The Dangerous Rise Of Unproductive Entrepreneurship
from the this-is-bad-news dept
For many years now, we've talked about Andy Kessler's concept of political entrepreneurs vs. market entrepreneurs. In Kessler's telling, market entrepreneurs are the kind of entrepreneurs that people usually think about -- the ones creating startups and high growth companies and the like. While not everyone appreciates it, those entrepreneurs tend to provide a lot more to the world than they take away. They may get filthy rich in the process, but they tend to make the world a better place by creating lots of value. The "political entrepreneurs," on the other hand, are those who basically look to abuse the system to create monopoly rents and to limit competition. Those entrepreneurs may also get filthy rich, but they tend to do it by limiting value and locking it up so that only they can get it. Obviously, one of those is a lot better for society than the other.
Of course, this idea certainly didn't originate with Kessler, either. Just recently, we had James Allworth on our podcast where we talked about this issue in response to an excellent article he'd recently written about how prioritizing profit over democracy was actually damaging American entrepreneurship. In that article, he referred back to the work of William Baumol, who wrote a paper back in 1990, entitled: Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. As you can see, that one divides entrepreneurship into three categories. Productive loosely maps to "market entrepreneurs" in Kessler's world, while "Unproductive" loosely translates to "political entrepreneurs" as well. Baumol also includes destructive entrepreneurs, who are actively making the world worse -- and getting rich off of people's misery (think drug dealers, and such).
But part of the point of Allworth's article is that it feels like too many people are just focusing on "profit" as the end goal, and thus either unwilling or unconcerned with determining if the entrepreneurship that drives the profit is "productive" or "unproductive." And, now the Economist has weighed in on this issue as well, noting that we're seeing more and more unproductive entrepreneurship in America, and that's a problem. The article focuses on the work of two economists, Robert Litan and Ian Hathaway, who are building on Baumol's concepts and are concerned about where things are heading. One interesting thing: they find that the issue can't be neatly put into the category of "too much regulation" or "too little regulation," but rather find that both of those situations can create the same rise in unproductive entrepreneurship:
What explains this shift? One factor appears to be the success of various professional groups in convincing the government to tailor regulation to their needs, for instance by lobbying for occupational licensing. Jason Furman, then the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, observed in 2015 that the share of the American workforce covered by state licensing laws grew from less than 5% in the 1950s to 25% by 2008, arguing that this deterred new competition.
The proliferation of occupational licensing might be seen as harmful overregulation. Other sectors are plagued by the opposite. Jeffrey Zhang, an economist at the Federal Reserve, argues that banking deregulation in the 1990s led to rapid bank concentration alongside “sub-optimally higher levels of risk-taking”. As a result, the salaries of senior bank employees grew rapidly. Zhang concludes that the rent-seeking enabled by financial deregulation played a sizeable role in the growth of income inequality: bankers were able to skew the system in their favour, to the detriment of everybody else.
Indeed, we see this in areas that we cover as well. Certainly it seems like letting the big cable and telco companies run free for a decade decreased competition, lowered the quality of service (massively) and allowed those companies to create massive monopoly rents for themselves. But in many other industries, we've pointed out the problems with excessive occupational licensing. I know not everyone agrees, but we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary (even if companies like Uber may have been run by some awful people). Similarly, we've discussed repeatedly how excess regulations in the drone space have really held back what could be a huge area of innovation.
The Economist article suggests that the ability of industries to steer regulations in a way they want is a big part of the issue:
The success of such lobbying depends on the government’s susceptibility. This does not appear to be in short supply in America. James E. Bessen, an economist at Boston University,links high profits through regulatory advantages to political factors including lobbying and campaign spending. The work of other economists reinforces his observation. Jeffrey R. Brown and Jiekun Huang, two researchers writing for the National Bureau of Economic Research, use data> from White House visitor logs during the Obama administration to show that corporate executives’ meetings with White House staff were associated with a bump in their company stock price, more government contracts and positive regulatory decisions. Firms that had better access to the Obama White House also experienced a large drop in stock prices when the 2016 election result was announced.
In the tech world, this is unfortunate. It used to be that tech companies didn't need to have a presence in DC, because they could just innovate, rather than having to deal constantly with policy pressure. But, nowadays that's increasingly difficult -- and not necessarily because everyone else is lobbying -- but rather because the political landscape has become something of a shakedown game. As we've discussed in the past, while many outside of DC view lobbyists as making all of this happen, those involved suggest the roles are reversed here. Politicians -- desperate to raise campaign cash -- are often the ones reaching out to companies and basically threatening them with certain regulations if they don't decide to step up and donate.
So what's the end result here? That's... not clear. Unfortunately, it appears that crony capitalism is on the rise, and with it, more and more unproductive entrepreneurship. The real problem, as James and I discussed in our podcast, is that this is unsustainable, and most likely will mean growing productive entrepreneurship happening elsewhere (and we're already seeing some evidence of that today). There certainly doesn't seem to be any real concerted effort to move away from unproductive entrepreneurship in the US -- but perhaps by making more people aware of it, people will start to recognize how big a problem it truly is.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: andy kessler, business models, entrepreneurship, james allworth
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wasn't it Bill Clinton who famously said, "It's the economy, stupid!"?
Well, there's definitely some stupidity involved there. This seems to be one of the biggest, most harmful misunderstandings of our day. It's not the economy, stupid! The economy is an effect, and a second-order effect at that, not a cause. Trying to manipulate it directly leads to disaster. (See: every major economic bubble/crash cycle since we started down this path in the 80s.)
If you want a strong economy--one that's truly strong rather than a bunch of fake strength propped up by debt--you don't achieve it by focusing on the economy. You achieve it by focusing on morality. Do the right thing, treat your people well, have businesses treat their workers and their customers well rather than exploiting them, and you get the sort of strength that nations dream about.
Just look at Henry Ford. His policies of treating his workers well and paying them enough that they'd be able to buy Ford automobiles were so successful at jump-starting the American middle class that the whole concept ended up being referred to as "Fordism" by economists. Somehow we've gotten away from Fordism, to our detriment. Bring it back, stop trying to manipulate the economy directly, and we'll see our economy pick up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not just trying to direct the economy directly. It's also the 'entrepreneurs' who start businesses (or get in positions of power within existing companies), or think tanks, and then directly influence politicians to direct laws and other government activity to their benefit. We are no longer a government of the people, we have a government of the Military Industrial Intelligence Complex. Breaking that will be very difficult.
I am currently reading a book by Robert Ludlum called Trevayne. It is about this, exactly. Yes I know it is fiction, but like much fiction it contains a lot of truth, which makes the fiction more compelling. And, it was written in 1973.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet many of you STILL harp on letting them write those laws?
Free Market is necessary to counter balance corruption. It is the ONLY institution where the consumer gets a significant enough say in matters. Sure, we need some regulation to help avoid a few of the natural pit falls of a free-market, but people in general or unwilling to do the work that it takes to remain free.
Slaves, often and willingly, fall prey to a new master shortly after having the shackles of a former master removed, even as they rejoice of their victory!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Regulation is necessary, but the regulation should be in the interest of the people, not the corporations (though maybe some should be pro corporate, a very few). Then the government needs to implement and enforce those regulations. Allowing the telcom industry to consolidate to the point that it has without calling them out via the FTC is just wrong. Allowing the banking crisis to unfold and then double down by not charging anyone is just wrong. Etc..
Take the influence of money, and political parties out of politics and we would be on our way. Force lobbyists to speak to the issues and remove their financial clout would be another great step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I said the exact same thing, just a different way.
"Regulation is necessary,..."
Agree
" but the regulation should be in the interest of the people, not the corporations"
Wrong, because it is not possible. If the solution to a problem is to create 'inequality' then you are definitely not going to get the solution you were expecting. People always fight against inequality in the most interesting ways, but those with the largest singular pools of resources will win every time, never has there been an exception. Even in the cases where a big player was taken down, another big player profits off that loss. The consumers only get a temporary reprieve, they never get the upper hand because they always give away their bargaining position to a politician.
"Then the government needs to implement and enforce those regulations."
Ahh... yes, this is exactly what happened. The original anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws were not enforced. Why? Because corruption, instead of replacing the corrupt people we instead asked for more regulation. Not sure why people thought that this would work, but here we are. It's exactly like asking for a criminal to save us from another criminal, there is always a price to be paid, criminals don't work for free... they shall have their pound of flesh, even if they have to carve it off you themselves.
"Take the influence of money, and political parties out of politics and we would be on our way. Force lobbyists to speak to the issues and remove their financial clout would be another great step."
How do you propose this to be accomplished? It cannot be done within the realm of humanity we simply lack the capacity to achieve this. Humanity is a default evil set of creatures, we are not default good. We have to be taught to share and value others and ideas foreign to us, we do not have to be taught to be selfish and greedy, that comes quite naturally to us.
We laugh at the misfortune of others writing off it off as, darwin awards, or what could go wrong, or instant karma. We scoff at the stupid and sneer at the wise. The moment we have to lift a finger we expect compensation for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is just brilliant. Everyone should read that twice, maybe three times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
>How do you propose this to be accomplished?
This is actually simple. Government pays for all elections, private money is not allowed. It wouldn't be that expensive. And banning political parties is something some of the founders argued about, it is not a new idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Giving the government more power and control is certainly no way to remove corruption, it only increases it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is actually simple. Government pays for all elections, private money is not allowed. It wouldn't be that expensive. And banning political parties is something some of the founders argued about, it is not a new idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Humans are born with a clean slate. We learn thru experience and repeat that which was successful in the past.
"we do not have to be taught to be selfish and greedy, that comes quite naturally to us."
This also is learned, you just do not remember learning it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
QED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having a clean slate has nothing to do with your innate desire for good or evil, it is a complete non-sequitur in this context.
And what do you mean by this?
"This also is learned, you just do not remember learning it."
Of course it is learned, everything is learned, but you appear to be falsely equating the words learn and taught, and they are NOT equitable terms in the least. Being taught may beget learning, but one can learn without being taught.
Do you see any schools of "here, learn some evil?", no you do not, they are not necessary.
Do you see any schools of "here, learn some good?", yes, we have several of those.
We have laws, institutions, and education systems that all work towards the goal of suppressing the negative elements of humanity while advancing the positive elements. A wise man quickly understands that fighting our rather evil nature become important, so important that we contribute a vast amount of resources in the effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The post to which I replied stated that when born, infants are already selfish and greedy by default and that such things are not learned but part of nature or something and offered no proof other than anecdotal "experience".
I called bullshit - what is your beef?
You say "of course it's learned" and then tell me why I was wrong when I stated that it is learned ... and you claim I am confused.
"Do you see any schools of "here, learn some evil?", no you do not, they are not necessary."
How do you know what I can see, you have no idea and yet you tell me what it is I am seeing? Interesting.
"We have laws, institutions, and education systems that all work towards the goal of suppressing the negative elements of humanity while advancing the positive elements. "
In theory ... in practice, results may vary.
"A wise man quickly understands that fighting our rather evil nature become important, so important that we contribute a vast amount of resources in the effort."
Fighting our evil nature is also a good metaphor for police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Theoretical concept .. No such thing.
Even if there were such a thing, it would not be the panacea you think it to be.
Your free market is not an institution, it is a hypothetical construct from which to derive market models and predict future trends ... but we all know how fallible those are at this time.
Consumers have little say in anything other than where to purchase things and what brands to buy. Regulations have not stopped the creation of monopoly privileges and it is not the fault of people in general.
Yes, we are wage slaves. Leave one slave driver to work with another who pays a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, now you want me to go to sleep? Why, so that you can then rob me blind?
The American dream was and still is a fantasy, similar to winning the lotto. Sure, someone wins - right?
"Then go do something that is worth something"
Hey! Are you claiming my life has been a waste? - lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Money spend on lobbying/corrupting is certainly not ineffectuve seen from the point of Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
for example, top generals tell congress they do not need any more tanks as they have plenty sitting in the desert unused at the moment. Then - Congress approves funding for hundreds of new tanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rent-Seeking
"Rent seeking” is one of the most important insights in the last fifty years of economics. Gordon Tullock originated the idea in 1967, and Anne Krueger introduced the label in 1974.
The idea is simple but powerful. People are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. They typically do so by getting a subsidy for a good they produce or for being in a particular class of people, by getting a tariff on a good they produce, or by getting a special regulation that hampers their competitors. Elderly people, for example, often seek higher Social Security payments; steel producers often seek restrictions on imports of steel; and licensed electricians and dentists often lobby to keep regulations in place that restrict competition from unlicensed electricians or dentists. ISP's want heavy regulations that cripple small competitors and new startups.
Normal market Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with it -- it's simply the illicit process of getting special favors from government politicians and bureaucrats. It blossoms anywhere there is government... the bigger the government-- the bigger the rent seeking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rent-Seeking
The investopedia has a pretty good definition of rent seeking, which jibes better with Mike's thesis: Rent-seeking is the use of the resources of a company, an organization or an individual to obtain economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits to society through wealth creation. [Emphasis mine]
Another way to rent-seek is to sit on undeveloped land, lobby/bribe local governments for zoning changes, and wait for the taxpayers to pay for roads, water, sewages to that land, then bribe the politicians for that last final zone change so they can sell the land at its new value and at great profit.
Of course, in today's world, this profit isn't taxed (enough), even though all the increased value is the result of all the money that the other people spent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
The other issues with patents, is that they assume that innovation is the work of one man, where in reality the patent is often granted to the one person who took the last step, or managed to integrate the works of others first. Those who have done the work leading to that point end up gaining nothing.
Also, as often as not patents become a road block to innovation, by getting in the way of the core of human progress, some one looking at what others have done, and building on top of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
Not sure what you mean by assuming the work of one man, patents can have multiple authors, and often do.
Patents contribute directly to allowing the public to look at the work of what others have done, that's kind of the whole point. Patents have to be very specific about how to build and deploy an invention, and they're free for all to see. Everyone builds on top of patents, everyone that's a legitimate inventor, anyway. You pretty much have to do a patent search before you file your application to make sure you are not wasting your time. There is no better free catalog to stimulate the road to invention than patents. USPTO. MAGA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
Given the way the trolls twist the already twisted languages of recent patents, it is not even a reliable guide as to how to avoid being held up at the point of a case in East Texas when you start to make a profit or gain significant investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
Without patents who would invest in 3d printers, Micro controllers and their accessories. Hmmmm, Joseph Prusa, Arduino and Adafruit are still going strong while using open source licenses and having intense competition from the Chines clone makers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
3D printing is a technology that to a large extent was held back by patents. Expiration of the key patents led to the rapid innovation is the design and use of the technology because it then became available to tinkerers who are more interested in solving problems than than extracting a premium rent from a few industrial users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rent-Seeking
No, it is stealing. When an employer refuses to pay their employees commensurate with what it takes to live in that community, said employees need assistance or they leave. Said employer whines to the government who then provides assistance to those under paid people thus relieving employer from their responsibility.
If an employer is unable to pay their employees enough to live, then maybe said business should go out of business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Often purely economic argumentation is supply side, which is: If domestic markets can't absorb it, it will create trade. We get more competitive by reducing the costs associated with workers, thus strenghtening the economy! Well, that again requires a foreign market to absorb it, since you are reducing the domestic markets buying power...
The pure market argument is that state jobs are very important for the economy, since they won't move to Mehico and will strenghten the economy, but that argument doesn't take into account that such services cannot generate trade on its own...
There is a balance and it is important to keep in mind that balancing a budget is more about priorities than economics. The growth in internal markets can also an economic driver, but to keep the investing from getting too rentseeking-heavy you need redistribution of wealth (private or public), since it stands to reason that sustinance costs will mean more tangible sales than economic abundance, that results in a search for ways to make them multiply...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
All that's new is A) doing it on teh internets TOO now, and B) deeply and recklessly financed by cheap money from the "Federal Reserve" printing a TRILLION dollars a year; Uber LOSES MONEY EVERY RIDE, trying to establish a monopoly. -- The NEW about Uber is that its illegal practice of deliberately losing money to wipe out the competition is NOT "regulated" or punished in this fascist era. When I was born, Kalanick and the investors would have been JAILED for their SCHEME.
You millenials believe all is NEW starting from your birth. You have a knowledge of history literally less than mice, don't know that capitalist cats get fat by eating you.
You're an Ivy League economist, all right: omitted obvious major facts while repeating academic euphemism: "Unproductive Entrepreneurship" used to be called FRAUD and THEFT.
All this blathering about "entrepreneurs" omits another major factor: large numbers of persons in America literally entitled by birth: the Born Rich, who were given a pile of numbers and call themselves "venture capitalists", pretending that they're productive and not laborers. If were ANY actual political analysis here, it'd start with those parasites, and the remedy of simply taking numbers away from them, the totally artificial means by which they control the productive workers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
No. Exact opposite: it's EGALITARIAN, the Labor Theory Of Value, which is Marxism if you want a really good pejorative label, but the label doesn't refute facts that working class people create most of actual value in their daily grind. Brains are good, but Born Rich by definition have all the money and material goods they could ever enjoy and spend their time only on gaining total power over the serfs. Period. (But see below for the "working Rich".)
>>> Just "taking number" away from a whole class of people?
There's no empirically correct share of the rewards due "entrepreneurs". Workers are due MORE than minimum wage. Even the laziest janitor does more for the country than Masnick ever has. The Rich depend totally -- even if not directly -- on laborers. Period.
>>> Some of my friends made a lot of money by working hard and smart, then got bored, and now they're VCs.
I bet they started relatively rich compared to my friends who were bucking hay high school summers, instead of touring amusement parks as Masnick was. My friends were essentially doomed to 40 years of actual physical 8-10 hour a day labor. Are YOU disparaging the whole MAJORITY of people who DON'T get rich young and retire to live off laborers? The Poor merely fight the wars and do all the labor.
>>> Are you really going to label them all "parasites"?
Yes. That's the definition of Rich. -- I don't so much mind those who GET rich by trading values they make, but BEING rich is simply parasitism. "Money" is no longer a means of exchanging labor, it's simply a fiction used to control.
>>> Pretty simplistic view, right, no so different than white supremacists or Techdirt supremacists who also disrespect and disconsider whole classes of people.
Okay, and you're no different from any Born Rich tyrant who sees themselves as innately superior, ordained by GOD to rule over others. -- In fact they and you were just born lucky. -- There (poor, laboring, taxed, and cheated by The Rich) but for the grace of God go YOU.
I had the luck to be born in a now vanished country called the United States Of America: the Rich have destroyed it with neo-fascism and globalism, turned it into a pretty literal neo-feudalism without opportunity for the poor TOO. I don't recognize this "America" you demand that I "love".
Now, I don't do back and forth. I just advise you not regard ME as an enemy. I'm not. I'm an American and entitled to complain about The Rich and their parasitism that makes ME a serf, that's what started the Revolution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
Wrong
"I would agree that all of us crusty old farts were also stupid when we were young"
Good, not everyone is in denial
Patents != people
Venture Capitalists != minorities
I see where you are attempting to go, but the rational is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
Is he not an individual, that deserves respect and consideration based on his individual merits and history? Or is he a "VC", and thus should be summarily stripped of his wealth and privilege. What do you think? Ready to punish all the VCs like him? Ship them off to another country? (Atlas Shrugged)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
No one deserves respect - they must earn it, otherwise what you are talking about is admire ... maybe even adulation - but not respect.
Why do you think that I desire VCs to be "summarily stripped of his wealth and privilege" ... what ever that means ?
Is it because I said they are not a minority? Seriously, you seem to have gone off the deep end.
What do you think of carried interest that many VCs use?
There are some who call it a tax cheat - you agree?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
Take a look at Mr. Chopra, if you'd like. You will never meet a nicer, more congenial, helpful and selfless man that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He was a huge help in one of my first businesses (very small), and gave me his time and support simply as one American Entrepreneur to another - a very caring and accomplished individual. Deserves respect, trust me on that.
I have no ideas about carried interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
But that was not something that I posted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "we think the rise of car hailing services and home sharing like Airbnb has been quite revolutionary "
I am not surprised by this.
You vigorously defend venture capitalists on a few points but overlook one of the major items that make them look bad. Why is that?
Carried interest is a tax dodge, plain and simple. These folk amass huge amounts of cash by taking advantage of tax loopholes not afforded to the general population and then wag their fingers at those less fortunate claiming all they need to do is pull themselves up by their own bootstraps - lol that is so ridiculous a thing thing to say that it makes them look ignorant - maybe they are.
Carried Interest - Look it up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anyone here love America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does anyone here love America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
Oh, great. First you eat up all the paste, the paint chips, and the crayons. Now you've found the stamps and are slapping them around willy-nilly.
We shouldn't have used one of those self-disabling smart locks for our art closet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does anyone here love America?
Is there a single brave soul willing to post on this thread that they love their own country, today, as it is, warts and all? Any takers, anywhere on Techdirt? My guess is that Techdirt is comprised of 100% uneducated ararchists (with very few exceptions), I've been studying them the better part of a year. Prove me wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
I love this country and therefore I wish to make it better.
If you care for a friend do you stay silent about their destructive alcoholism?
Do remain silent while they are killing themselves with illegal drugs or if they are living an unhealthy lifestyle that is worsening an existing medical condition?
That not love or caring, that's stupid.
If you are concerned the country is going in the wrong direction or doing something detrimental to its existence as a nation... However many elite citizens it may offend or make uncomfortable... You point it out.
You discuss and seek answers on how to better that nation, not just for the few who don't give a rat's ass about it, but for all.
That's true caring.
Yeah, I love America, but not the oozing warts of destructive greed and political corruption.
Advocating blind patriotism and willful blindness to a bad situation is not patriotic nor loving.
I do not wish to stand at the funeral for this nation and think "Gee, I wish I would have said something", as so many have said for friends and family that intervention may have saved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does anyone here love America?
Not any of the politicians out there.
Oh, and you should look up the definition of traitor before going around accusing everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
/ˈtrādər/
noun
noun: traitor; plural noun: traitors
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.
"they see me as a traitor, a sellout to the enemy"
synonyms: betrayer, backstabber, double-crosser, renegade, fifth columnist; turncoat, defector, deserter; collaborator, informer, mole, snitch, double agent; Judas, Benedict Arnold, quisling; informalsnake in the grass, two-timer, rat, scab, fink
"convicted traitors will be executed"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
I'm glad you consider the possibility, because accusing others with little to no reason or evidence is simply wrong.
This thread is about Unproductive Entrepreneurship, you seem obsessed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Does anyone here love America?
Sometimes I do seem a little obsessed, when I go back and take the time to read my own stuff. I don't feel obsessed, I do this just for fun. But you might be right, self-examination is always tricky to do well, and other people's opinions are worth considering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"To Serve Man"
It's really frustrating that the only economists who get air time and the politicans' and business people's ear are the same ones who keep getting it wrong.
Without a doubt, It is THE most important requirement to succeed in power circles in Washington.
I've been informing myself a lot about this very topic. Can I suggest:
These won't cheer you up but it will give you some non-Hayekians' explanation of the very phenomenon of this article addresses.
The Chicago School of Economics, the neoliberals, and the Hayekians keep citing The Road to Serfdom. As with the Kanamit's To Serve Man, it's an instruction manual for them on how to deal with us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "To Serve Man"
Irt. Libertarianism today, that also builds on a russian chain-smoking, fiction writer and hypocrit called Ayn Rand. I would not bet on that side more than the environmentonomics arguing that the environmental and population numbers mean we need to cut our living standard significantly to help the poor in the world...
There is no doubt and has never been any doubt, that overlending is a serious problem and a disease that can/will expand the economic bubbles before they burst. We could learn something from a certain interpretation of sharia where it is illegal to earn money on lending!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "To Serve Man"
That was an episode of either Twilight Zone or Outer Limits ... It's a Cook Book !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "To Serve Man"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The inevitable result of sociopathy
The next crisis won't end so smoothly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
About the crisis ending smoothly, please never forget that we are armed. That's very American, too. Nearly all of us are armed, that is part of the design of America. Want to have an open conflict with us, want to threaten us physically, it will end very smoothly, I just oiled my gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
"hard(ware) working people can produce unlimited wealth"
The USA is one of the least socially mobile countries in the world.
While the idea is that America is a classless society where hard, smart work will be rewarded, it certainly a false myth. The four countries with the highest social mobility, are Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada. The US and the UK had the lowest social mobility - that is, how much money your father made dictates how much money you made. If you want to be rich in America, pick your parents wisely.
I realize that all this requires a lot of reading but before you spout catchphrases, you really should have data behind your assertions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
I know it's difficult to do, but I'm rooting for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
There is no extrapolation possible from a single data point.
One can not project one's life experiences upon others assuming they experienced the same thing much less draw any conclusions based upon same.
Perhaps you could tell us why you think this is a left-wing bullshit article. Yes, why are you not straight forward?
I see you do not like sarcasm, ok - but why not just deal with it rather than whining about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
My 40 years in the industry is a single data point? That doesn't seem like a reasonable argument. I have met, hired, fired, promoted and shared a great deal of wealth with a lot of people, I believe they represent tens of thousands of data points, combined.
I will admit I met sarcasm with a little sarcasm of my own, that's probably not my best quality. I'll try to do better next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
No - you are a single data point.
You complained about the following post:
"temper an opinion which was formed from experience which is limited to what you're personally seen with, y'know, statistics, data, and stuff from multiple sources, based on whole populations"
and you replied
"you are dismissing my life experience"
So ... your life experience is one data point, where are all the other data points (other people) that support your claim? You think those people you hired and fired are representative of the entire population? Wow, why do you think that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
The British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
I took statistics, actually, from a nun, at the University. The first lesson was that there is a provable relationship between diaper rash and highway miles laid. That does not mean there is a causal relationship. They both happen in the summer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
Sounds good
Later then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
This is propaganda ... (for both hardware and software)
"Take Back America" .. didn't make sense then doesn't make sense now.
take back:
- what and from whom
- that which they never had to begin with
- from those who have nothing to take
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
What is the population of this country .... 316,158,691
(what is it, 23% of them are minors?)
https://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
And you are talking about a handful of people who made it rich, call it a thousand people who made it ... that is still statistically an insignificant number. Yes, I heard those stories too, they are good stories but that is all they are - stories about a very small percentage of the population who were at the right place at the right time, had the right connections, were born with money ... whatever. That does not mean that the rest of the population is afforded upwardly mobility but are just too lazy to put forth the effort ... that is bullshit to make the rich feel better about themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The inevitable result of sociopathy
Please - speak for yourself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And don't get me started on the ones that don't even do anything and just live off their wealth!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like the Waltons?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rules for hotels are things that have been built up over a very long time. From safety regulations and insurance requirements to zoning, it's not things that happened all in one shot, but rather came about as a result of the public's desire for regulation and safety.
Quite often, those rules stack up and become a wall that keeps those inside 'in' and those outside 'out'. New entries can't get in because the rules are too hard to match or the permit requirements are excessive for a startup.
Uber and AirBnB are both attempts to end run the rules, mostly by shifting liability to others. They enable and empower the average Joe and Jill to break the law at a level that was never before considered. It has worked to some extent, but it's also created it's own set of problems. The result? More regulation to specifically reign in the cowboy behavior.
See, the risk is that when you let one group (like AirBnB) skip the rules of hotels or short term rentals, you create a regulation gap that fuels the price difference.
People are happy (short term) because they (a) get to rent places on trips cheaper or (b) make money with their spare rooms and mother in law suites. Longer term, however, is the implication for the hotel industry as a whole, the rental market (as major landlords get into high price short term rentals instead of providing for local residence), and of course the implication of plenty of comings and goings of strangers who are only around for a day or two.
In essence, AirBnB is actually very unproductive for the overall economy. They cut the amount people are paying for accomidations, which hurts the hotel industry. That industry perhaps pays it's workers less or shrinks it's staff, creating a group of people who can no longer go on vacation - and are perhaps forced to rent a spare room to strangers to try to make ends meet. The economy as a whole appears to be smaller, at least in that area.
There is more, but I will let this one go for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm all for Uber and AirBnB existing, and am glad for their existence actually pointing out many flaws with excessive regulations, but keep the sensible ones, at least! If they can't play with those in place, there should be no place for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In essence, AirBnB is actually very unproductive for the overall economy. They cut the amount people are paying for accomidations, which hurts the hotel industry. That industry perhaps pays it's workers less or shrinks it's staff, creating a group of people who can no longer go on vacation - and are perhaps forced to rent a spare room to strangers to try to make ends meet. The economy as a whole appears to be smaller, at least in that area.
That's called 'competition', and last I checked 'felony interference with a business model' was a joke, not an actual law. If AirBnB is leading to people not being willing to pay as much then it's on the hotels to demonstrate why they are worth paying more.
If the professional hotel industry can't cope with individuals renting out rooms they aren't using to make some extra cash then they were screwed from the get-go and deserve to crash, not have lawmakers rush in to kill off the competition that such a service provides.
Now, you could argue that it's not fair that AirBnB users don't have to deal with as much red-tape as the hotels, allowing them to spend less and undercut, but that strikes me as problematic due to the fact that while the services in general may be similar(renting out space for people to stay in short term), the specific details are different enough that it doesn't seem sound to apply the same standards.
One involves a professional business focused on renting out rooms as their entire business model, the other not-so-professionals renting out rooms to make some extra cash. To the extent the two might overlap the rules should be applied only to the extent that it serves the public's best interest, not the interest of the hotel industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, here's the thing - they can only do it by ignoring the laws and rules that exist. The hotel industry is bound by them (some would say they bound themselves), and thus must pay for and maintain themselves to the levels expected by the law. You know, silly things like fire alarms, sprinklers, marked exits, minimum corridor widths, access for the disabled, licnsing, insurance, inspections, and on and on and on.
AirBnB? Nada. Any room, house, apartment, hovel, whatever - list it, and people will take it. No minimum standards, no safety, no licensing, no insurance, no emergency egress, and so on.
If AirBnB competes with hotels by offering hotel services (one night accommodations) then they should be bound by them. Saying they are not alike is a cop out, they are the same market.
"One involves a professional business focused on renting out rooms as their entire business model, the other not-so-professionals renting out rooms to make some extra cash."
A convenient half truth. More and more of these "sharing" sites are professionals trying to maximize return on real estate investments. When you see whole house / whole apartment / whole whatever in a rental, you can almost be certain that it's a pro or semi-pro who has figured out the numbers. Many hosts get more for a single 1 week vacation rental than they do for a month of rental to a local tenent, even if the housing supply is tight. I know in my local market (won't say, but it is a common destination) the prices for AirBnB properties near mine are generally monthly local rental as a the weekly price, or about 25% of the monthly rental price on shorter daily rentals. So they need only a single visitor for 4 days each month to make the same income.
"To the extent the two might overlap the rules should be applied only to the extent that it serves the public's best interest, not the interest of the hotel industry."
The public's best interesting and what the public thinks is it's best interest at any given money are usually divergent concepts. People want cheaper places to stay on vacations, but they don't consider the risks (due to lack of safety inspections, insurance, fire equipment, etc), nor do they consider the implications on the local housing rental market.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Airbnb-Housing-Rental-Investigation-424091834.html
Good example here, thousands of full units off the local rental market. That can have a huge impact.
There is also the question of property values. If the houses or units next to you are used for AirBnB, you have a lot of people coming and going. Some of them will be nice, some of them will be... well... and in some cases, properties end up turned into party houses. Having commercial activities in residential zones is generally not a good idea. The value of your home / condo / whathaveyou may be harmed by commercial use next door.
So, what is the public's interest? For someone looking for a cheap rental when they go to LA next time, all of the above concerns are not important. They just want it cheaper. That is their interest at the moment. Is it right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If AirBnB competes with hotels by offering hotel services (one night accommodations) then they should be bound by them. Saying they are not alike is a cop out, they are the same market.
No, it really isn't, because while the services in general may be similar the details are notably different. If you want to compare industries then renting out housing(albeit for short amounts of time) would seem to be a better match, in which case the question is 'Do the AirBnB properties meet those requirements?', which is something I would support.
A convenient half truth. More and more of these "sharing" sites are professionals trying to maximize return on real estate investments. When you see whole house / whole apartment / whole whatever in a rental, you can almost be certain that it's a pro or semi-pro who has figured out the numbers.
My response here is generally the same as above, the comparable industry is home/room rental one, so use those standards. If there is some law on the books that says that if people rent out their property it has to be for a certain amount of time or above(which I doubt, but who knows?) then by all means, go after them for violating that law, but at the moment it just looks to me like people making profitable use of their property via short-term rentals.
As for the property value of those around them while it's certainly unfortunate if lousy customers are being obnoxious public well-being needs to be balanced against the right of the property owner. Unless there's laws on the books against renting property to pests that strikes me as 'unfortunate but it happens some times'.
Reading through your comment I think the main disagreement we're having is that I'm looking at it through the filter of 'Property rental, if for a short amount of time' as opposed to the filter you seem to be viewing it through of 'Hotel service', which changes what each of us considers acceptable standards to apply.
From my point of view requiring the 'hosts' to follow all the standards and laws that apply to hotels wouldn't make sense because that's not how I see what's going on, whereas from your perspective it would because it is. This might be one of those cases where we're both right and wrong depending on which filter is applied at the moment, so beyond an 'agree to disagree' not sure where to go from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You would be surprised at what your Neighbors can do, without having any real effect on price. I used to live round the corner from there, and never noticed the trade being carried on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dangerous rise of unproductive hatred
This website is kind of the definition of unproductive hatred, don't you think? Even the censorship is based on hatred, and nothing else.
We are all about to witness a historic lesson in the power of love, and the power of hatred. Trump voters love their country, and they love Trump, warts and all. In the ideological war that is now being waged here and in other venues, it is love of country vs. hatred of pretty much everything.
There is no unifying force against Trump, here or anywhere else, other than blind hatred. Love will win, you guys just watch. Mike will lose, because he is little more than the president of the traitor party, organized right here on this site, and verified with the shared celebrity of GI-Jerk. The hateful, ignorant traitor party, vs. the party of love, love of country, love of truth, love of God. Love will win, just watch. MAGA Amen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The dangerous rise of unproductive hatred
"Techdirt Supremacists love nothing, not their own country, not their neighbors, nothing."
- based upon what, and why should I care? Do I have to only read stuff written by those with whom I share an opinion? Says who?
"This website is kind of the definition of unproductive hatred, don't you think?"
- I'm guessing you read Stormfront where they know how to make hatred productive. Also, look up the definition of censorship.
"There is no unifying force against Trump, here or anywhere else, other than blind hatred. "
So law enforcement is hatred - ok, I guess that would make sense given the outrageous LEO behavior lately but the investigations surrounding the present white house is based upon the laws of the land, are you suggesting we just toss those out the window in order to give trump a break .... because we all love him sooo much? What would replace the laws you just tossed?
"traitor party"
Ok .. I get it, this is satire right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The dangerous rise of unproductive hatred
Techdirt does not love Thailand (a metaphorical neighbor), they degrade them and insult them, their country, their laws, their beliefs and their king, repeatedly. And on what basis, other than misguided supremacy of belief and opinion? The Techdirt Supremacists want to tell a sovereign country what they should believe. Un-American and just plain wrong.
Censorship: the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society - has been a hallmark of dictatorships through history
I'm not sure what "outrageous LEO behavior" you might mean. I see six policemen were shot in the US yesterday, and Trump sent them a letter of support. Is that what you mean?
By investigations, do you meant the "Russia" investigation, the CNN self proclaimed "nothing-burger" that is only now starting to peter out in the media? What an incredible waste of time and money and focus, tragic, really. Yes, let's just toss those worthless committee meetings, who cares? Not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The dangerous rise of unproductive hatred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The dangerous rise of unproductive hatred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Dangerous Rise of Unproductive Hatred
Techdirt hates me, right, hard to argue with that. And Shiva, that's pretty clear. And Charles Harder, a lot of hatred there. And Trump, and his staff, right, hates all of them. And Thailand, clear hatred of another culture and country, very nasty hatred expressed and justified repeatedly. And Shipyard, and Disney, and Hollywood, right, and several other independent companies. And patents, patent examiners, and copyrights, and trademarks, hate those in pretty much every case. This is just off the top of my head. Most of this hatred has been expressed with very crude and sexual and toilet vocabulary, especially the word sh*t. Nasty hateful stuff in every direction.
Who does Techdirt love? Who or what do you look up to, which country do you see as the best, who are the public or historical figures you admire, besides Chelsea?
Or is your mission to produce and publicize Unproductive Hatred (for money), and nothing else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dangerous Rise of Unproductive Hatred
http://www.trinityventures.com/team/ajay-chopra/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Egan_(busi nessman)
http://www.computerhistory.org/events/bio/Larry,Boucher
http://www.indiawest.com/letters_to_e ditor/remembering-hk-desai/article_5dddc3a2-0ea6-11e4-9c90-001a4bcf887a.html
Who are your heroes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Dangerous Rise of Unproductive Hatred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Dangerous Rise of Unproductive Hatred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Dangerous Rise of Unproductive Hatred
Do you really think you are not about hate? You poor delusional soul...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Dangerous Rise of Unproductive Hatred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm all lost in the supermarket I can no longer shop happily
it's not here it disappeared
companies to support
no darpa funding anywhere in there history
no ca vc funding anywhere in there history
no wallstreet funding anywhere in there history
avoid all of those and you avoid several problems of fascism
but fundamentally if your entire thing is information the only client is the state, yes advertisers, yes creditors, yes the state, yes this is all the state and they will be given access to you in a way you are not allowed to have, so ave fun with all of this I am pretty much out at this point have fun watching your children suffer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
I don't hate you; I simply find it amusing that you want to be taken seriously and have yet to put up any credentials that justify it. You put up praise for Shiva, which says very little about what you have actually done. If you did something substantial, instead of a patent that says "this is an analog thing, but on the Internet", sure, you deserve the credit. Until you show what that something is, a rational person would consider that you have no proof aside from a constantly repeated bluff.
Yes, I know nothing about you, which is why you have been asked for evidence. If you choose not to provide it you get to be treated as though you don't have any.
As for the abuses, if you don't want your reputation tarnished because of a few black sheep, rectify the problems that led to the abuses. Telling the media not to report on it is not going to improve your lot or make it go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
From a high level, you see, there is something about morality that you just don't seem to recognize. That's OK, to each his own, but let me give it a go. I don't know Shiva, but he stands for the same values I stand for. So, I tend to support him as a fellow American. That's the kind of people we are, we support each other when we see shared American values.
One of those values is free speech. Techdirt says over and over again it supports free speech, while simultaneously censoring content on their own web site. That's a moral issue, not a legal issue. You can dance around all day and say you have the legal right to do it, but you don't have the moral right, it's un-American and wrong. You don't have the moral right to attack Shiva, either, or Thailand, or TSA workers, or Policemen, or all the others that you attack. You have the legal right, but not the moral right.
I don't expect you to understand this, it may be beyond your comprehension or ability, or maybe you just don't want to. But Americans understand it, and it will be Americans that Mike faces in court. MAGA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
I see, and that value is getting a piece of paper and using it to claim the credit and profit from the work of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
Who are you again? Who is Mike? Are either of you even American, or do you just support American Traitors? Who are your heroes? Who are you to say Shiva is not a hero to stand up to the abuse you hand out, far and wide? Do you really want to support this toilet, with sh*t smeared on every other article and comment? For heavens sake, why? MAGA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
You know what, Hamilton? It's funny that you should choose to use the term MAGA, given that it's the same term used by Nigerian 419 scammers whenever they realize they've been reverse-baited by the people they choose to defraud of money - it's a reaction of indignation and hatred in response to the people calling them out on their bluff, because their victims refused play along as the victim and surrender hard-earned money.
Is that why you're so invested in the patent system that you don't like it when people point out its flaws? Is that what you need to make your money? If so, I can understand why your reactions are so frequent and vitriolic. Just as the Nigerian scammer calls the scambaiter a maga, he responds based on his own foolishness to expect every Internet user to feed him free cash.
Nice try, maga.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
Why am I invested in the patent system? Seriously, my grandfather taught me about Edison, and Einstein, and Churchill, and King, and Gandhi. Heroes to him, heroes to me. And I studied patents, and inventions, and was inspired to try to be a great American myself. My successes are modest, but I worked very hard to try to emulate my heroes, both from my childhood and that I met as an adult. Dick Egan of EMC, he was a hero to me, with a huge pair of white shorts stuck on his wall with IBM printed at the bottom. You wouldn't understand that, but it was very funny. HK Desai, an Indian immigrant that changed the whole technology industry with a single vision about Fibre Channel. Inspirational. Many more great and inspiring Americans, showcasing not just their abilities and insight, but the great company that we live in.
Is this vitriolic? Am I a scammer, as you cast me? Am I asking for free cash, like taking a quarter million dollars to promote "free speech" while simultaneously silencing my critics? Who supports "journalism" more, Techdirt or me? Is my opinion not worthwhile or "worthy"? Should I be flagged and silenced and disconsidered? Am I bluffing? I don't think so.
I wave the American flag proudly, what do you wave, the black flag of Anti-Fa? I support the patent system and the copyright system and the trademark system proudly. What do you support? What is your message, actually, do you want to make America great? Or do you want to cripple America, steal our technology in the form of "open source" and hand it out to foreigners for nothing? Do you support American Citizens, like me and Shiva, or do you support anyone at all? What are you goals and aspirations, if I may ask. Who are your heroes? Nigerian scammers? Are you a Nigerian scammer, is that why you bring them up? Who are you, and what do you support? Anything? Any love in your heart, or only hatred?
MAGA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
I don't hate you, Hamilton. I find it an interesting exercise, observing just how far a human brain can deteriorate in function until it ceases to be coherent and rational. Have fun with the fairies and tigers in the magical forest of your head, maga.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
It's a little sad that you won't speak to anything you love.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
It is quite clear that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about, switching between calling me a supremacist to an anti-fascist and back to supremacist again - two utterly diametrically opposed people, just so you can fail to make a point (and throw in a little Godwin while you're at it, because that always makes for a convincing thesis).
Let me underscore it for you once again: your beloved President Trump loves supremacists. He built much of his support on their backs and now they're banging on his doorstep, calling to collect. He'd rather blame the mystical boogeyman of "alt-left" than suggest that the supremacists messed up, just like you who can't seem to detach yourself from this delusion that Techdirt is some magical, mystical alt-left collective. So if you want to end the hateful ideology of supremacism you'd have to start with the President - and that sounds like treason, don't you think?
Try not to let that logic pathway short circuit your patent-powered brain, maga.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
You are probably correct, I watch Techdirt more closely than most people. You are quite kind to respond, and I was wrong to infer you were not going to.
About my characterization of Techdirt as a Supremacist site, here is my rationale:
1) Your attacks on Thailand are based on Techdirt's belief in its supremacy to a whole country and a whole people. Who gave you the moral authority to judge them? You obviously hate them, just read the articles and the disgusting comments. The basis of your hatred appears to be your disagreement about their own laws about their own king. Why are you in a position to judge that, unless you believe yourself superior to them? You are not white supremacists (I don't know what color you are) you are Techdirt Supremacists.
2) You censor speech that does not align with your editorial policy, and explain as reasonable because you should be allowed to hate the speakers and the speech. Several people have confirmed that. You don't silence disgusting profanity ridden speech if it is consistent with your editorial policy. That's just wrong, it's Hitlarian. You should stop doing it altogether.
3) You promote the hatred of people you don't know, never met, and don't offer them even a modicum of respect or benefit of the doubt. Shiva, for example. Techdirt's public hatred of Shiva is a disgrace to all of you, that will soon be accounted for in a court of law. You promote the hatred of the police, the hatred of the TSA, the list is long and storied, you are a hate group that believes yourself superior to deeply ideologically committed Americans who risk their lives in support of the public good every day.
I did not mean to switch to calling a supremacist, my intention was to point out that you are a supremacist, which I have now done again. I also see the anti-Fa idiots as supremacists, they are supremacists in that they want to silence others in favor of their own agenda, without debate, just like Hitler did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
In a similar way, Trump is a builder and a leader, he looks like one, he talks like one, he has a history of success, and I see some of myself in him. When you have to lead large groups of really smart people (either in Technology or construction or finance), there are not too many ways to do it and not fail. You can't force them, that won't work. You can't get them to actually sacrifice themselves to the alter of the product with threats, by defaming them, censoring them or belittling them. You have to inspire them, and they have to trust you, a trust that comes slowly and builds over time. You have to become known as a leader that people can rely on.
Is Trump the most inspiring leader I can imagine? Frankly, no. But, among the choices available, his is a million times more inspiring that the next choice, Hillary Clinton. I have no common experience with her, and she looks like a criminal to me.
So, that's my view of Trump - he looks like a success, he has a history of success, and he's a million times better than the other choices. So, Trump it is, God Bless Him and God Bless America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
As for defaming, censoring and belittling, Trump does all of that and more. And considering how little you think of girls by your accusations of other users as being girls, it's not hard to see why you'd appreciate a pussy-grabber for a president.
Given that you've also done nothing to refute the points above, enjoy your supremacist president. It is a point that will be subsequently brought up every time you wish to paint the other users as supremacists to justify your flimsy, "valid" perspective.
And if you consider the usage of "maga" as a success, get over yourself. I use the term frequently to describe fraudulent emails and phone calls. If you think being addressed as such in this context is a win for you, go ahead. It's a rather accurate analysis of your true character.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who are the Unproductive Entrepreneurs?
that's a hoot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or as someone (or some set of ones) used to put it, in old Techdirt comment threads: "Just flag and move on."
For myself, while I rarely reply (even to respectable comments, much less to trolling), I also don't reflexively flag, even when it's clear from the ephemeral avatar icon that the poster is the same one who's been flag-worthy elsewhere in the same comments page; I consider each post individually.
(And then usually wind up flagging it, because seriously, have you seen the posts this guy writes?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definition of Destructive Entrepreneur: Techdirt
Techdirt inflicts misery on inventors, foreign countries, movie makers, book writers, police, TSA, patent holders and complete strangers.
Techdirt kind of screams destructive entrepreneurship, right? You guys make money based on nothing but hatred. You get rich off the misery of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think organized crime, patent trolls and the MAFIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
If the term bothers you so much go complain about it to your congressman, judge, or whoever. It's a perfectly legal term with its place in the law books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
1. If you author a patent, and you have evil in your heart, then you are a patent troll, otherwise you are a patent author.
2. If you own a patent, and you have evil in your heart, then you are a patent troll, otherwise you are a patent owner.
3. If you try to license a patent, and you have evil in your heart, then you are a patent troll, otherwise you are a patent salesman.
4. If you litigate a patent, and you have evil in your heart, then you are a patent troll, otherwise you are a patent litigant.
What about the courts, do you think they are trolls too? If a decision goes in favor of upholding a patent, and they have evil in their hearts, then they are patent trolls, otherwise they are judges and juries.
If you write about the benefits of patents and you have evil in your heart, then you are a patent troll, otherwise you are a historian.
Pretty close to the Techdirt definition of patent troll, yes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
It includes a definition from IP Troll Tracker blog:
Patent Troll, n -
1/ A company or individual who, using patents that either never should have been issued or are broadly constructed (intentionally for the purpose of misuse, or as a result of poor USPTO patent examination practices), sends letters to various and sundry companies and/or individuals that simultaneously request license fees and threaten legal action if the recipient fails to respond correctly by paying up and who will, in the face of inaction by a demand letter recipient, actually file suit in Federal District Court, the District of East Texas being the most popular venue.
2/ A company set up to act as a cover for large corporations who try to breathe new life into older patents which they would ordinarily let expire but, as a result of greed and/or pressure from Wall Street, have decided are ripe for assertion or litigation.
3/ Intellectual Ventures
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
You have said nothing at all except to reinforce my point. The term Patent troll is about good and evil, it's a childish word for a childish idea.
In the adult world, and we have a conflict, we go to court. If we're bad, the judge will tell us, I am sure of that. Having you amateurs pass judgment on the entirety of the US inventor community is just silly, right? You don't actually know anything about this, you just get paid to voice your stupid opinions, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
First -- the legal system has a definition of "patents that should never have been issued" -- they're patents the PTO granted even though they lacked subject matter validity (the whole concept of a "non-mathematical program" cannot be reconciled with the Curry-Howard correspondence), were obvious (if your average CS grad with a few years of experience under their belt could have whipped it up in their spare time, it's probably not patentable), or had valid prior art (that the PTO missed, either through myopia or hurriedness). (See Alice v . CLS Bank while you're at it.)
Second, in general, we can focus on a very specific category of problem entities when we talk about "patent trolls": those that assert patents without producing the patented product. If you're not going to use that limited monopoly to make money through the sale of the patented item yourself or go out upfront and license the patent to a producer or three, then you are a rentier in the economic sense of the term.
Finally -- have you seen some of the patents that get asserted by non-practicing entities these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can't compare the misery of Techdirt with real inventors
Rounded corners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]