Hacker News Reader

Comment by rconti | Hacker News Reader

I was thinking about this the other day in regard to Flock. There's simply no way this company will fail, despite the public outcry, because the rich people in charge will not _let_ it fail.

View on HN

Of course it can fail, just like the AI circular investment moves can fail just like the Soviet Union failed. Too much decisive power in too few hands, disconnected from reality, disconnected from competition, disconnected from outside community criticism. It fails open loop. A lot of money can temporarily buffer the failure, but already we see world wide inflation and interest rate increases from the open loop decisions of the most powerful class.

or it can not fail, like North Korea

> or it can not fail, like North Korea

It's worth noting North Korea probably is not a failure for Kim Jong Un an his ilk, it's just a failure for most other North Koreans.

That's probably a happy end-state for these "Cancer Capitalists."

I don't have a sufficient understanding of how North Korea operates to assess that - too much my information about North Korea is propogandistic sound bites. I do know they have had famines in decades past, and don't think they have them now, so that suggests their economic/industrial strategies are a least passing a minimum threshold of being connected to reality.

Look at Silicon Valley Bank that was also "too big to fail" and when it did the taxpayer had to bail it out. If something is too big to fail, it's too big, the regulator should have stepped in earlier to chop it up.

Nit:Taxpayers didn't have to pay money for the bailout. FDIC is an insurance program with premiums paid by banks

Strong agree, spot on. There will always be wealthy folks behind the scenes who will arrange for the capital theatrics to land the way they want (Loopt was a failure and Sam Altman still ended up running YC because of vibes, Leopold Aschenbrenner blew up Situational Awareness and wealthy friends [Griffin and Citadel] bailed him out, for example). The best you can do is political recourse (note the wide social efforts to vote out folks who support data centers, and to have Flock contracts cancelled) and decouple from needing anything from any company who is controlled by these folks through cap tables, network, etc.

The game is rigged, operate accordingly. You are managing risk and threat exposure against threat actors who want to obtain and maintain control, influence, and power.

Griffin and citadel less bailed him out, and more circled like sharks and made out with a good deal TBF.

That's a fair point. I suppose the difference is if a rando is about to get blown out of the water, no one is coming to save them. If someone connected is going to get blown out of the water, calls are going to be made, people are going to meet, and it's going to "be taken care of" even if it's a good deal for whomever is Winston 'The Wolf' Wolf in the situation. Caveat being that sometimes, even if well connected, you're still toast (Archegos Capital Management and Bill Hwang).

Sure it can.

We frequently forget “the system” that protects these actors consist of our respect for rule of law and compliance and the enforcement of the laws.

If the cops stop enforcing, and we stop complying, what would protect them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com