3 ms·

Saying it's branding is a little disingenuous. I like to joke that NYC is just a brand describing a truly shitty city, but that's not really the case. What I've

Saying it's branding is a little disingenuous. I like to joke that NYC is just a brand describing a truly shitty city, but that's not really the case. What I've noticed about the WSJ is that a lot of the commentary is primarily business focused. There is very little mainstream media that focuses on business with the quality of the WSJ. It's also sort of like the National Enquirer of the business world; so highly niche entertainment as well. There are some realities of actually owning/running a business that are hard to understand if you have not done it before. Realities like how cumbersome and obnoxious most government attempts at regulation are, including and especially taxation. I have yet to meet a person, including prominent SV billionaires, who wouldn't give 100% of their money to the gov't if they thought it was spent well and transparently. The reality is that it is not, and these people feel rightly that they are better allocators of capital than the government, and so oppose taxation. In the Hard Thing About Hard things, Horowitz writes that most management books are written by people who have never even managed a hot dog stand. I think that a publication that is so overwhelming supported and favored by business owners even despite it's obnoxiousness at times must have some underlying value. It's probably best not to dismiss it as 'simple branding' just because you can't wrap your head around that position.

hackuser 11y ago
> There are some realities of actually owning/running a business that are hard to understand if you have not done it before. ... Having done it I don't agree. It's a widely used cover story, 'you can't understand X because you haven't done it', a way to avoid accountability or having to make a reasoned argument. We all have directly experienced only a tiny fraction of the world, yet we use our cognitive abilities to understand much more. I also disagree with your view on taxes and regulation. Our taxes should be higher, certainly more fair (the wealthy sacrifice much less than poorer Americans), and some industries need much stronger regulation, including Wall Street and the medical industries. Finally, government, being a human institution, is flawed; but I have yet to see a business (over a certain size) that doesn't waste money, experience corruption and incompetence, etc. It's a weak argument to simply dismiss serious issues with the unsupported meme that government is somehow relatively incompetent. Of course many agree with you. Some have good arguments, some are merely self-interested (who wants to pay more or have to follow rules?), many merely parrot what the read in the WSJ. You can identify the latter by the consistent use of the same talking points. Finally, the condescension is unnecessary. If you have a good argument, people will be pursuaded. The condescension brands everything else you say as part of the same rant, not to be taken seriously.

hackuser 11y ago

> There are some realities of actually owning/running a business that are hard to understand if you have not done it before. ... Having done it I don't agree. It's a widely used cover story, 'you can't understand X because you haven't done it', a way to avoid accountability or having to make a reasoned argument. We all have directly experienced only a tiny fraction of the world, yet we use our cognitive abilities to understand much more. I also disagree with your view on taxes and regulation. Our taxes should be higher, certainly more fair (the wealthy sacrifice much less than poorer Americans), and some industries need much stronger regulation, including Wall Street and the medical industries. Finally, government, being a human institution, is flawed; but I have yet to see a business (over a certain size) that doesn't waste money, experience corruption and incompetence, etc. It's a weak argument to simply dismiss serious issues with the unsupported meme that government is somehow relatively incompetent. Of course many agree with you. Some have good arguments, some are merely self-interested (who wants to pay more or have to follow rules?), many merely parrot what the read in the WSJ. You can identify the latter by the consistent use of the same talking points. Finally, the condescension is unnecessary. If you have a good argument, people will be pursuaded. The condescension brands everything else you say as part of the same rant, not to be taken seriously.