6 ms·

Why did you imply that Mark Zuckerberg would be the candidate? A commentor in the blog post did the same, but I did not expect this from Hacker News, when Cuba

by vlad 18y ago

Why did you imply that Mark Zuckerberg would be the candidate? A commentor in the blog post did the same, but I did not expect this from Hacker News, when Cuban did not imply at all it should be Zuckerberg or anyone else inexperienced. The people you talk to about matters of economy and finance are people with a background in finance and economics. Cuban did not say there was anything wrong with such experts, but that the team should have someone who runs a small business for a living, that's all. For example, I just thought of an almost identical situation. Ron Paul's campaign advisor on the economy, and one of the two people who predicted the economic collapse in detail two years ago, is also an active entrepreneur. Now, Cuban did not say it has to be someone who is much of an expert, but it doesn't mean it should be some entrepreneur with zero economy experience. I honestly don't see Mark Zuckerberg lecturing Robert Rubin and Warren Buffet on how to save the economy... Cuban clearly implies he wants a good candidate, and not for example, a 23 year old web 2.0 hero. Also, Cuban went out of his way to include franchise owners, mom and pop store owners, and independent contractor's all over the country in his definition of entrepreneur. Besides distorting Cuban's points, I think it is very limiting to think that entrepreneurs are 20 year old founders of web startups, when they could be 45 or 65-year-old economists who have also started multiple startups in their life, whenever you hear the e-word.

mixmax 18y ago
Mark Zuckerberg was just the one that sprung to mind, but I think the argument would be pretty much the same if I had used Jeff Bezos - who was a stockbroker before he founded Amazon, and thus should be somewhat experienced in macroeconomy. My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business. This is nothing bad about Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or any other entrepreneur - I just think that you should get the best man for the job. I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone. It's simply not his expertise.
- vlad 18y ago
  I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone. While I have to agree that it would be hard to find such versatile people, the argument is not logical. If a implies b, it doesn't mean that b implies a. If it did work that way, then it would mean any CIO could never make a great expert on finance and economy, and vice versa, and that's not qualifiable (or realistic.) I just think that you should get the best man for the job. It is not qualifiable that Obama has found the best man (or woman) for the job. Therefore, it is not qualifiable that entrepreneurs should not feel they should be represented by some economist or expert in finance who has entrepreneurial experience. Somebody who has their money tied to their business, as Cuban said, and depends on their business for all of their income, is the kind of entrepreneur who should be represented. I believe Mark's point is that the economists advising Obama make money as government employees, company executives, book publishers, researches, faculty, or similar--I made this up, but if they're not entrepreneurs, they must be getting paid some other way. (In fact, to add my own thoughts, many high-ranking economists and high-ranking finance experts could have been a part of the problem in the first place, while at the same time, entrepreneurs spent the same years trying to create value for their customers. They: create value in order to make money, actually have contact with real, "regular" people, try to solve people's existing and future problems after listening to these "regular" people, and do so because they've chosen to bet almost all of their income and quality of life on solving problems. This is completely different from being a professor or book author, tv personality, and, in some way, having a hand in creating the problem in the first place.) My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business. I think my points about how an entrepreneurial perspective could be beneficial as well as that entrepreneurs could definitely be experts on the economy argue your point, but I also want to note that Cuban mentions having one experienced entrepreneur representing one person on the committee, not necessarily a committee full of entrepreneurs (never mind all without experience in finance, and all relatively young, and all from Silicon Valley, to boot.) So, of course you need many experts as well as those with political connections on the committee. But at least one expert should have entrepreneurial experience. He even goes out of his way to point out several times that Buffett isn't an entrepreneur in the same sense that most entrepreneurs are small mom-and-pop shops and independent contractors. Of course, I could be mistaken--maybe Mark Cuban did imply that he wants a great entrepreneur advising on the economy, whether or not they have economic experience--but I just did not read it that way, and it would be hard to argue that a sane person would want any random entrepreneur. I've heard Cuban has an ego, but I don't think it's that big. :) (And again, such people exist, like the economic advisor to Ron Paul, as well as likely hundreds of other great choices. I think that Obama and the existing committee would not mind having an entrepreneur on board, and Cuban's post is a great way to point out this missing piece.) I think we (the News.YC users) saw items in the blog post that made us want to discuss it, but of course, we saw different things. In my view, I didn't see anything wrong in his post, therefore causing me to think that it's a good idea for him to try to get a search for an entrepreneur started, and I wanted to provide what I thought. Thanks!

by vlad 18y ago

mixmax 18y ago

Mark Zuckerberg was just the one that sprung to mind, but I think the argument would be pretty much the same if I had used Jeff Bezos - who was a stockbroker before he founded Amazon, and thus should be somewhat experienced in macroeconomy. My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business. This is nothing bad about Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or any other entrepreneur - I just think that you should get the best man for the job. I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone. It's simply not his expertise.

vlad 18y ago
I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone. While I have to agree that it would be hard to find such versatile people, the argument is not logical. If a implies b, it doesn't mean that b implies a. If it did work that way, then it would mean any CIO could never make a great expert on finance and economy, and vice versa, and that's not qualifiable (or realistic.) I just think that you should get the best man for the job. It is not qualifiable that Obama has found the best man (or woman) for the job. Therefore, it is not qualifiable that entrepreneurs should not feel they should be represented by some economist or expert in finance who has entrepreneurial experience. Somebody who has their money tied to their business, as Cuban said, and depends on their business for all of their income, is the kind of entrepreneur who should be represented. I believe Mark's point is that the economists advising Obama make money as government employees, company executives, book publishers, researches, faculty, or similar--I made this up, but if they're not entrepreneurs, they must be getting paid some other way. (In fact, to add my own thoughts, many high-ranking economists and high-ranking finance experts could have been a part of the problem in the first place, while at the same time, entrepreneurs spent the same years trying to create value for their customers. They: create value in order to make money, actually have contact with real, "regular" people, try to solve people's existing and future problems after listening to these "regular" people, and do so because they've chosen to bet almost all of their income and quality of life on solving problems. This is completely different from being a professor or book author, tv personality, and, in some way, having a hand in creating the problem in the first place.) My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business. I think my points about how an entrepreneurial perspective could be beneficial as well as that entrepreneurs could definitely be experts on the economy argue your point, but I also want to note that Cuban mentions having one experienced entrepreneur representing one person on the committee, not necessarily a committee full of entrepreneurs (never mind all without experience in finance, and all relatively young, and all from Silicon Valley, to boot.) So, of course you need many experts as well as those with political connections on the committee. But at least one expert should have entrepreneurial experience. He even goes out of his way to point out several times that Buffett isn't an entrepreneur in the same sense that most entrepreneurs are small mom-and-pop shops and independent contractors. Of course, I could be mistaken--maybe Mark Cuban did imply that he wants a great entrepreneur advising on the economy, whether or not they have economic experience--but I just did not read it that way, and it would be hard to argue that a sane person would want any random entrepreneur. I've heard Cuban has an ego, but I don't think it's that big. :) (And again, such people exist, like the economic advisor to Ron Paul, as well as likely hundreds of other great choices. I think that Obama and the existing committee would not mind having an entrepreneur on board, and Cuban's post is a great way to point out this missing piece.) I think we (the News.YC users) saw items in the blog post that made us want to discuss it, but of course, we saw different things. In my view, I didn't see anything wrong in his post, therefore causing me to think that it's a good idea for him to try to get a search for an entrepreneur started, and I wanted to provide what I thought. Thanks!