Since it's obvious that Dyson's statement is way too optimistic, I assume that for her it is (was) a good marketing - you bet a lot by investing in Russian startups, why not bet a little bit more to show to your future partners how confident you are?
Here is why the statement is way too optimistic:
- Resources always move to places where they can be used most effectively (econ 101) unless there is a significant friction
- For that type of resource (talented programmers/mathematicians) the friction is very small
- Russia has bad regulation and bad business environment in general
- Specifically, very hard to get investments[1], and investors interests are poorly protected[2]
- Silicon Valley utilizes these resource much more effectively, so that even other places in the US - NYC/Boston/Chicago - could not compete effectively
- Also, managerial talent in Russia is concentrated on more profitable business, like participating in natural resource explorations or working for state-run monopolies - very profitable and risk free if you have the right connections
Disclaimer: I'm Russian living in Silicon Valley. That may have affected my judgement.
[1] I can share the following anecdote: When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require kick-backs(!) from startups that they're investing in - presumably as a way to steal from their limited partners (and even provide some advice on how these kick-backs could be recorded in accounting books).
[2] Khodorkovsky's and Chichvarkin's examples are probably the most well-known on the West.
>> When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require kick-backs(!) from startups that they're investing in<<
There are stories on HN all the time about US investors requiring the same. There are fancy meals on the company's tab, first class airplane tickets from all around the world for board meetings and various other abuses that HN founders complain about.
I guess straight-up cash would be a novelty, but that probably comes from the IRS scrutiny it would engender. Is an exacting tax authority part of the root of American exceptionalism?
In the interest of being completely fair to Dyson, I'm not sure anyone could have fully predicted just how bad of a regime Putin's would be. That said it seems like a long shot just the same.
Exactly... the political and economic institutions of Russia have not progressed and have likely regressed in the last 10 years. Who led Russia in 2002? Putin. Who is leading Russia in 2011/12? Still Putin and United Russia. The Litvinenko killing and Khodorkovsky imprisonment are chilling indictments of this regression. Also the run up of energy and commodity prices has only increased the allure and hold of the Dutch disease in Russia.
Political change must go hand in hand with cultural change. It is easy to blame a democratically elected leader, yet quite difficult to identify the underlying problems of those who elected that leader to power.
Russia is decades ahead of other countries, but they have a long path ahead of them. A good start would be teaching English in elementary school.
Buffett knows what he's doing. And we all know that the wast majority of managed funds perform worse then index funds.
And Buffett did not bet on any one hedge fund, which might actually outperform. He has bet on an index of them! And not over a short time period, where again, they could outperform. But over 10 years!
Unfortunately, the details are being kept confidential, so I'm not sure what is being counted as "hedge funds". There's "hedge funds" that engage in very risky investments, ones that engage in investments that wouldn't normally be risky except that they incur counterparty risk, and then there's hedge funds that could be fundamentally very conservative, even more conservative than Buffett.
For instance, if you ran a fund that simply bought BRK shares, and, each year, bought just enough out of the money options to protect against a %10 decline in BRK, that would be a hedge fund. Buying the puts is a hedging position, but I would say that such an investment would be damn conservative, and certainly in line with Buffett's investments strategy. (He cautions against derivatives, but covering a long position with puts isn't what he means.)
Dyson's right about Russia having a wealth of talent, but I'm surprised he didn't take into account the US University system and the amount of immigrant talent it attracts each year.
If you've been in the industry long enough (in my case, since 1975) you realized a long time ago that Esther Dyson doesn't have even the vaguest of clues when it comes to the computer industry. The smart bet is to do the exact opposite of whatever she predicts.
In fairness, if you replace Russia with India, is it so far off? Remember that there were many years of books with titles like, "The rise and fall of the American programmer" that talked about the educational system in Eastern Europe.
As you may already have discovered, it’s part of the Long Now, which is making the 10,000 Year Clock[0] (about which a friend of mine wrote a play[1], and which helped inspire Neal Stephenson’s sci-fi novel “Anathem”). It involves a bunch of the smartest futurists around, including Stewart Brand (famous for the “Whole Earth Catalog”), Danny Hillis (the Connection Machine), and Brian Eno (producing Talking Heads and U2).
(Warning: promotion) If you don't want to go through their system and pony up the money (their voting has been disabled for years now so you can't do that), you can make predictions on http://predictionbook.com/
People tend to assume that in today's era, progress is inevitable. The is a dramatic illustration to the contrary. Progress depends on a stable, pro-business system of government. Which, in turn, depends on a certain kind of underlying culture. (This is why I find Occupy Wall Street threatening.)
OWS is a protest movement, the core of which is against corporations buying laws. The corporations do this because they want to protect their inefficient business models by enshrining their way of doing things into law. For example, content owners wish to censor the internet so they can keep selling consumers crap, while banks wish to tax everybody when they make a loss on their trades.
OWS is not anti-business, it is anti-corruption, and there's few things more damaging to progress than corruption.
(This is why I find Occupy Wall Street threatening.)
I do not think OWS, to the extent it has a coherent set or ideas or ideologies, is anti-business per se; I think it is opposed to the zero-sum thinking that characterizes much of Wall Street and political life right now. See, e.g.: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2011/11/21/it_s_the... :
<blockquote>In fact, blame for the failure of the congressional super committee belongs with every American who failed to vote in the 2010 midterm election. Nothing encapsulates the dysfunction of American democracy better than the fact that we abdicate responsibility for governing our country (and running our economy) to a radical minority every four years out of laziness and, to a smaller extent, deliberate efforts by both parties to depress turnout they know will favor their rivals.</blockquote>
Notice how people are not saying "Occupy tech firms in Silicon Valley," and I think they aren't because it's pretty clear that Apple, Google, etc. are generating real value that improves lives; it's not at all clear finance and many parts of government are doing so at the moment and it may be that they're actually destroying value while taking advantage of an insider's feedback loop that prevents market forces from actually acting on them in any serious way. If anything, I suspect OWS, to the extent it has a coherent ideology, would be pro-business, as long as that business isn't doing things to hurt people, institutions, or government.
There is no such pernicious myth today as the "right-wing pro-business" government.
An example: progress requires, above anything, a rentier class not hell bent on furthering their greed at the expense of everyone else, via shadow banking, obscure contracts and general, short-sighted stupidity. Regulated, if you will.
I don't see many "pro-business" governments doing anything to solve that. I see many of them giving their corporate friends cool, undeserved subsidies under the pretense of "industry being of national interest".
Nobody has taken the other side of it. I'm skeptical (but intrigued) by bit coins, but I wouldn't take the other side of this bet, simply because bit coins have just started out and aren't yet a "fully mature form of money". That is to say, its a lot easier for a penny stock, or any other cheap commodity, to double (or outperform by 2 orders of magnitude) a global currency or form of money that has millions of owners, and relatively stable value.
You should be more than happy to take this bet, at any amount that he's willing to offer. I know I would be, as long as it was denominated in USD.
Let's say the wager was $10k - if you buy about $198 worth of BTC at the start of the bet, you're guaranteed to come out ahead by at least $9,802, regardless of what happens. Do the math if you don't believe me - that's a bet I'd be happy to take...
If the bet was in terms of Bitcoins instead, then I'd be a lot more hesitant - you could still hedge against an unbounded loss by buying the BTC up front, but if the price of BTC went down by more than 50% you'd end up losing USD even though you won the bet (also if the price went up by a factor of more than 100 but less than 101, which is unlikely enough to mostly ignore), so you'd need to be somewhat of a BTC bull to be comfortable with that.
Edit: I see now that Longbets mandates that proceeds go to charity, which means that if you followed my strategy you'd be making a donation in some cases since you don't see winnings from the bet. I suppose that changes things a little bit, but even so, I'd happily throw in $198 of my money to make sure with 100% certainty that $10k went to charity.
Which makes it extra scummy if it's true that the offerer of this bet won't accept any challengers...
The problem with longbets is that you can post a challenge without being required to accept a bet. I emailed the organization and they helpfully confirmed this.
>[Me:] "Must the makers of predictions (eventually) accept a challenger? I get the impression that several of these predictions are dubious yet have been sitting for awhile without forming a bet. It seems against the spirit of the site to allow predictors to grand stand without having to put their money where their mouth is."
>[Them:] "Predictors put their money where their mouth is by paying $50 to be published. They do not, however, have to accept challenges to their Predictions."
If it were up to me, they'd also allow bets with odds other than 50-50. Still, I think it's a great site.
One of the problems with that prediction, I found when recording it on PredictionBook ( http://predictionbook.com/predictions/2972 - I do this for most LBs. There aren't that many) is that it's not clear what is being increased relative to what.
[+] [-] vtail|14 years ago|reply
Here is why the statement is way too optimistic:
- Resources always move to places where they can be used most effectively (econ 101) unless there is a significant friction
- For that type of resource (talented programmers/mathematicians) the friction is very small
- Russia has bad regulation and bad business environment in general
- Specifically, very hard to get investments[1], and investors interests are poorly protected[2]
- Silicon Valley utilizes these resource much more effectively, so that even other places in the US - NYC/Boston/Chicago - could not compete effectively
- Also, managerial talent in Russia is concentrated on more profitable business, like participating in natural resource explorations or working for state-run monopolies - very profitable and risk free if you have the right connections
Disclaimer: I'm Russian living in Silicon Valley. That may have affected my judgement.
[1] I can share the following anecdote: When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require kick-backs(!) from startups that they're investing in - presumably as a way to steal from their limited partners (and even provide some advice on how these kick-backs could be recorded in accounting books).
[2] Khodorkovsky's and Chichvarkin's examples are probably the most well-known on the West.
[+] [-] WildUtah|14 years ago|reply
There are stories on HN all the time about US investors requiring the same. There are fancy meals on the company's tab, first class airplane tickets from all around the world for board meetings and various other abuses that HN founders complain about.
I guess straight-up cash would be a novelty, but that probably comes from the IRS scrutiny it would engender. Is an exacting tax authority part of the root of American exceptionalism?
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lucisferre|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noilly|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AJ007|14 years ago|reply
Russia is decades ahead of other countries, but they have a long path ahead of them. A good start would be teaching English in elementary school.
[+] [-] krookoo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DevX101|14 years ago|reply
http://longbets.org/362/
[+] [-] mikebike|14 years ago|reply
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/11/21/hedge-funds-kiss-...
[+] [-] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
Buffett knows what he's doing. And we all know that the wast majority of managed funds perform worse then index funds.
And Buffett did not bet on any one hedge fund, which might actually outperform. He has bet on an index of them! And not over a short time period, where again, they could outperform. But over 10 years!
I would be SHOCKED if Buffett loses this bet.
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
For instance, if you ran a fund that simply bought BRK shares, and, each year, bought just enough out of the money options to protect against a %10 decline in BRK, that would be a hedge fund. Buying the puts is a hedging position, but I would say that such an investment would be damn conservative, and certainly in line with Buffett's investments strategy. (He cautions against derivatives, but covering a long position with puts isn't what he means.)
[+] [-] capkutay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troymc|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] felipemnoa|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerhewet|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathattack|14 years ago|reply
Thanks for sharing the site!
[+] [-] haberman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celoyd|14 years ago|reply
0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock_of_the_Long_Now
1. http://www.seattlepi.com/ae/article/You-don-t-have-to-be-a-s...
[+] [-] gwern|14 years ago|reply
(I even copied over most of the Long Bets: https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=longbets%2Eorg%20site%... )
[+] [-] vnchr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 6ren|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javert|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martythemaniak|14 years ago|reply
OWS is not anti-business, it is anti-corruption, and there's few things more damaging to progress than corruption.
[+] [-] jseliger|14 years ago|reply
I do not think OWS, to the extent it has a coherent set or ideas or ideologies, is anti-business per se; I think it is opposed to the zero-sum thinking that characterizes much of Wall Street and political life right now. See, e.g.: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2011/11/21/it_s_the... :
<blockquote>In fact, blame for the failure of the congressional super committee belongs with every American who failed to vote in the 2010 midterm election. Nothing encapsulates the dysfunction of American democracy better than the fact that we abdicate responsibility for governing our country (and running our economy) to a radical minority every four years out of laziness and, to a smaller extent, deliberate efforts by both parties to depress turnout they know will favor their rivals.</blockquote>
Or, from HN, http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/18/clayton-... (Clayton Christensen: "How Pursuit of Profits Kills Innovation and the U.S. Economy.")
Notice how people are not saying "Occupy tech firms in Silicon Valley," and I think they aren't because it's pretty clear that Apple, Google, etc. are generating real value that improves lives; it's not at all clear finance and many parts of government are doing so at the moment and it may be that they're actually destroying value while taking advantage of an insider's feedback loop that prevents market forces from actually acting on them in any serious way. If anything, I suspect OWS, to the extent it has a coherent ideology, would be pro-business, as long as that business isn't doing things to hurt people, institutions, or government.
[+] [-] lolcraft|14 years ago|reply
An example: progress requires, above anything, a rentier class not hell bent on furthering their greed at the expense of everyone else, via shadow banking, obscure contracts and general, short-sighted stupidity. Regulated, if you will.
I don't see many "pro-business" governments doing anything to solve that. I see many of them giving their corporate friends cool, undeserved subsidies under the pretense of "industry being of national interest".
[+] [-] adolph|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lo_fye|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nirvana|14 years ago|reply
Nobody has taken the other side of it. I'm skeptical (but intrigued) by bit coins, but I wouldn't take the other side of this bet, simply because bit coins have just started out and aren't yet a "fully mature form of money". That is to say, its a lot easier for a penny stock, or any other cheap commodity, to double (or outperform by 2 orders of magnitude) a global currency or form of money that has millions of owners, and relatively stable value.
[+] [-] bermanoid|14 years ago|reply
You should be more than happy to take this bet, at any amount that he's willing to offer. I know I would be, as long as it was denominated in USD.
Let's say the wager was $10k - if you buy about $198 worth of BTC at the start of the bet, you're guaranteed to come out ahead by at least $9,802, regardless of what happens. Do the math if you don't believe me - that's a bet I'd be happy to take...
If the bet was in terms of Bitcoins instead, then I'd be a lot more hesitant - you could still hedge against an unbounded loss by buying the BTC up front, but if the price of BTC went down by more than 50% you'd end up losing USD even though you won the bet (also if the price went up by a factor of more than 100 but less than 101, which is unlikely enough to mostly ignore), so you'd need to be somewhat of a BTC bull to be comfortable with that.
Edit: I see now that Longbets mandates that proceeds go to charity, which means that if you followed my strategy you'd be making a donation in some cases since you don't see winnings from the bet. I suppose that changes things a little bit, but even so, I'd happily throw in $198 of my money to make sure with 100% certainty that $10k went to charity.
Which makes it extra scummy if it's true that the offerer of this bet won't accept any challengers...
[+] [-] jessriedel|14 years ago|reply
>[Me:] "Must the makers of predictions (eventually) accept a challenger? I get the impression that several of these predictions are dubious yet have been sitting for awhile without forming a bet. It seems against the spirit of the site to allow predictors to grand stand without having to put their money where their mouth is."
>[Them:] "Predictors put their money where their mouth is by paying $50 to be published. They do not, however, have to accept challenges to their Predictions."
If it were up to me, they'd also allow bets with odds other than 50-50. Still, I think it's a great site.
[+] [-] bdr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwern|14 years ago|reply