3 ms·

>I think even he is a little averse to straight up saying it out loud (we’ve discussed it many times): software and product outcomes have gone to shit because w

>I think even he is a little averse to straight up saying it out loud (we’ve discussed it many times): software and product outcomes have gone to shit because we don’t enforce anti-trust law already on the books, let alone update it in light of 50 Moore doublings. None of the examples of crappy software from the OP are Magnificent 7 companies, are they? Those companies seem to be capable of hiring the best talent. A critical input into the build vs buy decision is whether your company is actually capable of building. Suppose Dan was advising the company that made the crappy Postgres/Snowflake sync software on whether to build vs buy a supporting component. Given that their main product is already crap, can they really be expected to build a better supporting component in-house? Seems like they might as well buy, and focus their energy on fixing the main product. Dan advocates vertical integration here, and elsewhere says engineers get better compensation from FAANG than startups. This suggests that big companies made up of lots of talented engineers have natural efficiencies, relative to the alternatives. A natural interpretation of "antitrust" is: break companies up into their smaller business units. That basically replaces an in-house "build" relationship with an inter-business "buy" relationship. So it seems antithetical to the OP. Dan, if you're reading this, I encourage you to write a reply here on HN tearing me apart, like you did to all the other HN commenters.

benreesman 2y ago
Your build/buy analysis is pretty astute if you accept the axioms: when reasonable people disagree firmly it’s almost always their starting assumptions. I’ll challenge the notion that enriching mediocre people at the expense of society is either reasonable or useful. Enlightenment ideals around the sanctity of personal property fall apart when you extrapolate that to millions of people in passive index funds who don’t vote on governance. Neither the United States Constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the Geneva Conventions have any protections for rent seeking assholes as a bloc. Don’t shoot the messenger: in my reading of history either one group backs down or the other slaughters them. I’m lobbying for the peaceful resolution.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  Your analysis seems really handwavey. Of course, rent seeking is not considered particularly valuable. But some amount is inevitable. You haven't been very specific about the rule change that you think would reduce rent seeking, or why you believe it would be helpful.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    I see very little downside in an extreme form of campaign finance reform where basically any interaction between industry and legislature is deemed briber and treason and is a capital crime. I’ll also advocate for a punitive wealth tax: not to raise revenue (who cares) but to cripple billionaires who aspire to nation state power. 50 million seems like plenty to live in arbitrary luxury but not enough to buy policy. Seize everything above that.
    - benreesman 2y ago
      Today this is a comment. It will become a proposal. Then it will become an ultimatum. What happens after that is unclear. War possibly.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
      >basically any interaction between industry and legislature If legislature doesn't talk to industry before regulating, expect lots of incompetent, ignorant, economy-crippling regulation. You don't have to change anything in the US if you want this. Just move to Germany. >cripple billionaires You might be able to persuade Trump of this, actually, if you sell it as increasing his power over the other billionaires. More seriously -- It sounds like you have a strong desire to live in an authoritarian country, where the state possesses unchallenged primacy over its citizens. I support your right to do that. There are many available to choose from. I'll bet if you do enough research, you can even identify an authoritarian country which also has crippling regulations. That should be perfect.
      - benreesman 2y ago

benreesman 2y ago

Your build/buy analysis is pretty astute if you accept the axioms: when reasonable people disagree firmly it’s almost always their starting assumptions. I’ll challenge the notion that enriching mediocre people at the expense of society is either reasonable or useful. Enlightenment ideals around the sanctity of personal property fall apart when you extrapolate that to millions of people in passive index funds who don’t vote on governance. Neither the United States Constitution nor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights nor the Geneva Conventions have any protections for rent seeking assholes as a bloc. Don’t shoot the messenger: in my reading of history either one group backs down or the other slaughters them. I’m lobbying for the peaceful resolution.

0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
Your analysis seems really handwavey. Of course, rent seeking is not considered particularly valuable. But some amount is inevitable. You haven't been very specific about the rule change that you think would reduce rent seeking, or why you believe it would be helpful.
- benreesman 2y ago
  I see very little downside in an extreme form of campaign finance reform where basically any interaction between industry and legislature is deemed briber and treason and is a capital crime. I’ll also advocate for a punitive wealth tax: not to raise revenue (who cares) but to cripple billionaires who aspire to nation state power. 50 million seems like plenty to live in arbitrary luxury but not enough to buy policy. Seize everything above that.
  - benreesman 2y ago
    Today this is a comment. It will become a proposal. Then it will become an ultimatum. What happens after that is unclear. War possibly.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    >basically any interaction between industry and legislature If legislature doesn't talk to industry before regulating, expect lots of incompetent, ignorant, economy-crippling regulation. You don't have to change anything in the US if you want this. Just move to Germany. >cripple billionaires You might be able to persuade Trump of this, actually, if you sell it as increasing his power over the other billionaires. More seriously -- It sounds like you have a strong desire to live in an authoritarian country, where the state possesses unchallenged primacy over its citizens. I support your right to do that. There are many available to choose from. I'll bet if you do enough research, you can even identify an authoritarian country which also has crippling regulations. That should be perfect.
    - benreesman 2y ago