.S. and allied leadership in technology and innovation has long underpinned our economic prosperity and military strength. In the next decade, critical and emerging technologies are poised to retool economies, transform militaries, and reshape the world... our technology strategy will enable the United States and like-minded democracies to work together to pioneer new medicines that can cure diseases, increase the production of healthy foods that are sustainably grown, diversify and strengthen our manufacturing supply chains, and secure energy without reliance on fossil fuels, all while delivering new jobs and security for the American people and our allies and partners. With bipartisan support, we have launched a modern industrial strategy and already secured historic investments in clean energy, microelectronics manufacturing, research, and development, and biotechnology, and we will work with Congress to fully fund ... > We also are doubling down on our longstanding and asymmetric strategic advantage: attracting and retaining the world’s best talent. Attracting a higher volume of global STEM talent is a priority for our national security and supply chain security, so we will aggressively implement recent visa actions and work with Congress to do more. > These investments will enable the United States to anchor an allied techno-industrial base that will safeguard our shared security, prosperity and values. I'm not sure Calendly is necessarily central to the articulated strategy. And I agree that most tech companies don't produce much of value at all. But the administration seems to think the future direction for the U.S. is tech, especially energy and military tech. And it begs the question: if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China?
  - yunwal 4y ago
    > if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China? I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-valley-branded, vc-funded, risky, socially-disconnected tech that’s largely being bailed out here. Tech as in technology can be funded by non-profit research institutions, or arms of the government, or more traditional companies that don’t make slashing regulations, anticompetitive behavior, and socializing losses their business model. If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.
    - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
      > If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation. Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. > socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have Uber -- a model for work orchestration Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things. I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.
      - yunwal 4y ago
        > Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.
        nottathrowaway3 4y ago
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
<< As Yellen and Powell insinuate, crippling a bunch of startups and making a bunch of pension funds etc. have zero returns -- all because of a monetary system failure -- is not a strategically good decision if they want stability and people to continue investing in tech. So it is not payroll/depositor bailout. It is wall street owner shareholders of those startups bailout. This is the reason some are mildly miffed. That and the mid-game rule change.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago

People who disagreed with this comment: I would love to understand why. Is this not the line of reasoning likely to be used by government officials in the bailout/no-bailout decision?

yunwal 4y ago

> tech industry and its workers are strategically important to the U.S. I think there are a lot of people who don’t feel that this is true to the extent that you (and possibly the fed) do. When I see Calendly being valued at 3 billion dollars, I think that somewhere down the line, someone has mis-valued something. I don’t just accept whatever the market-value is as it’s true importance. There’s a lot of tech that’s overvalued, or valued for reasons that don’t contribute to real economic growth or wellbeing. Part of the point of people’s protests here is to get people in charge to realize/admit this. Tech isn’t actually that important.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago
I meant strategically important according to the government. From the 2022 NSS (https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-...) > Technology > Technology is central to today’s geopolitical competition and to the future of our national security, economy and democracy. U.S. and allied leadership in technology and innovation has long underpinned our economic prosperity and military strength. In the next decade, critical and emerging technologies are poised to retool economies, transform militaries, and reshape the world... our technology strategy will enable the United States and like-minded democracies to work together to pioneer new medicines that can cure diseases, increase the production of healthy foods that are sustainably grown, diversify and strengthen our manufacturing supply chains, and secure energy without reliance on fossil fuels, all while delivering new jobs and security for the American people and our allies and partners. With bipartisan support, we have launched a modern industrial strategy and already secured historic investments in clean energy, microelectronics manufacturing, research, and development, and biotechnology, and we will work with Congress to fully fund ... > We also are doubling down on our longstanding and asymmetric strategic advantage: attracting and retaining the world’s best talent. Attracting a higher volume of global STEM talent is a priority for our national security and supply chain security, so we will aggressively implement recent visa actions and work with Congress to do more. > These investments will enable the United States to anchor an allied techno-industrial base that will safeguard our shared security, prosperity and values. I'm not sure Calendly is necessarily central to the articulated strategy. And I agree that most tech companies don't produce much of value at all. But the administration seems to think the future direction for the U.S. is tech, especially energy and military tech. And it begs the question: if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China?
- yunwal 4y ago
  > if not tech, what else could give the U.S. an advantage over China? I think in order to have this conversation, we must distinguish tech from the silicon-valley-branded, vc-funded, risky, socially-disconnected tech that’s largely being bailed out here. Tech as in technology can be funded by non-profit research institutions, or arms of the government, or more traditional companies that don’t make slashing regulations, anticompetitive behavior, and socializing losses their business model. If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation.
  - nottathrowaway3 4y ago
    > If Silicon Valley goes under, there will still be plenty of innovation. Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. > socially-disconnected... anticompetitive behavior, socializing losses, slashing regulations Innovation does not equate to social good. But if you recontextualize the software coming out of SV away from social wrongdoings, you have Uber -- a model for work orchestration Netflix/YouTube/Twitch -- video streaming technology Datadog/etc. -- software monitoring technology No established company (besides Apple) would ever put in the investment to develop these kinds of things. I personally dislike SV, and every new DTC marketing startup that raises $50M makes me cringe. The model imposes high social costs as you indicated. But find me another model besides venture capital that has produced similar levels of innovation without the same waste and social cost.
    - yunwal 4y ago
      > Where exactly, though? Ask any big tech worker; they will assure you it's not coming from there. Like I said, non-profit research organizations, branches of government, traditional, sustainably-run companies. The fact that Silicon Valley is boxing all of these things out of the market doesn’t prove they won’t exist. They did before anticompetitive behavior became the business model du jour and they will again.
      - nottathrowaway3 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

<< As Yellen and Powell insinuate, crippling a bunch of startups and making a bunch of pension funds etc. have zero returns -- all because of a monetary system failure -- is not a strategically good decision if they want stability and people to continue investing in tech. So it is not payroll/depositor bailout. It is wall street owner shareholders of those startups bailout. This is the reason some are mildly miffed. That and the mid-game rule change.