6 ms·

I don't think that's really the point of al3x's post. I think it's more we should be very worried that someone with such a balck & white, infantile view of soci

by corford 12y ago

I don't think that's really the point of al3x's post. I think it's more we should be very worried that someone with such a balck & white, infantile view of society and economy is in a position to throw billions of dollars at advancing his world view. I love technology but fear for the world we'll end up with if people like pmarca are left to pull the levers.

rdl 12y ago
I would sure rather have pmarca pulling the levers rather than people like {politicians, bankers, ...}.
- edwinnathaniel 12y ago
  What makes you think pmarca is different than {anybody with lots of money and are human being with desires}
  - rdl 12y ago
    He's fundamentally a nerd, and optimistic about humanity. That's enough to be better than 95% of people in power.
    - mattgreenrocks 12y ago
      That sounds like you presume he's like you, so he's OK.
      - rdl 12y ago
        That's actually wrong. I'm not optimistic about humanity. pmarca seems to be, which is why I like reading him (and Thiel, etc.), even though I don't totally believe everything they say. I think the world would be better with more pmarcas, though. I may be a nerd, but I'm willing to bet basically everyone on HN shares that trait.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- cariss 12y ago
  He isn't backed by the coercive power of the state, for one thing.
  - steveklabnik 12y ago
    Owners of capital and private property don't rely on the coercive power of the state to maintain their ownership? News to me.
- corford 12y ago
  How about neither of the above :) I'd prefer that.
wutbrodo 12y ago
I'm genuinely curious why you think that he has a black and white view of society. It seems like the one-dimensional, black-and-white technocrat view you're ascribing to him wouldn't be in full support of "creating an sustaining a vigorous social safety net", right? The only arguments I've ever heard against "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" are the kind of blatantly cynical strawmen used in the article: > Meanwhile, we don’t need to wait until a hypercapitalist techno-utopia emerges to do right by our struggling neighbors. We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow. Instead, you’re kicking the can down the road and hoping the can will turn into a robot with a market solution. Isn't that Andreessen's whole fucking point? From reading his remarks, it seems evident that he _does_ think that we should "vote to pay for universal healthcare, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow". Who the hell said anything about _waiting_ for a hypercapitalist utopia? And how the hell is a "vigorous social safety net" hypercapitalist?
- corford 12y ago
  My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. No one is hampering technological progress. Instead a lot of people are (correctly imho) not willing to blindly succumb to it on a promise from those at the top that it will all work out in the end. Everyone is a stake holder in society and entitled to their own fears, hopes and beliefs. pmarca has his, the guy about to be replaced by a robot does too. A responsible society listens to both and figures out an equitable compromise. The problem is pmarca has billions of dollars available to bolster his position in the debate. The guy on the factory flaw does not. A second problem (for me at least) is that what pmarca says and what pmarca does often appear to be two different things.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    > My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. > No one is hampering technological progress. I'm sorry, but this could not be more wrong. This is what the entire conversation is _about_. Protecting jobs that do things less efficiently (higher cost, lower output, worse quality by some other metric, whatever) is a HUGE topic of discussion and something that a lot of the country still thinks makes sense[1], despite the fact that it transfers wealth from arbitrary consumers (even the poor) to arbitrary workers (regardless of income), and destroys wealth overall. I've yet to hear a single credible argument for why this is not infinitely worse than maximizing the total amount of wealth (by using the best tool for each job, be it robots or workers) and then explicitly redistributing it the way we want (so transfers will come from e.g. the rich and go to those who need it, like the poor and the sick). The arbitrary, untargeted welfare system that protecting inefficient jobs entails is obviously going to give you a lot more people receiving transfers who don't need it (i.e. middle-to-high income) and a lot more people losing wealth who do need it (consumers who have low incomes). It is a very important point (and one that I've given a lot of thought to) that obsoleting people's jobs _requires_ the robust safety net for them (which we simply don't have in the US), and going full-speed ahead with technology while failing to implement the safety net can be dangerous. That's just an argument for pushing that much harder for a robust safety net (which is something any reasonable person in the US has been doing for decades, at least). Even this distinction is irrelevant when we're talking about someone's view of what the optimal solution would be: you start from an optimal solution (don't intentionally gimp productivity, use the gains from higher productivity to provide a safety net for those who get left behind) and then try to push it through the layers of politics etc that's required to get it actually working. Shouting it down at the ideas phase is just gonna end up with a system where [1] c.f. all the complaints about replacing workers with robots in factories etc

by corford 12y ago

rdl 12y ago

I would sure rather have pmarca pulling the levers rather than people like {politicians, bankers, ...}.

edwinnathaniel 12y ago
What makes you think pmarca is different than {anybody with lots of money and are human being with desires}
- rdl 12y ago
  He's fundamentally a nerd, and optimistic about humanity. That's enough to be better than 95% of people in power.
  - mattgreenrocks 12y ago
    That sounds like you presume he's like you, so he's OK.
    - rdl 12y ago
      That's actually wrong. I'm not optimistic about humanity. pmarca seems to be, which is why I like reading him (and Thiel, etc.), even though I don't totally believe everything they say. I think the world would be better with more pmarcas, though. I may be a nerd, but I'm willing to bet basically everyone on HN shares that trait.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
cariss 12y ago
He isn't backed by the coercive power of the state, for one thing.
- steveklabnik 12y ago
  Owners of capital and private property don't rely on the coercive power of the state to maintain their ownership? News to me.
corford 12y ago
How about neither of the above :) I'd prefer that.

wutbrodo 12y ago

I'm genuinely curious why you think that he has a black and white view of society. It seems like the one-dimensional, black-and-white technocrat view you're ascribing to him wouldn't be in full support of "creating an sustaining a vigorous social safety net", right? The only arguments I've ever heard against "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" are the kind of blatantly cynical strawmen used in the article: > Meanwhile, we don’t need to wait until a hypercapitalist techno-utopia emerges to do right by our struggling neighbors. We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow. Instead, you’re kicking the can down the road and hoping the can will turn into a robot with a market solution. Isn't that Andreessen's whole fucking point? From reading his remarks, it seems evident that he _does_ think that we should "vote to pay for universal healthcare, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow". Who the hell said anything about _waiting_ for a hypercapitalist utopia? And how the hell is a "vigorous social safety net" hypercapitalist?

corford 12y ago
My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. No one is hampering technological progress. Instead a lot of people are (correctly imho) not willing to blindly succumb to it on a promise from those at the top that it will all work out in the end. Everyone is a stake holder in society and entitled to their own fears, hopes and beliefs. pmarca has his, the guy about to be replaced by a robot does too. A responsible society listens to both and figures out an equitable compromise. The problem is pmarca has billions of dollars available to bolster his position in the debate. The guy on the factory flaw does not. A second problem (for me at least) is that what pmarca says and what pmarca does often appear to be two different things.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  > My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. > No one is hampering technological progress. I'm sorry, but this could not be more wrong. This is what the entire conversation is _about_. Protecting jobs that do things less efficiently (higher cost, lower output, worse quality by some other metric, whatever) is a HUGE topic of discussion and something that a lot of the country still thinks makes sense[1], despite the fact that it transfers wealth from arbitrary consumers (even the poor) to arbitrary workers (regardless of income), and destroys wealth overall. I've yet to hear a single credible argument for why this is not infinitely worse than maximizing the total amount of wealth (by using the best tool for each job, be it robots or workers) and then explicitly redistributing it the way we want (so transfers will come from e.g. the rich and go to those who need it, like the poor and the sick). The arbitrary, untargeted welfare system that protecting inefficient jobs entails is obviously going to give you a lot more people receiving transfers who don't need it (i.e. middle-to-high income) and a lot more people losing wealth who do need it (consumers who have low incomes). It is a very important point (and one that I've given a lot of thought to) that obsoleting people's jobs _requires_ the robust safety net for them (which we simply don't have in the US), and going full-speed ahead with technology while failing to implement the safety net can be dangerous. That's just an argument for pushing that much harder for a robust safety net (which is something any reasonable person in the US has been doing for decades, at least). Even this distinction is irrelevant when we're talking about someone's view of what the optimal solution would be: you start from an optimal solution (don't intentionally gimp productivity, use the gains from higher productivity to provide a safety net for those who get left behind) and then try to push it through the layers of politics etc that's required to get it actually working. Shouting it down at the ideas phase is just gonna end up with a system where [1] c.f. all the complaints about replacing workers with robots in factories etc