Dear Marc Andreessen - <AUTHOR> https://al3x.net/2014/06/17/dear-marc-andreessen.html <comment><USER2> Tragic that we all inevitably grow up to replace the old outdated system we grew up rebelling, nee disrupting, against.

Hunter S. Thompson said something profound and unique to his position. He remarked his biggest fear, and the man knows a thing or two about fear, was waking up to realization that the same people he went to high school with ended up running the show.

Here we are.

I'm at the same age now as when Marc grew out Netscape. His path shaped how I walked my path. Yet he's going to some place that I no longer understand. Maybe he sees it better, maybe he sees it differently, but jeez louise, what is going on?

The new boss isn't better than the old boss. And just you wait until my friends become bosses.

<comment><USER3> In the end, how much of tech was just about a few guys aggrandizing themselves, not actually benefiting others? From my viewpoint, an enormous amount.

Disruptive, my ass. These guys are chasing the same stupid status symbols that everyone else is. They are not the ubermensch that society holds them up to be, just people who finally Made It (tm).

Motives are _exactly_ why the outcome will be just as rotten as before.

<comment><USER2> It's why Ayn Rand is so popular.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm with Alex generally, but disagree with this sentence: "We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow"

In the last sixty years, a tremendous amount of money has been poured into education. Much money has been allocated to increase college enrollment. But, IMO, for the vast majority of people, college education is a luxury social club. Spending more money on college is just a wealth transfer from tax payers to upper middle class teachers and administrators. I do not agree with Peter Thiel when he says that kids should start businesses instead of going to college. But I think there is lots of room for designing some sort of adult- life on-boarding process that was far more cost efficient than having the government write a check to subsidize teenagers getting black out drunk every weekend. I'm not sure what this system would be, but there are lots of options - could be some sort of apprenticeship, or a co-op mixed with classes, or a light-weight, low cost online education combined with assigned mentors.

The real issue is that any form of labor that is a commodity, and that does not have union or legal protection, has been screwed over by the trifecta of globalization, immigration, and automation. But, I disagree with both the neoliberals and progressives in that I do not think it is possible to educate the great masses and enable them to find non-commodity career paths. There are only so many content marketers, enterprise salesmen, management consultants, and product managers that the world needs. Those jobs are going to go to the genetically and socially privileged. Therefore, the only solution for the normal person, who will be at a commodity job in customer service or doing sales at a Verizon store, is collective bargaining.

One form of collective bargaining can take is democratic politics. My policy preference would be a law that creating a universal wage subsidy of $7.75 an hour, thus guarantees every worker a total wage of at least $15 an hour. I would couple that with a "job of last resort" program that would replace long term unemployment and disability insurance - everyone who wants to work can get a job, no matter how blighted their city, no matter what kind of disability they have. Even if they are a quadriplegic they can be assigned to monitor security cameras or something else.

<comment><USER5> Ok, but those who just do not want to be assigned a productive task, what would you do with them?

<comment><USER4> Then they go hungry. When they are ready to work and to eat, their local employment office will be ready with a job and a paycheck. But in the meantime, they need to stay off my lawn. I am a believer in anti-vagrancy laws, so I think with the "jobs for everyone" comes enforcement against sleeping on street benches and panhandling.

<comment><USER6> Your plan depends on everyone being able to work. There are a lot of illnesses and disabilities(physical and mental) that make that assertion not true. Would you have these people starve?

<comment><USER4> No, I said very clearly in my original comment that _everyone_ gets a job, even schizophrenics and quadriplegics. There is _something_ that everyone can do. If you are physically disabled you can monitor security cameras or transcribe city council recordings or something. If you are mentally disabled you can still probably pick up trash in city parks. There is some make work job available for almost anybody. The only exception would be the extreme mentally ill, who would need to be treated and provided supportive housing as they are now. But if you are mentally able, but just unwilling, then you go hungry. Or maybe you get a soup kitchen and a bed in a shelter. But in someway it will be unpleasant and hard, so as to disincentivize sloth.

<comment><USER6> Do you have any experience with people with mental illnesses or disabilities? "Everyone can work, we can find a job for everyone" just seems like something that could only be claimed from a position of ignorance. Further shown by your suggestion of having them pick up trash. People with a lot of mental illnesses aren't incapable of working due to a lack of skills.

<comment><USER4> It really depends on the mental illness. Most mentally ill people could do _something_ , most of the time. What exactly they could do would depend on the particular illness. Many are not currently hireable because even one episode a week is enough to get them fired. Some are not currently hirable because they have been out of the workforce for so long, that they have lost a bunch of habits. I think that could be remedied.

But, as I said, if they are really incapable of any possible employment, then they should get treatment and supportive housing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think pmarca is saying people are against robots per se, but against the efficiency-driven unemployment they see. I'm firmly on the side of pmarca and technology here -- I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, and we could find new and better things for those people to do (through the market, ideally, but I'd be open to Basic Income or other forms of wealth distribution if needed).

I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. If we did that in the 1700s, there would only be a few thousand people left over after primary agriculture to do anything else. That would suck.

People holding unionized or otherwise protected jobs are rent-seekers (albeit on a smaller scale than large companies in regulated industries). Rent seekers do not make the world a better place.

<comment><USER8> > _I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being > a winning strategy which makes the world better._

The problem is accelerating technology doesn't make the world automatically better either.

It can also make it patently worse. E.g, someone presses the red button, and here's a nuclear war. Or some idiot gets access to viruses, and here's a bio attack that wipes out half the population. It's technology that will have enabled both. Actually, the number of people that have died in World War I and II (from the mustard gas to Belsen and from Dresden to Hiroshima) is already tens of millions -- all due to improved technological efficiency.

Compared to that kind of harm to the whole of humanity, some people getting an "artificial heart", a guy walking on the moon, and being able to exchange IMs with WhatsApp on one's mobile is not that much of an balance at all. Just something to keep in mind, lest someone thinks technology is all just "embetterment".

> _People holding unionized or otherwise protected jobs are rent-seekers > (albeit on a smaller scale than large companies in regulated industries). > Rent seekers do not make the world a better place._

Quite the opposite. Protected jobs stop the madness of everything going forward for the sake of going forward, and ask for real improvements to the lives and treatment of real people. It's only a problem when the protection is to a small subclass of people, instead of extending to all workers. We have the 8-hour work day (well, had), we've had booming middle classes, and we've had safety laws and child labor laws because of those "unions" and protests. America was better in the fifties, middle class wise, when unions were strong, compared to what it's now.

<comment><USER9> > Compared to that kind of harm to the whole of humanity, some people getting > an "artificial heart", a guy walking on the moon, and being able to exchange > IMs with WhatsApp on one's mobile is not that much of an balance at all. > Just something to keep in mind, lest someone thinks technology is all just > "embetterment".

Woah, what? Are you really saying that the negative uses of technology in the World Wars have outweighed the positive uses of technology (even if we limit ourselves to a timeframe that contains an unusual amount of war deaths)? It's beyond ridiculous to reduce the benefits of technology to "some guy" getting an artificial heart, the moonwalk (which depending on your perspective is either a prestige achievement or a step towards space exploration whose benefits we haven't seen yet), and a messaging app. I really, really hope you're being disingenuous instead of just ignorant because I'm practically rendered speechless at the thought of having to explain how electrification alone has saved countless lives.

OTOH, I guess I shouldn't be that surprised, since it seems to be a very common phenomenon for people to ignore steady long-term effects in favor of flashier one-offs, even if the latter has a tiny, tiny, tiny cumulative effect in comparison.

As just a couple of examples (I tried to focus on things that would be the most affected by technological/scientific/economic progress):

\- The five-year mortality rate of breast cancer today is roughly the same as the mortality rate of GIVING BIRTH in 1900 (also known as something damn near half the population does, several times in their life).

\- The Spanish flu infected 500 million and killed 100 million people in 1918. Today you can go to Safeway and get a flu shot for 10 bucks.

\- In the early 20th century, the life expectancy at birth was 31 years of age. In 2010 it was 67 years.

\- Per CDC data, 60 years ago, 38000 people died of polio each year in America alone. These days, 300 people die of polio per year in the ENTIRE WORLD.

\- From 1920 to 1980, 395/10000 people died from famine each year. In 200, that number was THREE out of every 10000.

Of course I agree with the larger point that's tangential to the one you're making: blind progress without ethical safeguards is definitely foolish. That's not really what this discussion is about at all though (there are people already talking about the need for ethical standards around AI development and I'm the first to agree with that).

> America was better in the fifties, middle class wise, when unions were > strong, compared to what it's now.

This is so incredibly ignorant of history that it's unbelievable. You're aware there was a World War right before the 50's, right? And damn near the entire world was either coming out of centuries of suppressed economies under colonialism or trying to recover from being, you know, blown up? Might that have _anything_ to do with the success of American labor (it's not a coincidence that the opening of developing-world markets in the 70s and 80s coincided with the loss of America's unskilled-labor competitiveness)? Not to mention the fact that "middle-class wise" is an incredibly idiotic metric to use as a proxy for "better". Refer back to the list I had above for examples of _real_ ways that lives can improve (or seriously, just Google it: you can literally find HUNDREDS of ways life was worse back then, even if you limit yourself to the 50s and to America). The places that we _have_ gotten much worse (i.e. economic prospects for lower and lower-middle classes) is amply addressed by the grandparent comment's allusion to a proper welfare state and basic income. To put it another way, retarding progress so people can have pretend-productive jobs could not be stupider; through inefficiency, you're destroying wealth that can be redistributed to people who actually need it instead of to people who happen to hold arbitrary obsolete jobs. What you're fundamentally saying is that we should implement welfare in the most inefficient way possible and then give it not to the poor, or the sick, or the needy; but to people in arbitrary industries (like dockworkers or taxi drivers) at arbitrary income levels.

<comment><USER8> > _Woah, what? Are you really saying that the negative uses of technology in > the World Wars have outweighed the positive uses of technology (even if we > limit ourselves to a timeframe that contains an unusual amount of war > deaths)?_

I gave the World Wars as an example. Perhaps you missed the part where I also mentioned possible outcomes like a full on nuclear war (enabled by technology etc). And of course, there's also climate change and such. Or even simple rampant deaths due to overuse of antibiotics.

Compared to such ability (and possibility) to wipe all humanity, the "decline in the mortality rate of giving birth" is not that much impressive.

Not to mention it has little to do with any advanced technology, and more with simple precautions, like running water, cleaner birth environments, etc. You can get over 80% of the decrease in the infant mortality rate just by those, and in fact many activists in third world countries do exactly that -- not much modern equipment required.

> _This is so incredibly ignorant of history that it 's unbelievable. You're > aware there was a World War right before the 50's, right? And damn near the > entire world was either coming out of centuries of suppressed economies > under colonialism or trying to recover from being, you know, blown up? Might > that have _anything_ to do with the success of American labor?_

For one, there was also a World War right before the 20s, with the large colonial powers striving to recover from it. Still what happened to US economy in the 20s/30s was not exactly beneficial.

Second, the success of the American labor is not tied to the success of the American laborers. You can have one without the other. And for a century or more, since early 19th century, you did have -- tons of Americans working in medieval conditions (including harsh child labor, even in coal mines, and of course actual slavery), while the American industry was increasingly booming.

> _What you 're fundamentally saying is that we should implement welfare in > the most inefficient way possible and then give it not to the poor, or the > sick, or the needy; but to people in arbitrary industries (like dockworkers > or taxi drivers) at arbitrary income levels._

What I'm fundamentally saying is that the "market knows better" is borderline religious fatalism. People shape and create their society, and people decide what it will be. Most people, if they are empowered to, or few people, if they can control legislation, education, markets etc.

Nobody gives money to the "poor, or the sick, or the needy" that are taken from "dockworkers or taxi drivers". What happens is that the "dockworkers or taxi drivers" are instead thrown into the ranks of the "poor or the needy".

And not only because their work gets obsolete or trivial by technology -- but because people controlling the market can force them to squeeze their margins.

Let me put it this way: it wasn't because growing cotton was cheap "in itself" or trivial that the cotton industry people thrived and prices were low. It was because they could push human beings to do it for substinence level compensation. Throu raw force first (slavery) and through "law" and taking advantate of their situation later then (Jim Crow etc).

<comment><USER9> > I gave the World Wars as an example. Perhaps you missed the part where I > also mentioned possible outcomes like a full on nuclear war (enabled by > technology etc). And of course, there's also climate change and such. Or > even simple rampant deaths due to overuse of antibiotics.

Oh.my.god. Can you really be so clueless as to use antibiotics overuse as an example of the BAD side of technology? I think I actually might die of laughter. It blows my mind that you don't realize that the worst-case scenario of antibiotics overuse is that every antibiotic will become useless...i.e. taking us back to the situation before antibiotics were developed. Your example of "a nightmare scenario of science and technology" is "going back to before this technological advance existed". If I wasn't convinced before, I'm 100% certain that you're truly way, way, way out of your depth when trying to comprehend this topic.

> Not to mention it has little to do with any advanced technology, and more > with simple precautions, like running water, cleaner birth environments, > etc. You can get over 80% of the decrease in the infant mortality rate just > by those, and in fact many activists in third world countries do exactly > that -- not much modern equipment required.

Oh you're totally right, and the scientific advances and (relatively) huge amount of resources required to bring these things to the entire world had nothing to do with science, technological advances, or economic growth. I...how do you think these things happen exactly? Do you think that God pops down every twenty years and drops off another set of stone tablets with a list of scientific discoveries and inventions? I've officially crossed over from finding this hilarious to finding it terrifying that there are people who think the way you do.

> What I'm fundamentally saying is that the "market knows better" is > borderline religious fatalism.

Do tell how "We should have a complete and robust safety net" is anywhere close to religious fanaticism around "the market knows better"? AFAICT, what I'm talking about is leveraging the market's strength (making local decisions about cost, price, and efficiency) AND avoiding its weaknesses/leveraging govt's strengths (dealing with externalities, providing safety nets, etc). How the fuck is that more fanatic than your proposal of ignoring the market's ability to do anything and making _everyone_ poorer in the process?

> Nobody gives money to the "poor, or the sick, or the needy" that are taken > from "dockworkers or taxi drivers". What happens is that the "dockworkers or > taxi drivers" are instead thrown into the ranks of the "poor or the needy".

Oh holy fuck what are you even saying. If unemployed dockworkers and taxi drivers become poor and needy, then _by definition they're covered by the robust safety net for the needy jesus christ_. The whole idea behind a safety net is that there ARE no needy people because they're taken care of. If someone in a replaced industry happens to be independently wealthy, or married to someone who makes a decent amount of money, or hell just rich from their protected job, you'd have to have the brain capacity of a toddler to think that it makes sense for welfare transfers to go to them (and make no mistake, protecting obsolete jobs is a transfer of wealth AND a net destructor of wealth). If you think this is impossible, just take a look at what percentage of farm subsidies goes to the very wealthy owners of huge agribusinesses. Giving money to random job classes independently of need in the hopes that it will roughly line up with the needy is _fucking stupid_ compared to actually just giving money to the needy. I can't imagine what sort of bizarro-world one would have to live in where that sounds like it makes any sense.

> Let me put it this way: it wasn't because growing cotton was cheap "in > itself" or trivial that the cotton industry people thrived and prices were > low. It was because they could push human beings to do it for substinence > level compensation. Throu raw force first (slavery) and through "law" and > taking advantate of their situation later then (Jim Crow etc).

Right.....which is an excellent argument for outlawing slavery and Jim Crow. I definitely agree that there are jobs out there right now that only exist because they people are driven to work them by the whole "needing food and shelter" thing. How in God's name is that not completely addressed by "a robust safety net"? Shit it's the DEFINITION of "a robust safety net".

TL;DR: I've yet to hear a single credible argument between "1) Maximize the amount of wealth society has, by not intentionally gimping productivity (education funding etc is also part of this, as is welfare et al but this connection is murkier to explain). 2) Use this wealth (by taxing wherever can take it: the rich have historically low top tax rates atm so that's naturally a good place to start) to redistribute to those who actually need it. By definition, this means a robust safety net and ideally a basic income. This is made much easier by the excess amount of wealth generated by step 1.

<comment><USER8> > _Oh.my.god. Can you really be so clueless as to use antibiotics overuse as > an example of the BAD side of technology? I think I actually might die of > laughter. It blows my mind that you don 't realize that the worst-case > scenario of antibiotics overuse is that every antibiotic will become > useless...i.e. taking us back to the situation before antibiotics were > developed. Your example of "a nightmare scenario of science and technology" > is "going back to before this technological advance existed". If I wasn't > convinced before, I'm 100% certain that you're truly way, way, way out of > your depth when trying to comprehend this topic._

You keep writing insults and empty boasts. Is this for the good of the discussion, or so that you feel better for yourself? You could have answered the same thing as above without all the BS ad hominens -- which don't matter anyway, because your core logic is faulty. (Also, "oh.my.god"? Seriously? Are you like 12 years old?).

For one, the "worst case scenario" from overuse of antibiotics is not just "that every antibiotic will become useless".

You missed the whole part of the overuse having first created more-resistant strains -- and a humanity with less resistance from being over-dependent on antibiotics for all these decades.

So, no it's not just "back to square one". It's "back to square one with our shoelaces tied together and a tiger hunting us".

> _Oh holy fuck what are you even saying. If unemployed dockworkers and taxi > drivers become poor and needy, then _by definition they 're covered by the > robust safety net for the needy jesus christ_._

Only in some fantasy world where the "robust safety net" exists. In the real world, when they become poor and needy, e.g by taxi companies or competition squeezing their margins, they just become poor and needy, end of story.

>* How in God's name is that not completely addressed by "a robust safety net"? Shit it's the DEFINITION of "a robust safety net".*

I don't disagree with the "robust safety net".

I simply aknowledge that it doesn't exist.

Which means that in real life throwing whole professions to live with diminished wages and be taken advantage of because of their need is not automatically taken care of by any (non-existant) "safety net".

You cannot say some real and existing abuse is OK because those people can be taken care of because of an imaginary and not-yet-existing safety net.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The most meaningful disagreement is summed up in this sentence:

"Emerging technologies can also create demand for things that are inherently expensive – cutting-edge medical procedures and treatments, for example – driving up costs in entire economic sectors."

It boils down to: should we subsidize cutting-edge medicine for everyone, or treat it as a luxury because people who can't afford it are no worse off than they were before its invention (in absolute terms)?

The pragmatic answer is probably somewhere in the middle.

<comment><AUTHOR> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_excluded_middle)

<comment><USER11> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation)

<comment><USER10> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeroll](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeroll)

<comment><USER12> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Taxi drivers protesting Uber aren't saying that they want apps out of their > cabs.

Of course they aren't _saying_ that, it would be political suicide to say it. But given the stubborn resistance to even using the credit card readers forced on them by utility commissions, do people really think that cabbies are aching to have apps between them and their customers that would thwart their ability to skip inconvenient fares or grab an easier ride on their way to a call? Uber's end-run around regulation is only possible because cabbies use regulation to make consumers' lives worse.

It's kind of crazy to me the degree to which the left is becoming a movement built around kneejerk status quo bias, based on nothing but a distaste for the idea that someone might be making money off of making consumers' lives better.

<comment><USER14> I feel like both the left and the right are trying to take us back to some idealized version of the 1950's. I want a political movement based on creating a new and better future, not hanging on to shreds of the past.

We now have the technology and resources necessary to provide everyone with adequate food, housing, healthcare, and education. That's what I want, not more "job creation" or preservation of obsolete jobs. The future could actually be BETTER than the 1950's :)

<comment><USER15> What motivates people in a society where all their needs are met? Competition for resources has long been and will continue to be large aspect of humanity as a species, but I imagine we could reach for a truly golden age once a large group of people have the luxury of thinking about things like we're talking about now. It'd be amazing what we could build if more people had time to experiment - possibly bewildering and dangerous!

<comment><USER9> I wouldn't say food, housing, health, and education comprise "all needs"...and I'm pretty sure the behavior of billions of people supports that. How many people earn enough to simply have food, shelter, and healthcare and then go "well I guess I have enough, I don't want a single other thing". Even the usual claim that "people will just spend it on weed, beer, and videogames" shows the clear desire for things beyond the necessities. _That_ is what would motivate people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Very nice to see pmarca's neoliberal idiocy taken apart so thoroughly. Peter Thiel could do with similar treatment imho.

<comment><USER17> So things we disagree with now can just be labelled as idiocy?

And no matter how much you and other statists hate neoliberalism and how it's taken over the world, thing is the world has never been so rich, so peaceful and people have never lived so long and so healthy in the whole history of humanity. So, if neoliberalism is having a bad effect on the world, I wonder what it would do if it had a good effect.

I would also add that the countries that are doing better in this world are all pro free-market such as Switzerland and Hong Kong. In fact, as someone who has lived in Peru for 5 years, I can tell you (and numbers will show), in the 90's, Peru and Venezuela had similar economies. Then in the 90's and up to today, Peru has liberalized its economy and privatize a lot of industries, Venezuela has gone the opposite way. Today, Peru is prospering more than ever while Venezuelans unfortunately have to wait in line for hours to buy toilet paper, flour and meat. I think reality is on my and Andreessen's side.

Statists are obsessed with inequality gaps and how some people are so much richer than others. I and people like Andreesen are obsessed with fewer people dying of hunger, violence and disease. Once we get rid of that, maybe we can work on reducing that gap you're so obsessed about, but right now, let's help people not die of hunger at least and make make enough of a living to support themselves, and nothing is as efficient as free market economies for this who have lifted billions of people from extreme poverty from China to Peru.

<comment><USER16> Neoliberalism (of the Milton Friedman kind) hasn't taken over the world. It gained traction in the mid 70's, peaked in the 00's and is now, thankfully, slipping back from its extreme heights.

Also, pmarca's particular interpretation of neoliberalism is what I was referring to as idiotic, not the broader concept as a whole (which I think is also very flawed but can at least respect).

Let's not confuse well regulated free-market capitalism and a dollop of social state support (which I think together represent the best model the world has so far come up with and is the one followed, more or less, by the best economies) with pmarca's extreme interpretation of how an economy should be run.

Edit: Oh, and finally, "people like Andreesen are obsessed with fewer people dying of hunger, violence and disease." It would be nice if his investments better reflected that apparent 'obsession': [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Investments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreessen_Horowitz#Investments)

To my eye he seems to care solely about making money for himself and whoever A16Z's LPs are. Nothing wrong with that (he runs a VC firm after all) but let's not pretend he's a saintly figure obsessing over the plight of the world's poor.

<comment><USER18> _Neoliberalism (of the Milton Friedman kind) hasn 't taken over the world. It gained traction in the mid 70's, peaked in the 00's and is now, thankfully, slipping back from its extreme heights._

Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century?

<comment><USER16> >Slipping back to what - the horrors of statism that we saw in the 20th century?

No, why should it? Just because we've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways).

I think (hope?) it's slipping back to somewhere in-between i.e. better regulated free markets, a sensible approach to privatisation and the acknowledgement that capitalism vs socialism is not a zero sum game. Both ideologies have good bits and bad bits, the path we're walking down now is one of figuring out the optimal ratio between the two. The fabled "third way".

<comment><USER18> _No, why should it? Just because we 've learnt neoliberalism is flawed doesn't mean we should unlearn that statism was also disastrous (in different ways)._

Thanks for keeping on making my point :) There is no "we". There is you and some people that are in ideological agreement with you, but there is no we. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

<comment><USER16> Fair criticism. To be honest, I just (arrogantly) assumed we'd reached a point and accumulated enough evidence to remove any argument that the 20th century's experiments with communism and socialism and the recent 25 year infatuation with neoliberalism were anything other than overall failures. Judging by the down votes I'm getting, I'm clearly wrong and the idealogical battles rage on (mine included).

<comment><USER17> In what way has neoliberalism been a failure? Most prosperous countries are the ones that practice it the most (Switzerland, Hong Kong) and EU countries who have gotten better lately have been the ones taking neoliberals measures by cutting state spending (UK) and in South America the best economies have freed their ecomonies the most. There is nothing that can beat a free market economy, sure you can regulated to some extend if you want and it is all around the world, but a healthy free market economy with as few regulations as possible is still the best way to go as reality has shown, call that neoliberalism or mixed economy with as few regulations as possible or whatever you want, but it's not a failure and it's not going away.

<comment><USER16> It's the "few regulations as possible" part of neoliberalism that has, for me at least, been the unquestionable failure.

The following could all have been avoided or had the scope of their damage drastically reduced had better regulation been in place:

LTCM and the Asia crisis in the 90s, the flood of bad IPOs in the dotcom era, the subprime and CDO disaster that sparked 2008, the asset bubbles over the last three decades (e.g. the UK housing market after mortgage LTV regulations were relaxed), the extreme widening of the gap between rich and poor.

A more nuanced and sensible approach to regulation than neoliberalism promotes doesn't (in my opinion) mean we'll suddenly see a reversal of all the good bits a very lightly regulated, market orientated economy has brought us and the return to inefficient, planned economies. It just means removing the shocks, excesses and some (by no means all) of the inequalities an uncompromising belief in 'free market economics over everything else' appears to invite.

<comment><USER19> I just don't understand how 2008 was _obviously_ because of deregulation. Not only is that a _contestable_ claim, but you're simplifying the entire crash to a convenient cause that clearly confirms your biases.

Just take a walk over to Wikipedia[1], and you can clearly see that ascribing the crash in 2008 to _only_ deregulation is complete and utter nonsense:

 _The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie's and Freddie's loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie's loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]_

And if you can't ascribe 2008 to deregulation, then your point starts to become watered down: maybe deregulation isn't the "unquestionable failure" you claim it to be.

You can read on to see about other things that government had their hands in, such as the CRA and lower interest rates. (Among other things, such as the institutions of Fannie and Freddie themselves!)

[1] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_hou...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Mandated_loans)

<comment><USER16> My understanding was that Freddie (and later Margaret Thatcher's imitation with selling council houses in the UK) were policy decisions made on advice from the then nascent neoliberal movement.

<comment><USER19> I honestly don't know. But I do know it's not deregulation when you add more government intervention in markets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Taxi drivers protesting Uber aren't saying that they want apps out of their cabs. They want leverage to negotiate wages and working conditions so they aren't barely scraping by. The pushback is on exploitative business models, not technology."

I have been on the receiving end of exploitative business models. The answer is Exit, not Voice. Here's why: enough people exit -> wages go up and/or working conditions improve. Period. Yes, it's that simple. The problem is that we are creatures of habit, driving around is a relatively easy job, and the self-awareness necessary to change is scarce.

But wait, survival of the fittest and I don't give a shit. I really don't. These taxi/uber drivers will be replaced by driverless cars. We need a government program to retrain these people and employ them, just like we had for farmers and factory workers. Or not. Seeing people try to fend for themselves is more interesting than seeing them do make-work in a federal building - who knows, they might actually adapt, thrive, and makes something of themselves.

<comment><USER20> To the quote above: wages are determined by productivity, not negotiation leverage. The moral implications of "barely scraping by" don't factor in.

<comment><USER11> Ehrm, no, obviously not. A marketing intern can be more productive than an engineering intern and make 1/2 as much. It's determined by supply and demand, nothing else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Just a clarification: Cab drivers are protesting Uber because Uber takes away their business and there's nothing they can do about it. It's not because they feel pressured to become Uber drivers and take less money - Uber drivers make a shit ton of money. It's the cab OWNERS who are really fucked.

<comment><USER22> > It's not because they feel pressured to become Uber drivers and take less > money - Uber drivers make a shit ton of money

What evidence do we have that this is true or, if so, will remain so past the period when they're recruiting to enter a new market? It seems a lot more likely that Uber is going to keep gradually lowering the rates paid to drivers to maintain their profit margins amidst competition.

<comment><USER21> I've spoken to every Uber driver that I've ever had, every one in SF was on pace to make 6 figures this year and thrilled with it. Average seems to be 80-100k depending on how much you drive. Cab drivers have to work their asses off on someone else's terms to even approach that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Apparently this is an unpopular opinion here but fucking mental standing slow clap in my head when I finished that.

That's a nice piece of cogent writing.

</comment><comment><USER24> Finally a Marc Andreessen take down by a respected member fo the hacker community. In short, Marc and Ben just need to STFU.

</comment><comment><USER25> An affordable safety net could be possible with cheap renewable energy and magic hydroponic farms that make food even cheaper. Anyone could have a small farm in their room! Then you just need housing. Maybe we'll make some fancy new materials in the next tech bubble, so that you can put up luxurious, energy efficient, 10 story housing with the ease of a trailer park.

These technologies were promised a while ago, we just need to make them work well. Any day now. Then tech progress can continue unchallenged by the needs of human sustenance.

On the other hand, the Amish approach has its own merits.

</comment><comment><USER26> <blockquote>Well, we're three decades into an era of systemic deregulation and financialization. The result? Global recession, lingering structural unemployment, and an accumulation of capital at the top of the economic pyramid.</blockquote>

To blame systemic deregulation for the recession is to be profoundly unaware of the system in question. One cannot speak of a free market when the very thing at the core of that market - i.e. money, the one thing that everyone buys when they're selling something, and that everyone sells when they're buying something - is in the hands of a monopoly, and a politically motivated one at that: its raison d'etre is not even the quality of the product it provides.

If money were edible, you would see much more clearly just what a centrally managed, soviet style style system this really is, because there'd be queues of starving citizens just as we saw back in the era of soviet resource management.

If anything, it could be argued that without the level of free market we've enjoyed, things would be much, much worse. After all, the one sector where there's been close to zero regulation, the internet, has been the sector that's enjoyed massive growth over the last few decades. Compared to the days when telephony was state managed and nothing worked, we've been progressing in seven league boots, thanks to the free market.

PS: how does one quote on HN?

</comment><comment><USER27> > Did I miss one of Asimov's Laws that says androids are always programmed to > be more socially-minded than neoliberals?

If you missed Asimov's Zeroth Law [0], then yes, you did.

That being said, since, AFAIK, we don't know how to program robots with Asimov's Laws anyway, I'm not sure how relevant that is.

[0] "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm." (with the expected modifications to the First, Second and Third Laws).

</comment><comment><USER28> Worth watching the talk by Carl Bass, Autodesk CEO, during last SXSW. The interesting part starts at 20:30s, when he talks about the impact of technology on our economy and society.

He's not against technology or robots. Quite the opposite; he's a maker, geek and technology enthusiast. But he still raises good points of what will happen with jobs and wealth distribution, due to technology growth.

We're on a one-way street, and yes, this is completely different than what what happened 50, 100 years ago. We'll have significant changes in our society as we all learn how to live in a world with less jobs, explosion of technology, increasing wealth concentration, and fast gentrification of main cities.

Kudos to Al3x for bringing light to these important topics.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYV5bzy7ug](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npYV5bzy7ug)

</comment><comment><USER29> We live in the techno-utopia today. Food and shelter are not problems anymore. If it were otherwise, we would all be farmer-lumberjacks. It used to be like this, but it's solved now. We have enough for everybody - it's just about spreading the goods a little bit more evenly.

<comment><USER30> Really? Have you seen the solved problems of food and shelter in places like Detroit?

<comment><USER29> My comment consisted of five to six sentences, depending on how you count them. It's not hard to read all of them before replying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Some points in Andreesen's post were eerily reminiscent of Keynes' musings about the fifteen hour work week. See link [http://georgemaciunas.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/Economi...](http://georgemaciunas.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/06/Economic-Possibilities-of-Our-Grandchildren.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER32> This post (+ the comments, of course) should be on position 1. I think there are few topics more worthy of discussion than that.

</comment><comment><USER17> > Well, we're three decades into an era of systemic deregulation and > financialization. The result?

Not really, finance and banking are still the most regulated sectors on earth. Hardly deregularized.

<comment><USER33> A field can remain highly regulated while having certain aspects deregulated.

This is what we saw before the financial crisis. For instance, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act is credited with enabling the broad systemic risk that created Too Big To Fail - by allowing commercial banks to invest in securities and proprietary trading. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Legislation)

This was further compounded in Europe by loosening up leverage ratio requirements - but I don't have a link handy for that one.

You're also not commenting on the second word in there - financialization. The 2008 crisis wasn't possible in the 90s, because the residential mortgage market in the US hadn't been fully securitized prior to the aughts.

Anyhow, to pretend like there has been _no deregulation_ is to be disingenuous at best.

<comment><USER34> > Anyhow, to pretend like there has been no deregulation is to be disingenuous > at best.

True, but then to blame a financial crisis on free markets when no such thing even remotely existed is also disingenuous at best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Seems that both authors don't really see strong AI as a possibility (at least within say next 50 years). I wonder what HN readers take on that is, but to me it seems quite likely. Not necessary designing one from the scratch, but "uploading" human brain (once we have good enough resolution and technology). It changes quite a bit about everything.

<comment><USER36> Like you said, strong AI would change everything. The richest will be the first to utilize them. Things get scary from that point on.

Unless we massively redistribute wealth, then inequality will arrive at unimaginable levels. It's hard to think of a world where the top 1% owns many multiples of what the bottom 99% owns.

I'm guessing at some point that we'll decide as a species that strong AIs cannot be owned by individuals. I'm guessing that it won't be a smooth transition. Instead, we'll become quasi-communists and fairly evenly distribute gains made by the strong AIs.

Also by "uploading", I'm guessing you mean simulate the human brain? Actually uploading a human consciousness would come a while after the advent of strong AI.

<comment><USER35> Yes I mean simulating human brain (of course with all advantages of digital form, including increased speed and multiple copies).

I don't think that wealth would matter at all after strong AI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> tl;dr: Rich assholes abuse language to protect their power by rah-rahing the weak into spirituality-based causes. Business as usual.

</comment><comment><USER20> Technological innovation is driven by consumer demand to a much greater extent than the "decisions and whims" of billionaire VCs. If only it were that simple, r>g might actually be true.

This is crap.</comment>


Hey HN, I am looking for feedback - <AUTHOR>

I have put my first Android application on the market and I am interested in receiving some feedback.  I hope to grow the application and make it great over time, but I want to do so based on what the customer would like, not what I think they would like.
The application is called BestSignal and it currently has two main functions.  The first function is to give users control over when their phone switches between Wifi and cellular signals based on their respective strengths.  Many of us have experienced the situation where our phone hangs onto a wifi connection that is down to one bar even though we have 3 or 4 bars of a 3G or 4G connection.  Now you can change that!  For example, if you want to switch while Wifi is still two bars strong as long as cellular has 3 bars, then simply set the values with our easy-to-use interface and your done!
The second function is that BestSignal gives users the ability to monitor their cellular data usage in order to avoid those costly overage charges at the end of their billing cycle!  We even allow you to set a warning level so you can be notified that you are getting close to you data limit.
There are a number of other conveniences BestSignal offers, including configuring connections to open networks, deciding if you want to ignore 2G networks when dropping Wifi, and giving quick access to battery-saving toggles (e.g. activating airplane mode or turning on/off your Wifi radio).
My ultimate goal is to make the application a go-to place to help users manage their data needs.  Please let me know what you think of the application (either by commenting here, or through the "Contact BestSignal" button in the application) and I will work towards improving the application.  Thank you for taking the time to check out BestSignal!
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.eightythirty.bestsignal
Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Signal-LLC-BestSignal/dp/B007QEIHEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333247460&sr=8-1 <comment><USER2> Looks pretty good!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for taking the time to look and comment. I really appreciate it.</comment></comment>


No Silver Bullet: Essence and Accidents of Software Engineering - <AUTHOR> https://liberus.neocities.org/no_silver_bullet.html <comment><USER2> (1987)</comment>


Why Amazon's Drones Aren't Ready For "Prime" Time - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/bca239aad798?

<comment><USER2> Model aircraft flyer with no insider knowledge of Amazon's drone engineering comments critically w/out evidence on Amazon's drone engineering.</comment>


Yet Another Hot Startup Leaves A Gaping Security Hole In Its iPhone App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/18/yet-another-hot-startup-leaves-a-gaping-security-hole-in-its-iphone-app/

<comment><USER2> Surprise, most sites don't use SSL.

Surprise, the DISQUS login/registration to post a comment on TechCrunch's article about this "gaping security hole" also sends your password in plaintext.

<comment><USER3> Just a note that we're working on improving our ssl support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't know why this is so surprising, 99% of the websites and apps I see don't use SSL for login, even HN doesn't. It's good that this issue is getting more attention, but to specifically call out Instagram for it makes it seem like what they're doing isn't the industry norm.

Looking at the TC comments it seems like a lot of people are confused by the difference between sending your password in cleartext, and storing your password in cleartext, although I wouldn't be surprised if they're storing your tumblr and foursquare credentials in the clear.

</comment><comment><USER2> Everyone assumes that this is just a "oh they should add an s to <http://> issue.

If your iPhone application uses SSL, it becomes subject to US export restrictions on encryption.

Apple is the vendor of the apps, and is based in the US, so every app is subject to these regulations. Apple specifically asks if your application uses encryption when you submit it, and if so, some apps end up having to get U.S. government review and approval for sale outside the US before they can be added to the market.

[http://blog.theanimail.com/iphone-encryption-export- complian...](http://blog.theanimail.com/iphone-encryption-export-compliance- for-apps)

[http://www.zetetic.net/blog/2009/08/03/mass-market- encryptio...](http://www.zetetic.net/blog/2009/08/03/mass-market-encryption- commodity-classification-for-iphone-applications-in-8-easy-steps/)

<comment><USER5> It's really not that difficult to get certified for export as a mass market crypto product. We did this for SpiderOak years ago. Took about an hour and I think a small fee.

Also requires sending the NSA the source code, but we're shipping easily reversible Python anyway, so hardly a concern.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seriously? Passwords sent in the clear?! Why are simple security measures so far down on people's list of things to implement when launching a new product/company?

<comment><USER7> Because _most_ users could care less.

Notice that you logged into HN by sending a plaintext password.

Edit: I totally agree with your sentiment though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "...one of the top stories on Hacker News over the weekend. In other words, the 'bad guys' already know about it, but consumers may not."

Never thought of this community as bad guys...

</comment><comment><USER9> Ten bucks says they store the passwords in cleartext too.

<comment><USER10> Why shouldn't they? It makes their password retrieval process so much easier! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Was pretty shocked when I realized that Facebook doesn't use https either.

<comment><USER11> Facebook does use SSL for login.

<comment><USER12> Drops back to standard http afterwards though. You can still sidejack it with firesheep.

<comment><USER2> Virtually everything flying around the network is unencrypted. Even if Facebook turned on SSL for the whole site, if I see you sitting next to me and can find your e-mail address, I just have to request a password reset and wait for your mail client to pick up the plain text email with the reset link. Either encrypt your whole connection or accept that you're _secure enough_ because nobody is really listening.

Kinda like all the TSA articles floating around, you're not safe because someone's groping everyone before they get on the plane, you're safe because nobody was trying to get something onto the plane in the first place.

<comment><USER12> Firstly that alerts the person to the breach, because you have to change their password - which isn't true of a session hijack.

Secondly how are you getting the mail? I haven't been able to access my able without SSL for years and I lock my screen everytime I leave it + never leave my phone hanging around.

Thirdly would you even know the email address I used? I use a different one for each site.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>