4 ms·

They are provably good at allocating resources (assuming they are generating value via real innovation and not through monopoly/rent-seeking) so you want them d

They are provably good at allocating resources (assuming they are generating value via real innovation and not through monopoly/rent-seeking) so you want them doing that. I'd just progressively tax all luxury goods at like 10,000% so that they are encouraged to continue to invest and build more companies rather than creating socially unproductive empires of empty houses and yachts.

tombert 1y ago
> They are provably good at allocating resources (assuming they are generating value via real innovation and not through monopoly/rent-seeking) so you want them doing that. I don't actually even agree with that. Microsoft, for example, seems to routinely overhire and then fire large percentages of their employees (edit, correction, said "corporations" before). I think all they know how to do (I mean this pretty literally) is spend money. They are given money and then they spend that money. Sometimes spending that money leads to growth. Sometimes it leads to having to lay off 20% of the company. The important part is that the money is spent. > I'd just progressively tax all luxury goods at like 10,000% so that they are encouraged to continue to invest and build more companies rather than creating socially unproductive empires of empty houses and yachts. I'm not opposed to what you suggested but I'm not 100% sure how you'd define "luxury goods" with any kind of consistency.
- miljanm 1y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1ckndxx/four_decades_of_microsoft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1ckndxx/four_... it looks like microsoft growth is combination of products, investments and aquisitions. one can say that they spend money wisely.
immibis 1y ago
They are provably good at allocating resources in ways that make them richer. That's all we know. It says nothing about, say, value to society.
- siliconc0w 1y ago
  The money is generally coming from value generation or value extraction (or rent-seeking). You can create societal incentives to encourage generation and discourage extraction. A patent-troll firm is maybe 90% parasitic to 10% productive. SpaceX is probably closer to the opposite (IMO). People are going to play the game to win but its up to society to decide what that means.
  - srean 1y ago
    > The money is generally coming from value generation or value extraction. This is the crux of the matter, a critical assumption. It breaks at many places. One can make a boat load of money by predicting market movements slightly better. The value produced is not zero, but does not seem proportionate. The size of the HFT market seems disproportionate to the value they purportedly produce by removing microsecond scale inefficiencies in the market. A bulk of the futures and options market is not from hedging but just gambling, it's not creating value, at least not in any proportionate sense.
  - immibis 1y ago
    This is vacuous as a followup to the original claim - which was that they're provably good at allocating resources to create value (the last part being implied). "The system is good because it selects the ones who can create value" "No actually they don't create value" "Well, at least we know they're either creating value or destroying it" you see how that doesn't support the original claim at all
srean 1y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44086621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44086621

tombert 1y ago

> They are provably good at allocating resources (assuming they are generating value via real innovation and not through monopoly/rent-seeking) so you want them doing that. I don't actually even agree with that. Microsoft, for example, seems to routinely overhire and then fire large percentages of their employees (edit, correction, said "corporations" before). I think all they know how to do (I mean this pretty literally) is spend money. They are given money and then they spend that money. Sometimes spending that money leads to growth. Sometimes it leads to having to lay off 20% of the company. The important part is that the money is spent. > I'd just progressively tax all luxury goods at like 10,000% so that they are encouraged to continue to invest and build more companies rather than creating socially unproductive empires of empty houses and yachts. I'm not opposed to what you suggested but I'm not 100% sure how you'd define "luxury goods" with any kind of consistency.

miljanm 1y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1ckndxx/four_decades_of_microsoft/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Infographics/comments/1ckndxx/four_... it looks like microsoft growth is combination of products, investments and aquisitions. one can say that they spend money wisely.

immibis 1y ago

They are provably good at allocating resources in ways that make them richer. That's all we know. It says nothing about, say, value to society.

siliconc0w 1y ago
The money is generally coming from value generation or value extraction (or rent-seeking). You can create societal incentives to encourage generation and discourage extraction. A patent-troll firm is maybe 90% parasitic to 10% productive. SpaceX is probably closer to the opposite (IMO). People are going to play the game to win but its up to society to decide what that means.
- srean 1y ago
  > The money is generally coming from value generation or value extraction. This is the crux of the matter, a critical assumption. It breaks at many places. One can make a boat load of money by predicting market movements slightly better. The value produced is not zero, but does not seem proportionate. The size of the HFT market seems disproportionate to the value they purportedly produce by removing microsecond scale inefficiencies in the market. A bulk of the futures and options market is not from hedging but just gambling, it's not creating value, at least not in any proportionate sense.
- immibis 1y ago
  This is vacuous as a followup to the original claim - which was that they're provably good at allocating resources to create value (the last part being implied). "The system is good because it selects the ones who can create value" "No actually they don't create value" "Well, at least we know they're either creating value or destroying it" you see how that doesn't support the original claim at all

srean 1y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44086621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44086621