3 ms·

The crux of the article is this: "So the bottom line for me is that the venture capital business is not going to solve this problem we are in. We are going to p

The crux of the article is this: "So the bottom line for me is that the venture capital business is not going to solve this problem we are in. We are going to play a role, possibly an important role, but we'll need more forms of job creation to get everyone back to work." That, I wholeheartedly agree with. Unfortunately, it seems that it will take a while for housing prices to deflate enough and for people's wage expectation to decrease enough that utilizing American workers becomes cost effective again. Will there be enough capital around to finance the shift of production back home? Will other countries continue to underbid domestic goods? Are we in fact heading to a more "normal" level of unemployment (we have usually had a comparatively low rate, globally speaking) ?

alecco 18y ago
IMHO, solving the problem will be much harder than that. US is highly based on a plan of idealized life through media. A typical lifestyle of the suburbs: * Multiple cars per family and doing heavy commuting. * Huge houses with high bills and maintenance. * Consumerism based on filling those houses and cars with non-essential disposable items. All those millions living with that mindset apply those same rules at work. There are great exceptions, but their size is not relevant to the national bottom-line. Now apply that to venture and you get what doesn't work. PG is on this problem often. Perhaps a bit too Socratic-style for my taste. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) I never understood how the economy worked in the US with so much waste. Now with this crisis I get it, it never did. US needs a culture shock urgently. (A bailout is more of the same, IMHO.)
- HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
  Now with this crisis I get it, it never did You're summing up 50 years of post WWII history into the last 10 years? Good luck with that. The economy works just fine with hat you call "waste." Nothing humans do will ever be close to 100% efficient for any length of time. We're messy that way! The bottom line is that most people the world over will generally live just within their means (or just over if there is sufficient credit) and you may as well get used to that. Living "efficiently" is normally done only by those who have little in the way of resources (in which case they're normally living barely within their means), or by the handwringing worriers who have plenty but feel guilty about it.
  - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
    Have you looked at household debt vs wage since WWII? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-income_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-income_ratio What we are seeing is the unraveling of that process -- since the 30 year fixed mortgage was widely available from the FHA and the VA, the amount of debt we've been willing to shoulder has increased over time. With increased living expenses (college costs, et cetera) and flat wages, how have americans maintained their standard of living?? Home Equity lines of credit... MORE DEBT! Living on less isn't just for "handwringing worriers who have plenty but feel guilty about it", it is the prudent thing to do. Then again, prudence isn't hot or hip.
    - jonhohle 18y ago
      i think people don't think about how easy access to loans/funds inflates the price of a good. banks were falling over themselves to give people money, and realtors were happy to take as much of it as they could; if no one has $500,000 for a house, houses aren't going to cost $500,000.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  It also isn't globally scalable -- consider the acres per person that the American lifestyle requires.
  - jodrellblank 18y ago
    Consider the acres per person that America has.
    - alecco 18y ago
      He probably means the amount of acres required to support the suburban lifestyle. For example it demands more roads, more mining operations, more resource extracting for goods and energy. You don't see it as much because that gets outsourced, too. China is already suffering the consequences of this with the worst pollution levels in history. Remember this affects us all in the long run.
      - gravitycop 18y ago
        to support the suburban lifestyle [...] demands more roads, more mining operations, more resource extracting for goods and energy. A mine is not a permanent use of land. Greater demand for mined materials does not imply greater numbers of mines. Existing mines might simply be made deeper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine And the minerals in greater demand might also be substituted (e.g. copper for telecommunication wires by silicon for fiber optics). Regarding the potential for being paved over by suburbia: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR09.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... of the 2.3 billion acres in the U.S. as of 1987, all the land taken up by cities, highways, non-agricultural roads, railroads, and airports amounts to only 82 million acres - just 3.6 percent of the total. Clearly there is very little competition between agriculture on the one side, and cities and roads on the other. Concerning the trends: from 1920 to 1987, land in urban and transportation uses rose from 29 million acres to 82 million acres - a change of 2.3 percent of the total area of the U.S. During those fifty-seven years, population increased from 106 million to 243 million people. Even if this trend were to continue (population growth has slowed down), there would be an almost unnoticeable impact on U.S. agriculture, just as in past decades (see figure 9-2). Concerning the notion that the U.S. is being "paved over," as of 1974 the U.S. Department of Agriculture's official view was that "we are in no danger of running out of farmland."
- astrid 18y ago
  Wich also means that America has a confortable margin to improve. Their own genius lies in pragmatism, I wouldn't bet against them when necessity joins the game.
  - alecco 18y ago
    Indeed! US was a beacon of freedom before the Bush administration, together with France. Making an analogy to free software, US is BSD and France is GPL. For example France forces its citizens to be free, like a recent case denying citizenship to a very submissive Muslim-traditionalist woman as she was admittedly waiving her rights for her husband's. Also US has a gigantic human capital with well educated population. It is a bit hard, but IMHO the change has to start with media. Perhaps applying existing laws against the advertisement cartel. But this is the French-style of freedom. I don't know.
    - yters 18y ago
      That's a funny kind of freedom.
      - omouse 18y ago
        Not really. It's freedom defending itself. The freedom to take away your own freedom...sounds kind of silly don't you think?
        netcan 18y ago
        I've thought about these kinds of things often lately. Freedom defending itself, democracy defending itself & such. What should be done about anti-democratic parties in a democratic society? Those kinds of things. I am coming to the conclusion that you hit a breaking point if this becomes to big an issue. Sure it's ok to handle it one way or another if the above party is at <5%. But once they near the 50% mark, it's game over. You cannot defend democracy or freedom without compromising it. Same goes in this case. When it's a once a year case, that's one thing. But if you have a large number voluntarily relinquishing freedoms, it is no longer a free state.

alecco 18y ago

IMHO, solving the problem will be much harder than that. US is highly based on a plan of idealized life through media. A typical lifestyle of the suburbs: * Multiple cars per family and doing heavy commuting. * Huge houses with high bills and maintenance. * Consumerism based on filling those houses and cars with non-essential disposable items. All those millions living with that mindset apply those same rules at work. There are great exceptions, but their size is not relevant to the national bottom-line. Now apply that to venture and you get what doesn't work. PG is on this problem often. Perhaps a bit too Socratic-style for my taste. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method) I never understood how the economy worked in the US with so much waste. Now with this crisis I get it, it never did. US needs a culture shock urgently. (A bailout is more of the same, IMHO.)

HeyLaughingBoy 18y ago
Now with this crisis I get it, it never did You're summing up 50 years of post WWII history into the last 10 years? Good luck with that. The economy works just fine with hat you call "waste." Nothing humans do will ever be close to 100% efficient for any length of time. We're messy that way! The bottom line is that most people the world over will generally live just within their means (or just over if there is sufficient credit) and you may as well get used to that. Living "efficiently" is normally done only by those who have little in the way of resources (in which case they're normally living barely within their means), or by the handwringing worriers who have plenty but feel guilty about it.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  Have you looked at household debt vs wage since WWII? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-income_ratio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-income_ratio What we are seeing is the unraveling of that process -- since the 30 year fixed mortgage was widely available from the FHA and the VA, the amount of debt we've been willing to shoulder has increased over time. With increased living expenses (college costs, et cetera) and flat wages, how have americans maintained their standard of living?? Home Equity lines of credit... MORE DEBT! Living on less isn't just for "handwringing worriers who have plenty but feel guilty about it", it is the prudent thing to do. Then again, prudence isn't hot or hip.
  - jonhohle 18y ago
    i think people don't think about how easy access to loans/funds inflates the price of a good. banks were falling over themselves to give people money, and realtors were happy to take as much of it as they could; if no one has $500,000 for a house, houses aren't going to cost $500,000.
aaronblohowiak 18y ago
It also isn't globally scalable -- consider the acres per person that the American lifestyle requires.
- jodrellblank 18y ago
  Consider the acres per person that America has.
  - alecco 18y ago
    He probably means the amount of acres required to support the suburban lifestyle. For example it demands more roads, more mining operations, more resource extracting for goods and energy. You don't see it as much because that gets outsourced, too. China is already suffering the consequences of this with the worst pollution levels in history. Remember this affects us all in the long run.
    - gravitycop 18y ago
      to support the suburban lifestyle [...] demands more roads, more mining operations, more resource extracting for goods and energy. A mine is not a permanent use of land. Greater demand for mined materials does not imply greater numbers of mines. Existing mines might simply be made deeper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingham_Canyon_Mine And the minerals in greater demand might also be substituted (e.g. copper for telecommunication wires by silicon for fiber optics). Regarding the potential for being paved over by suburbia: http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR09.txt http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR0... of the 2.3 billion acres in the U.S. as of 1987, all the land taken up by cities, highways, non-agricultural roads, railroads, and airports amounts to only 82 million acres - just 3.6 percent of the total. Clearly there is very little competition between agriculture on the one side, and cities and roads on the other. Concerning the trends: from 1920 to 1987, land in urban and transportation uses rose from 29 million acres to 82 million acres - a change of 2.3 percent of the total area of the U.S. During those fifty-seven years, population increased from 106 million to 243 million people. Even if this trend were to continue (population growth has slowed down), there would be an almost unnoticeable impact on U.S. agriculture, just as in past decades (see figure 9-2). Concerning the notion that the U.S. is being "paved over," as of 1974 the U.S. Department of Agriculture's official view was that "we are in no danger of running out of farmland."
astrid 18y ago
Wich also means that America has a confortable margin to improve. Their own genius lies in pragmatism, I wouldn't bet against them when necessity joins the game.
- alecco 18y ago
  Indeed! US was a beacon of freedom before the Bush administration, together with France. Making an analogy to free software, US is BSD and France is GPL. For example France forces its citizens to be free, like a recent case denying citizenship to a very submissive Muslim-traditionalist woman as she was admittedly waiving her rights for her husband's. Also US has a gigantic human capital with well educated population. It is a bit hard, but IMHO the change has to start with media. Perhaps applying existing laws against the advertisement cartel. But this is the French-style of freedom. I don't know.
  - yters 18y ago
    That's a funny kind of freedom.
    - omouse 18y ago
      Not really. It's freedom defending itself. The freedom to take away your own freedom...sounds kind of silly don't you think?
      - netcan 18y ago
        I've thought about these kinds of things often lately. Freedom defending itself, democracy defending itself & such. What should be done about anti-democratic parties in a democratic society? Those kinds of things. I am coming to the conclusion that you hit a breaking point if this becomes to big an issue. Sure it's ok to handle it one way or another if the above party is at <5%. But once they near the 50% mark, it's game over. You cannot defend democracy or freedom without compromising it. Same goes in this case. When it's a once a year case, that's one thing. But if you have a large number voluntarily relinquishing freedoms, it is no longer a free state.