HNHacker News
TopNewBestAskShowJobs

intellegacy

289 karma · joined June 4, 2012

submissionscomments
intellegacy··on How I Learned to Defrag My Brain
Saving a comment now for a future response.

You've just inspired a new part of my brain. I need to write-up a new idea for a website.

btw I agree with everything you said. The reason I used the bible as an example is that it is didactic through stories. Not just lists of laws. The website idea I was thinking of would have, for example, PG, Cuban, et al weigh in with their own stories, corroborating or contradicting the 'maxim'.

I agree completely that the proliferation of all the "rules of success" lists on the web proves ineffective in actually making a difference in the readers' lives.

intellegacy··on How I Learned to Defrag My Brain
What you're saying is that the process of experiencing the maxim and internalizing its lesson is more valuable than the maxim itself. I disagree - the bible and quran's lessons for life have been shared with and digested by many millions of receptive minds. It is the sharing of knowledge and experience, accumulated over generations, that allows our species to make the incremental improvements that leads to advancement. Keeping truths to oneself may be valuable, but if you have a powerful truth, the leverage you obtain by sharing with the world is a lot more powerful.

Nevertheless, you do have a point - how do you create value for people through a maxim that they haven't experienced? I would argue that the credibility of whom the maxim originates from is very important.

For example, The Bible has tremendous credibility and respect from its believers (and many non-believers too); this significant ethos prepares people to be receptive towards the maxim. Or for a modern day example, imagine the difference between a regular joe giving you career advice on his blog (as you wonder, 'who is this guy?', vs. reading maxims from Mark Cuban's blog.

In order to solve this problem of ethos, a site would have to employ reputation or karma for each maxim, with people weighing in on how valuable / truthful each maxim has been through their personal experiences. A maxim written by an anonymous becomes more credible when Mark Cuban, PG, or other famous people publicly vouch for it.

intellegacy··on How I Learned to Defrag My Brain
I do this as well. Everything from the spark file (I call it a "ideas journal"), to the freelancers file, to the maxims file (I call it the "laws of life", inspired by a character on Star Trek TNG).

Would you be interested in putting one of your files online? Or is the information too personal/ valuable to share? Keeping the possible programmers/designers and the spark file secrets I could understand. Sharing the "maxims" file could spawn an interesting website.

intellegacy··on Sebastian Thrun and Google's Driverless Car (video)
what does he say at 31:10?

"The top two were _________"

intellegacy··on Parrondo's Paradox: How two ugly parents can make a beautiful baby
Can someone explain the uptown / downtown train story to me?

If the downtown train arrives and departs a few minutes after the uptown train arrives and departs, respectively, why would he take the downtown train more? It seems to me that if he missed both trains, then he would take the uptown train, as it would arrive earlier.

intellegacy··on Chill out, listen to some rain
is there some way to get different kinds of rain? Rainymood only has one loop. I don't want to listen to the same kind of rain every time; it's not realistic.

A site with 10 different rain samples would be nice.

intellegacy··on How science is rewriting basketball wisdom
Well I've heard about underhand technique and read about the science behind it. And I assume the player you refer to is Rick Barry, although he doesn't hold the NBA career record for FT % anymore.

I also watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eJSjwlD5o

One thing to keep in mind is that even though Rick Barry achieved a 90% percentage, who's to say that others could achieve the same? The 90% number gets touted a lot but the number is from a sample size of 1, and from a great player to boot. Shaq could have improved his free throw percentage, maybe by 10 to 20% but I doubt he'd ever get to 90%.

Anyways, I agree that any free throw shooter in the 40-60% range should adopt the technique if at least to try it out. It'll probably take years to perfect however.

intellegacy··on How science is rewriting basketball wisdom
To point 1: Your argument leaves out forwards and centers who frequently shoot set shots during the game without jumping. Also, my point still stands: the form is similar enough because they can practice their elbow, release, spin, and arc mechanics - all similar to a jump shot.

2. Yes, but some players don't have hook shots at all. It's another shot you have to learn. Granted, with the amount of time NBA players spend practicing, they probably could learn another shot easily.

3. I agree with you here. These players should switch. But reputation and ego get in the way; it will take a player of influence to break through the "underhand free throw" barrier.

intellegacy··on How science is rewriting basketball wisdom
I don't believe that's necessarily the case. Free-throw shooting is a chance to develop your shot rhythm because the mechanics and form are similar to your shot during the game. There's a benefit to shooting free throws the same way you shoot jumpers. If you use the underhand technique you relinquish that advantage. not to mention you must learn a new way of shooting entirely.
intellegacy··on The Facebook Fallacy
If you are referring to micro-transactions whereby readers pay content authors, tipjoy and others have already tried the "e-tip" model and failed.

Also, paypal's donate feature has existed for some time now but it doesn't seem to be able to replace ads. If anybody could implement the safe, seamless microtransaction model I'd think it'd be paypal as they have the existing infrastructure already. Either they have overlooked it or they've decided that the model wouldn't work.

intellegacy··on The Facebook Fallacy
What happens to all the newspapers/ news sites that run on ads? Advertising money has allowed the public access to non-subscription news on the web for some time now.

If you take all that money away, doesn't the free content mostly dry up?

intellegacy··on What are the most intellectually stimulating websites you know of?
I'm willing to do all the work to get the content even if I have to grab the first 1000 pages of content manually.

From that content I want to provide my own summaries and some "clippings" of the originals. But i'm worried about copyright / or stealing of other's work; I know blogs repost content all the time (well usually not the entire article. hopefully not) but I'm just wondering how people will react if I take their insights and "reorganize" them on my site.

intellegacy··on What are the most intellectually stimulating websites you know of?
Thank you very much for your comment. The name is now 0/3. Heh.

Will let HN know when the site is launched.

on another note, I will probably need to change my HN username soon :)

intellegacy··on What are the most intellectually stimulating websites you know of?
This is slightly off-topic but I thought I'd ask HN's opinion on an intellectual website idea I have.

I want to call it "intellegacy", for "intellectual legacy"

I really enjoy reading insightful essays and comments on the internet, and thought it'd be cool to have a website with all kinds of intellectuals with their own pages on it where I could read their essays, see a list of their books, and have conversations with them.

I envision scientists, artists, politicians all interacting on the site. For example, Neil de Grasse Tyson could post his blogs or essays there, and fans of his could get a summary of all his work, books, and what he's currently working on or reading.

Besides the goal of intellectuals having their own space to publish their insights, I also want the public to be able to read and learn on a clearly organized website, by taking their time. Maybe this isn't good for pageviews, but on other websites the content refreshes so quickly that a lot of insights are lost in the shuffle.

The grand vision is to be a huge library of insights, clearly organized and that can be read by anyone who wishes to learn and follow the thought leaders in our world.

We could "best-of" the best debates and discussions and future generations could read everything.

intellegacy··on Living outside America
The legal system, perhaps. Numerous former colonies have adopted British or French law for use in their own countries.

My point was that the law itself often isn't the problem. China and India have strong laws; they just aren't enforced properly. The problem is corruption and lack of cultural values and professionalism in those institutions. To use a startup analogy, the problem is not in lack of good ideas, the problem lies in the execution.

intellegacy··on Living outside America
Thank you for correcting me on that point. I did not realize the VAT was the reason for the price disparity.

Besides currency controls is the VAT the only reason for the price disparity?

intellegacy··on Living outside America
To really understand America, you must not only live in it, but also live outside it. Note: I am from the USA, and "we" or "our" refers to us Americans.

I spent 3 years abroad, recently returning to the USA this summer, and I will try to outline some of what I learned, although it is somewhat difficult as this knowledge has become ingrained in me and obvious as to seem to require no explanation.

- English as lingua franca

The average person doesn't realize how dominant English is as the world's language, how that dominance is reflected by our leading industries, and how the prevalence of English helps exports our culture, values, and by extension, our products. For example, the majority of the latest scientific research is written in English, regardless of the scientist's nationality. Every programmer across the world learns a rudimentary English just by virtue of being a programmer, as most programming languages are in English and the majority of programming technical guides are in English. When travelers of different nationalities meet in a 3rd country, they speak English. When businessmen of different countries do business together, they speak English. As native speakers we have a built-in advantage. But our potential weakness is failing to understand different nationalities. Especially as the other countries grow in power. I've heard, from the English-speaking Chinese in China: "We understand your culture and speak your language. You, on the other hand, don't understand ours at all. We have the advantage."

- Dominance of American cultural media, internet, and education Hollywood movies, American music artists and bands, tech companies, and higher education all hold significant leads over whatever competitors foreign countries can muster. Besides China, the rest of the world doesn't use their version of Facebook, and none of them have the engineers to keep up. The majority of the top 100 Universities in the world are in the USA. And most of the world watches American music and movies. Its ironic: a commonly heard stereotype is that Americans have little to no culture, when American popular culture is by far the most dominant in the world and unmatched in its breadth, choice, depth, and quality.

- US Consumerism This is a little more complex, but you still can see this if you look hard enough: the world economic system is built around US consumers. Take a look at prices for electronics in Asia, for example. In the very places where the electronics are made, the retail prices are all significantly higher than those in the US. Samsung and LG TVs cost more in Korea than they do in America. Computers cost more in China than they do in the USA. I frequently found myself waiting until I returned to US soil before I made any big ticket electronic or computer purchases, because the savings were ridiculous.

Once you look into the price disparity, you realize that other countries, mainly the exporting ones in Asia, manipulate their currencies, and build their economies on the back of US consumers. It's a potentially dangerous cycle because our consumerism habit is encouraged and built-in to the system via currencies and our addiction to credit, making it a hard habit to break.

- the effectiveness of USA institutions: legal system, courts, law enforcement, Congress, media, higher education Good governance and higher civilization aren't created overnight, and are not easy to develop. If you look at any 3rd world country, you notice immediately that the country often borders on anarchy due to lack of effective political / governing structure. Either the President is a brutal dictator, or the police are corrupt, or military generals are the de facto leaders, or the legal system is weak and the laws unenforced, and the list goes on and on. Effective government does not arise from air. It is built on decades or centuries of experience and stability. To maintain its effectiveness is a constant struggle against the evils inherent in man: laziness, corruption, abuse of power, etc. and a fight that seems to be slipping away from us in recent years.

The strong laws, governance, loyal military, and highly educated and productive citizens of a country are what make countries like America, those in Western Europe, and increasingly, some in East Asia good places to live.

Interestingly, even though reddit seems to hate cops, in my experience cops in the USA are paragons of professionalism compared to those in developing countries. It's hard to imagine, but cops there just don't take the profession very seriously. The standards of law enforcement in developed countries are another level entirely. And you can apply this "higher level" concept to the other areas I outlined above: judges, courts, the military, businesses, politicians.

If we let our vigilance slack, then the strong civilizing forces, whose bond make a civilization great, will begin to weaken, and the country's excellence will begin to regress.

Sorry, I took a tangent there.

- differences in political systems and their effectiveness This is hard for me to explain because I consider it as self-evident as 2+2=4, but I'll do my best. It's clear to me, and many other people who have studied political systems across the world, that democracy isn't a one-model-fits-all-countries panacea. Democracies (if you could call them that) often fail where there is no historical precedent or experience for it, and the populace is unfamiliar with or uninterested in participating in the democratic process. Uneducated, unengaged citizens are a recipe for democracy failure. Other factors that ruin a democracy's effectiveness: corrupt leaders and lax enforcement. The leaders just rig the elections and the enforcement just lets it all slide.

Another issue is public policy. Looking at what other countries have tried and how it works in their countries is like drawing up a theoretical policy experiment and then seeing the results before your eyes. The policy's results won't ever match 1-1 with your native country if said policy was implemented due to differences in culture and environment, but just seeing how others have done things opens your mind to the possibilities and forces you to understand a different perspective. The same applies to cultural values or mores. Often I have found myself in Asia in wonder at some common practice or another that is superior, in almost every way, to what we have in America. (And I've found the opposite as well).

- crumbling US infrastructure vs. the World's "Crumbling" is a bit of hyperbole, but still, the first thing you notice when traveling is how new and modern the rest of the world's airports are compared to those in the USA. New York, America's supposed mecca of culture and a truly international city, has airports whose decrepitness puts lesser cities to shame. Don't get me started on the subways.

I would say that the USA has one of the best governing infrastructures, but only average (and slipping fast) physical infrastructure. Oh, and US Broadband speeds rank is #12. I'm particularly emotional about that one.

Overall, the US is still one of the best countries to live in the world for a number of its strengths that are unmatched, and will not be surpassed for the next several decades, if ever. But signs are showing that the civilizing fabric which holds our country together is weakening: deadlocked political process, income and wealth disparity at historical levels, the Great Recession, and what some might lament as a decline in values and morals into a disgusting morass of consumerism, selfish individualism, and celebrity worship.

But it could be all part of the cycle, and the future is still bright. The highly educated citizenry, and especially the youth(courtesy of all those student loans!), are some of our greatest strengths.

Meanwhile, at the risk of sounding un-PC, the uneducated underclass is our biggest weakness, although I'm unsure whether historically it is larger in size relative to the population.

I'm not bearish on America... yet. There are too many good things going for it. The energy, dynamism, ambition, and intelligence are all in absurdly high concentrations in numerous US cities. The political system just needs a little tweaking.

intellegacy··on Books Every Entrepreneur Should Read
Agree. Friends saw me as a dreamer, and so for several years I received numerous recommendations to read The Alchemist.

I found the story superficial, disjointed, and disappointing overall. I'm not sure what the appeal is.

intellegacy··on Ask HN: how do you know if you have a secret, just wrong? (from Thiel lectures)
Yep, its the classic road less traveled idea. Greater risk that you'll get eaten or find nothing at all, but also greater chance you'll strike it big.

Its interesting how many different kinds of startup strategies there are. Some take the unexplored route and flail about trying to find a business model or concept that sticks. Others just copy what others are doing and attempt to out-execute / outcompete. The correct strategy probably has a lot to do with the strengths of your founding team. If you are all execution monsters then choosing a well-traveled space and out-executing everyone is a play that could work well. If you have a founder with unique vision, then following him into the Blue Ocean could prove extremely lucrative.

intellegacy··on Ask HN: how do you know if you have a secret, just wrong? (from Thiel lectures)
How do you know if they disagree with you because its a good secret, or if they disagree with you because you have a shitty idea?

This is a great question. So simple yet so difficult to answer.

If we were to go about this systematically, the best way would be to write out the reasons behind your belief in this secret, and then compare your reasoning to smart people's. Human brains don't always get it right; sometimes (oftentimes) we possess incorrect or incomplete models of reality and are simply unable to or too slow to adapt. Listing out your reasoning is a way to expose these flaws whether in your logic or in theirs.

Either the people who disagree or you yourself are missing some key information or insight. Maybe they are jaded or scared or risk-averse or never really took the time to fully think about the idea.

That is probably the only systematic way. But, we must account for the importance of courage as well. It's impossible to be 100% sure of any society-changing secret, so also important is the guts to stick with your secret. Everyone could see through the emperor's new clothes but only one person dared to trust himself and risk saying something. Same as in life, many people have known secrets but they didn't risk following through with it.

Again, it's impossible to be 100% sure of anything and we must account for luck. So say some people disagree with your secret and they peg the chance of success at 5%. Well, if you have some insight that they lack, maybe that quintuples your chance of success to 25%. It's not 100% but now your secret could be worth pursuing, even if you fail in the end!

intellegacy··on Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie
I agree that intelligence, after a certain upper limit, isn't required for success, and in fact an abundance of it at the upper levels may actually work against success.

Bill Gates stopped pursuing math because he realized at Harvard that he wouldn't be the best at it. He was actually taking graduate level math courses in his undergrad sophomore year.

source: http://askville.amazon.com/read-Bill-Gates-toughest-math-cou...

Anyways, I agree that smartest doesn't mean best at starting a company. Intelligence + Hard Work + Competitiveness + Connections + Luck all play a role. Bill Gates had all of them. Most people are lucky to have 1 or 2.

edit:: I guess the reason I'm replying to you is I get the sense that you think luck played a significant role in Gates' success. It may have, but if you read up on Gates you will learn how significantly better equipped he is for success: high intelligence (i'd guess in the top 10% in his class at Harvard if not higher), ridiculous work ethic, ridiculous competitiveness.

Luck plays a role in all success stories but I submit that Gates would be very successful even without it.

intellegacy··on Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie
You have some facts about Bill Gates wrong. Not only is he smarter than other smart people but he's also harder working than most other hard-working people. It was generally accepted among his classmates that he was the smartest in his class at Lakeview and one of the smartest at Harvard.

Also, you could say that Bill Gates got lucky with the CP/M OS deal, but he was shrewd enough to give himself the advantage in the majority of the contracts he made with others. Luck did play a huge role in Microsoft's success but their success was multiplied by Bill's intelligence, hard work, cunning, and competitiveness.

intellegacy··on Michael Lewis: Don't Eat Fortune's Cookie
I liked your analysis and agree for the most part. But you can't leave out the talent factor, nor the resources/position one starts with. It is possible to be born into success.
intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
Thanks for the reply. It's hard to remember sometimes that if wealth is defined by what humans value then increased choice can lead to more efficient wealth. I'm just having trouble reconciling the fact that wealth is being created when we achieve more efficiently what we want but the overall pie is not increasing. Perhaps the pie analogy has limitations. In your example, the pie wouldn't increase, but it would be a better pie. Does that makes sense? It sounds strange as we are not used to thinking of wealth in terms of "better" or "worse", only more or less.

Now, you could say that there's money wasted on pizza marketing or too many entrants for all pizzerias to survive, so some will go out of business. All true, but those are short run phenomena. Over the long run, the result is greater efficiency.

Yes, this is what I'm thinking of. Too many competitors in the short-term. Is there a point where there are no more efficiencies to be found though? Or the efficiencies are so small as to be negligible? Like having 101 pizza shops vs. 100.

On an intuitive level, increasing the efficiency of production feels more important to me than maximizing efficiency of utility. But both affect wealth positively.

intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
Ok, I'm reading some economics as I type. on Economic efficiency: Efficiency is really about a society making the best or optimal use of our scarce resources to satisfy most wants & needs.

To use your bread example, more bread companies offering more choices, allow us to better satisfy our diverse wants of bread. Basically we receive more value from our money. This is good.

But does adding more bread companies increase the resources we have? We can only eat so much quantity or so many varieties of bread.

To grow the overall wealth pie, we have to either make better use of our existing resources or increase the efficiency of production. Basically, improvements in process or technology leading to greater production.

I'm not against Steve Blank's 99% mainstream entrepreneurship course by any means. Helping entrepreneurs make better decisions raises the level of competition in the industry and in most cases that is good for society. But if the new businesses started don't come with innovation then I see this as fiercer fighting for a stagnant (or shrinking) pie. I value growing the pie over dividing it more optimally, although I suppose each is important.

intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
Ok, now this is getting interesting. You raise some interesting points that make me question the deeper meaning of what wealth really is. Perhaps we simply disagree about the definition of wealth. From Wikipedia:

the meaning of wealth is context-dependent and there is no universally agreed upon definition. At the most general level, economists may define wealth as "anything of value" which captures both the subjective nature of the idea and the idea that it is not a fixed or static concept.

So it seems a lot of the discussion in this thread revolves around semantics, mainly about what defines wealth.

So what exactly is your definition of wealth? I don't understand the logical basic behind your arguments.

For example: Actually, the bartender would be richer in this case. I bought money, that action alone increased my wealth the same way buying a car increases my wealth. I have something now that I didn't have before. What I do with that money is really irrelevant, in the same way that how fast I drive the car is irrelevant.

You exchanged your money for a car. You could now be wealthier in the sense that the car brings you happiness or functionality that you didn't have before, enabling you to be more productive. But what if you already owned a car and were simply indulging yourself? What if this was your 5th car that you didn't need? So you could keep on buying cars forever, and you'd be continually increasing your wealth? I don't understand why buying the car automatically makes you wealthier. If you give a hobo $10,000 to buy an hour of him walking in circles, you've increased your wealth of entertainment perhaps, but it is a stretch by any definition of wealth to say you've created it.

If I physically burned the money, sure. But the same is true if I physically burn my house down. Of course this too adds to the economy."

Assuming your house was functioning and adequate then the economy is poorer without your house. That is wealth destruction not creation. For now you have to pay for a new house. Someone has to use the materials and labor to build that house. You pay him your money to do so. Now you have less. Wealth was not created here. It was shifted around from your pocket to the construction company's.

intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
This has devolved into a semantic argument about wealth and pies. Part of the confusion isn't helped by one line in PG's essay:

People think that what a business does is make money. But money is just the intermediate stage-- just a shorthand-- for whatever people want. What most businesses really do is make wealth. They do something people want.

Besides this one confusing sentence PG gets wealth creation correctly: its about increasing the size of the pie, and that is what's important for the country as a whole.

Your example of the realtor and the bank is not wealth creation, but money transfer. They didn't create new wealth. They made money from you, and your "wealth" is now decreased. The only wealth created in this instance is the wealth you add to the pie when you use that loan to complete your house. The realtor and bank add value in that they enable you to do your wealth-creating thing: build a house. The simple act of lending you 100k is not wealth-creation because if you piss that money away or burn it, all you have done is give money to someone else. The world is not richer as a result.

intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
You make a leap in the story there when you assume that the incumbent will discover the innovation. It is so subtle too: and one of them happens upon the fact

I don't think its that easy, and the story could have turned out a number of different ways and you chose the one that supported your argument (much like I did in my other reply to you).

Increased competition could lead to a race to the bottom, with each competitor slashing prices, engaging in expensive marketing wars and predatory acquisitions. With so much heated competition, R&D budgets get slashed by short-term thinking managers. There is no innovation for a decade, only decreased profits.

intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
Um, no. Nothing in the economy is zero sum. Wealth is constantly being created and transferred.

Created and transferred are two different things. Created means new wealth is generated through increased efficiency or innovation. The pie gets bigger. Transferred means one player loses and the other gains (the definition of zero zum). The pie stays the same, only the relative size of each slice changes.

Secondly, increasing competition increases pressure to become more efficient and/or innovative, which in turn drives market growth. The whole idea of helping and soliciting help in business is an act of innovation.

You argue that increased efficiency is a kind of innovation. Your argument is that increased competition leads to increased efficiency, and by increasing efficiency in a market more resources are freed for other markets and the pie gets bigger.

I may agree with you here, but you'll have to provide examples.

* Increasing the quantity of entrepreneurs by default increases the quality, because it increases the pressure to compete, and therefore leads to the very innovation you feel is the real solution*

Can you provide concrete examples?

Several points: I can agree with your argument on a theoretical level but its still a leap to make the connection between increased quantity leading to innovation without evidence or examples.

1) One instance in which your argument could be true: If there are greater efficiencies discovered in one industry (for example, a new gizmo that doesn't require as many restaurant cooks), leading to less labor costs and subsequently lower cost of food, leading to increased money in consumer's pockets with which they could spend in other industries.

But who discovered that efficiency? It could be made by a separate party and have no connection to the increase of competitors. It is a leap to draw the correlation between increased competitors and innovation.

2) One instance where it may not be true: An industry where there are little or no efficiencies to be captured.

Lets say there are 10,000 software design firms competing with one another and they make their profit from software consulting projects. If they all make a profit of $1,000,000 / year and you add another 10,000 competitors, all providing the same service, two things will happen for sure: 1) some of the new competitors will gain entry to the market, leading to lower profit for everyone else. 2) some competitors will fail.

It is possible that the innovations are simply not there to be found by the new entrants, even with their newfound startup wisdom. Innovation is not a matter of strictly effort. For example, I recently came back from a trip to Southeast Asia where I traveled for 3 months across many of the developing countries and witnessed the effects of increased competition there among the street hawkers.

In the street-hawking industry there simply aren't many innovations to be discovered. Adding more entrepreneurs to the mix wouldn't lead to innovation, but rather a race to the bottom. Profits across the board would decrease and consumers would benefit.

Also, a point about quality: increased quality does not necessarily lead to a greater pie. We may lead richer lives from 10% more delicious food but the wealth pie stays the same. (although that is valuable as well).

intellegacy··on Entrepreneurship for the 99%
It seems to me that the industries most kinds of 99% businesses enter is zero-sum, which means helping new businesses only hurts the profit of other new businesses or incumbents. Ergo I question what value from an overall economic perspective helping individual entrants to the 99% market holds.

(Here I use as examples the industries defined from the article: construction, retail, health care, lodging, food services)

For instance, if 10 businesses are started, and there is only room in the market for 3, then 7 will inevitably fail. It is possible to improve each's individual odds of success, but to what end? Unless the market these businesses are in grows, any successfully-started new business only increases competition for the others. So lets say that we improve the odds for these new entrepreneurs by educating them. We will also assume incumbents have access to the same knowledge and benefit equally. If the new competitors all enter the market together, all we have done is raise the competitiveness level in the industry, and the odds of failing are still the same.

This is what Peter Thiel discusses in his "perfect competition" argument. (If you haven't read his CS183 notes yet, please do so. They're insightful).

Peter Thiel likens competition to athletes or soldiers beating each other up. They compete to win and that is what they know how to do. But in the end there is only one victor. The rest are losers. And if you improve the competitiveness level of these athletes, all you have done is make the competition fiercer. Now that could be a good thing as it could provide better value for consumers. But the businesses themselves don't benefit from that!

All this program is doing is making more perfect competitors, although what will probably happen is not all will benefit the same amount, as certain businesses will learn and apply these lessons better than others. But from a birds eye perspective, the result is stil the same: the same number of failing businesses. Even if these new businesses you help succeed do in fact "make it", they don't increase the size of the industry (barring technological breakthroughs). They only add more players to a limited pie.

People by nature care more about themselves. Thus they care more about entrepreneurship rather than innovation per se. Entrepreneurship without innovation is about beating up the other guy, simply outcompeting him through energy or maneuvering. Innovation is about doing something better, freeing up time or resources to do other things, which grows the pie for all.

In summary:

Sure a new business may add value by providing a better service than the competitor it beats, but the overall wealth pie of this nation doesn't increase. Encouraging just entrepreneurship without technological innovation is not that useful from a macro perspective. What we need are new entrants who change the game via technological or process breakthroughs. These are precisely the kind of companies that Peter Thiel seems most interested in, according to his CS183 lectures. And I submit that these are the kinds of businesses startups should focus on. Not the other 99% which only increase competition for everyone else.

This is why R&D and innovation are the key to growing the economy. Simply calling for more entrepreneurs, without a corresponding emphasis on innovation, is a flawed long-term strategy.

← PreviousPage 7 of 7