this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Do you support sustainability, social responsibility, tech ethics, or trust and safety? Congratulations, you’re an enemy of progress. That’s according to the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What we have now is barely capitalism. Back in the day, companies actually competed. Microsoft wouldn't make a good version of Word for Mac, so Apple reverse engineered the format and created their own office suite that interoperated.

If anyone tried something like that now they'd get sued or get bought. In fact, the practice of simply buying potential competitors is fairly common. Facebook buying upstart social media app Instagram is just one example.

If there's no competition, markets can't work. And to have competition you need to let businesses fail. And to let businesses fail you need a robust safety net so people aren't destitute when some idiot like Musk drives a company into the ground.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What we have now is barely capitalism.

We have some of the most naked and predatory methods of rent seeking imaginable. How on earth is this "barely" capitalism? It is quintessential capitalism. A near-perfect engine of consolidation, profit-seeking, and value growth.

Back in the day, companies actually competed

Competition isn't the goal of existing capitalist enterprises. It raises unit costs and dilutes profit. Competition is only a means by which a large enterprise temporarily undercuts a smaller local enterprise, until it is starved of revenue and fails. To quote Peter Thiel, "Monopoly is the condition of every successful business."

If there’s no competition, markets can’t work.

The purpose of markets is to marry nodes in the supply chain at an auction rate. But once the marriages are made, the market no longer serves a purpose. Markets are only a transitory vehicle leading to full vertical integration of the supply chain.

Once you've achieved a vertical monopoly, your business model pivots to maximizing margins by raising prices and lowering costs. That's how you maximize profits. And maximizing profits is the only real goal of a private business enterprise.

you need a robust safety net so people aren’t destitute when some idiot like Musk drives a company into the ground

You don't want a robust safety net in a capitalist system. Safety nets create a subsidy for unemployment - functionally a wage floor, beyond which people would prefer to be unemployed. Without the threat of poverty hanging over a worker's head, you won't get the lowest possible wage rate for their labor. This drives up costs and cuts into profits, which is antithetical to the goals of a capitalist enterprise.

Musk driving his business into the ground serves the end goals of a capitalist system overall (even if it marginally inconveniences Musk and his lenders in the moment). The failure of his firm releases workers into the unemployment pool and allows competitors to hire them at a discount - potentially displacing existing workers who command a higher salary. While Musk's business flounders, the overall auto market prospers. The profit generated in an individual vehicle sale rises, as supply of vehicles contracts - driving prices up - and cost of labor falls - driving unit costs down.

This is good for the surviving pool of capitalists. Its even good for Musk, over the long term, as a higher rate of profit means more cheap money in the investment pool that he can borrow from in order to pursue his next project.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

No true scotsman would say such a thing.

[–] jsdz@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who are all these extremist wackos who don't already want to abolish capitalism?

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. It's not perfect, but neither is any other system.

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Industrialization lifts people out of poverty, capitalism sinks them into poverty by stealing the value of their labor as profit.

Also what's with the phrase "lifted out of poverty?" The fuck does that mean? Why is this same phrase repeated anytime some criticizes capitalism? It's like a stock phrase or talking point that makes you sound like a robot.

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Industrialization happened because of capitalism.

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, no steam engines without stealing from the worker, got it. 🙄

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, around that time, I'm pretty sure steam engines were literally considered 'stealing from the worker'.

The same with many other forms of mechanisation.

It's not that the luddites were wrong, just that they were easily beaten, because humans can't compete.

There are critics and cynics, but the same is happening now around AI.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's not a worker in the world who will vote away their own job.

Unchecked control of the workers for industry will harm us all. We don't need socialism we need strong unions.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s not a worker in the world who will vote away their own job.

The fuck are you talking about? This happens all the time.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No it doesn't, historically people have literally burned down factories and assaulted those who were replacing their jobs.

There's not a factory in the world with any significant number of workers that find some new innovation that makes all those workers obsolete where the workers go "oh yeah, let's do that"

There are absolutely zero incentives for a worker too to support such a thing. If you think they're going to somehow magically vote against their own interest and act in favor of the common good no matter the situation....

Well that's very socialist thinking from you.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Literally every Red state in the US is a a group of people voting away their own jobs.

[–] bioemerl@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Have you missed the Republican opposition to climate change? Have you missed Republican opposition to globalization in recent years?

Those didn't come out of thin air. They come out of many towns across the country whose entire economy once relied on things like mining coal and heavy dirty industry which was all shipped out to China. They are 100% voting in favor of their jobs still.

Also remember that under socialism we are not talking about country level decisions, we are talking about factory level decisions which will largely be decided by the workers. Unless an issue becomes important enough that it becomes a nationwide issue that gets a vote for the larger popular vote, 90% of technologies are going to get trashed.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

bro lemmy.ml is that way ->

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Industrialization in the USSR didn't happen? Damn. Where did all those nuclear power plants come from, then? What about that massive agricultural surplus? How did they develop their own computer technologies?

[–] kbotc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m amazed that you chose the three worst things you could have picked from the USSR. They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists, did not believe in genetics, period, and created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility (Gigantic centralized serf farms are bad if the local weather isn’t ideal! , and their computers were trinary garbage that barely functioned.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

They literally stole their nuclear tech from the capitalists

Soviets had a hydrogen bomb before their Western peers.

What's more the world's first nuclear power station at Obninsk was connected to the Moscow grid in June of 1954. The Soviets outpaced their American peers in nuclear power, rocketry, and advanced electronics well into the 1970s.

did not believe in genetics, period

That's flatly untrue. And it completely neglects their role in eliminating smallpox during the 1950s.

created famines from their poor understanding of environmental science and lack of flexibility

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/09/world/cia-says-soviet-can-almost-do-without-imports.html

the average Soviet citizen consumes about 3,300 calories a day, as against 3,520 for an American. The report showed that the Soviet diet consists of far more grain and potatoes than the American diet, but less fish and meat and less sugar.

They ended famine in Asia. A continent that suffered mass famine every ten to fifteen years was fully fed through domestic agricultural production by the end of the 1960s.

Stalin was so stacked with grain in the 50s that he was bailing out the English colonies throughout India and Bangledish.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're confusing capitalism with industrialization.

The development of modern modes of production came about nearly two centuries after the foundation of modern marketplace practices. The Dutch East India Company did not bring people out of poverty. Just the opposite. It served as a means of rapidly conquering and subjugating large indigenous populations, by using the speculative bubbles created during periods of looting to construct large militaries capable of further conquest. The rapid militarization and trans-continental looting/pillaging of the 17th and 18th centuries resulted in the increased spread of contagious disease, the worst genocides committed since at least the Roman era, and the formalization of Colonial Era chattel slavery.

Industrialization, which was a product of the mathematical and material sciences renaissance of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, produced huge surpluses in commercial goods and services. Revolutions in textile manufacturing, fertilization, fossil fuel-based transportation and electrification, materials sciences, and medical innovation brought hundreds of millions of people out of the agricultural economy and brought a functional end to a litany of common causes of death. The industrial era was not specific to the capitalist economic mode, but it was practiced most aggressively early on by capitalist states.

But the Industrial Revolution had a huge knock-on effect. Mass media and modern communication reoriented traditional class hierarchies and formed new models for social organization. The seed of socialist theories that had been planted in the 17th and 18th centuries blossomed into massive revolutionary labor movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. This, combined with the industrial collapse of the imperial core in the wake of the First and Second World Wars, signaled the beginning of the end of capitalism as a hegemonic economic force.

By the 1950s, numerous socialist political experiments produced successful industrialized civilizations, some of which even persist into the modern era. Meanwhile, rising standards of living from industrial surpluses in food, fuel, and living space raised living standards globally without regard to one's economic mode.

The real test of capitalism as an enterprise has kicked in during the last 50 years. By the 1970s, the era of cheap fossil fuel was coming to an end and various economic models were forced to contend with a declining rate of new surplus goods and services. Forced to choose between economic conservation/improved efficiency and a new wave of imperial aggression, the capitalist states have attempted to backpedal into their old traditional colonial models of business. The end result has been a new generation of major military conflicts - from the Vietnamese Jungle to the Iraqi desert - alongside a number of ugly civil wars and domestic insurrections in former capitalist strongholds.

Without a continuous industrial surplus to drive profit, modern capitalist economic models are failing. Quality of life in capitalist states is beginning to decline. And capitalist leaders are turning to more militant methods of seizing natural resources, forcing low-wage labor, and wrecklessly disposing of excess waste.

Capitalism rode the cresting wave of industrialization for a century. But now it is failing. And people in capitalist states - from the UK to Saudi Arabia to the Philippines - are seeing their quality of life erode away at a rapid pace.

[–] MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Based on my experience with venture capital, I'm not convinced venture capital has ever produced anything worthwhile.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Hey now. It produced a ton of Ferraris.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm just gonna be straight up that probably none of you have any real experience with VC. Just statistically, it's probably the case. It's anecdotal, but I want to share my story.

I helped found a company about three years ago. It's a software/ services company that focuses on specific kinds of climate change risk. No I won't tell you who we are. Anyways, me and my cofounders are first time founders, although we both have built business segments within companies, this was our first time in our own. We did try for VC that first year. We basically got rejected all around. What I learned is that the basic function of VC isn't to fund good ideas. It's a filter to keep opportunities in the hands of those who already have them. It's a kind of social filter to make sure only the "right" kind of people get funded. It's pure credentialism and institutionalism. Anyways, several of our competitors took the cash. As a result, they ballooned in head count and we're forced to do things the way the vcs expected them to. As a result, almost all of these companies failed or pivoted. We didn't get funded. We got rejected by all fronts. Instead we just built our client base one brick at a time. Well, now their customers are our customers. We're signing deals with the big names and still haven't taken VC money. We've got the best in class technology and they are bleeding money.

VC is a poison pill. It's not there to drive innovation but to filter down who has access to opportunities. Their ideas about what works or doesn't are bad, and largely driven by the culture they are apart of. They worship elitism and credentials, but will the respect for those who are willing to do the work. It's inherently extractive. They add nothing. Want to kill a business? Take VC money.

[–] KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This comment doesn't even pass the smell test.

If every company that took VC money failed, VCs wouldn't make any money.

The reality is MOST VC investments fail, but the few who make it are home runs. This is how they make money. The risk/reward of your company was just not a favorable investment for them. Whether it's because you went to an Ivy League or not is irrelevant.

Without VCs, many of those homeruns would never be able to get off the ground and the US economy would be significantly less dynamic

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are free to take your great idea to VC and see if they get funded bro. I think they are a complete joke at this point.

[–] KarmaTrainCaboose@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't have a good business idea, not everyone has to. That's not even what we're talking about.

VC is clearly not "a joke". All you have to do is Google "major companies that took VC funding" to see the impact of it. Of course this leaves out the thousands of others that failed, but long term the winners are going to have a very positive impact on driving innovation.

You may say "those companies would have succeeded anyway" and maybe so, but I doubt it would have happened nearly as fast, if at all.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

VC today isn't VC 20 years ago isnt VC 40 years ago.

VC today has ridiculous expectations on ROI and it re-enforces poor decision making, which, imo, brings down companies that might otherwise have been successful. Its part of a culture that was propped up by access to ridiculously cheap money. Modern VC is a dice roll at best, maybe worse.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It’s pure credentialism and institutionalism.

Not a coincidence that folks with Ivy League degrees get showered with money, while kids from state schools end up doing all the drudge work that keeps infrastructure running.

VC is a poison pill. It’s not there to drive innovation but to filter down who has access to opportunities. Their ideas about what works or doesn’t are bad, and largely driven by the culture they are apart of. They worship elitism and credentials, but will the respect for those who are willing to do the work. It’s inherently extractive. They add nothing. Want to kill a business? Take VC money.

Its an excellent way to cash out of a mediocre idea. Also an excellent way to elevate a mediocre idea from a regional/niche/insider scam to a national stage.