Marca's words: [https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/]
But how do you get from "technology solves problems" to:
> We believe free markets are the most effective way to organize a technological economy.
> The market naturally disciplines
> Markets prevent monopolies and cartels.
If 2007-2009 showed how Laissez faire rules doesn't work 2020-2022 showed how centralized planning expert rules doesn't work
What do you mean by this?
The cure was worse than the disease when it came to central plannings response
https://www.britannica.com/money/topic/economic-system/Centr...
I for one would have loved some more substance to your post...
I would stand up to defend your right to read and enjoy a good book by a person that you aren't an expert in.
In general, I try to start by extending the benefit of doubt. It seems like nobody here stopped to wonder if pmarca had any idea that the dude wrote the Fascist Manifesto. And if he didn't, does he still deserve to be shamed for enjoying his other work without Googling him first?
What if you found out the author of the last thing you read was a fascist after the fact? Should we be mad at you?
Do you Google the author of everything you read? If so, that sounds exhausting.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/log...
Instead, I propose that he's been breathing different oxygen for so long that he's long since started believing his own legend. Frankly, I just don't believe that he has anyone in his life who would serve as a grounding influence, and I find this really sad.
Anyhow, I jumped into the thread because I find calling someone demonstrably brilliant an "uneducated, delusional moron" might feel good but it distracts from the real discussion.
I can believe that pmarca is wrong about many things, but that doesn't make him a moron. pmarca is clearly not a moron. If you have a huge problem with his opinions, writing him off as a moron is intellectually lazy and it won't advance your position.
In other words, we were both replying to a comment that did indeed call him a moron.
As the other poster said it's not relevant how smart someone is in one arena because they can have dogshit opinions in others.
https://www.chess.com/blog/Rodgy/the-genius-craze-of-bobby-f...
> We can advance to a far superior way of living, and of being.
One good first step is to end royalty/billionaires.
I can't even tell what kind of response you're looking for.
That’s not an equality mechanism, that’s a way to drive successful companies into the ground by the government seizing and selling them off.
So seriously think about how a wealth tax would work and come back with a proposal that justifies why a company like SpaceX should be seized by the government.
Who exactly is the government "seizing and selling off" Elon's shares to in your scenario?
And why does the answer to that question imply the company will be driven into the ground?
At $150bn market cap, you just need a maximum of 151 shareholders (I'm not going to bother to look up Elon's ownership percentage of SpaceX) worth of dilution to ensure no billionaires.
Again, these 151 individuals would remain grossly wealthy.
And certainly there are large companies today without a single shareholder holding $1 billion.
Again, it's really not hard to imagine a world where no single person owns more than $1 billion of collective capital and equity, and still operates in a capitalist fashion.
Edit: McDonald's (market cap $190bn) is 70% owned by large institutional investors, a meager 0.31% combined by executives in the company, and the rest is the general public with no dominant shareholder.
A wealth tax implies the government, either federal or state that implements it.
>And why does the answer to that question imply the company will be driven into the ground?
Because companies with long shot visions cannot be run by committee. There is far too much temptation to sell out early. Elon very specifically holds the majority of SpaceX to ensure the vision of going to Mars doesn’t get disrupted by the quest for profit.
>And certainly there are large companies today without a single shareholder holding $1 billion.
Certainly, and they are beholden to the quarterly report and the whims of board politics.
>owned by large institutional investors, a meager 0.31% combined by executives in the company, and the rest is the general public with no dominant shareholder.
And what has McDonald’s done that’s innovative in the last 20 years?
>Again, it's really not hard to imagine a world where no single person owns more than $1 billion of collective capital and equity, and still operates in a capitalist fashion.
Of course it’s not hard to imagine. It’s not any less of a dumb idea though. Forcing a weird ceiling on control of a business when the original goal was a wealth tax is pretty absurd. Is the goal to strip away ability to control the company or is it to just tap into the potential wealth those shares represent?
"Sorry, this castle is a tourist attraction, and will also hold a vibrant community center. Your input to the legislature will now take the form of an ordinary citizen's letter to your elected representative. Those vast tracts of land currently used for fox hunting will be great for nature preservation and the outdoor enjoyment of everyone. No worries, you'll be set you up in a nice apartment in a pleasant area, with a livable pension, and a public transit pass. Not sure how how we'll re-stamp all the coinage, but we'll figure it out, and we have more resources now."
If you don't struggle, you'll end up in a nice apartment in a pleasant area, with a livable pension and a public transit pass.
This is the long form version of Think Different[1] but instead of a mass market "misfit" consumer, the primary target here is a "misfit" consumer that is a ultra high network accredited investor (a.k.a. someone who hasn't talked to a poor person in a while either). Basically a pitch to become a potential A16Z LP and join the "in" club.
[1] Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do. — Steve Jobs, 1997
https://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/12/14/the-real...