thecrazyone's comments

Maybe that's just a different kind of life, I guess?

Wow! In your starting paragraphs you portrayed your billion dollar company as if it was a struggling business just scraping by

To be honest, I'm not seeing the difference between uber and Amazon. It just feels like you're giving your interpretation of the situation rather than the reality.

You day this about uber > It lets people make money from their car.

I think the implicit assumption above is that cars don't make money traditionally.

Same can be said amazon: "It let's you make (more) money from the things you're already selling"

Uber is also a middle man between ride-hailer(user) and driver, the same way Amazon is a middle man between buyer and seller.

Are the examples incorrect because they're way too similar (platform plays) or is my understanding incorrect (that they're very similar)? I'll be happy if somebody could take a few minutes to explain

Not OP, but a fertilizer is a reasonable embodiment of something that turns desert soil into something in which plants can grow

Well today I learnt this ... :)

haha :D

Wow, these days I see so many people who "know" India on the internet. I'm starting to get to know how the US folk feel, where every other YouTube channel caters to them or when many websites (or at least the ones I visit) assume you're from the US.

# Solution for issue #1 (shitty product buyers):

I think you should charge (if you're not already) for the repairs. This is just to 1) make sure you get paid for your effort and keep it sustainable or grow, 2) that we're accounting for the value of your time/effort

Why?: This will fix the issues of effort in fixing a bike lamp. However, it is also possible that some widget is cheap and broken but the customer is willing to pay your repair fee (i.e. rational choice) because:

1. Repair parts for this item are no more made or difficult to get

2. the next best alternative is more expensive

  1. the better quality one is way too expensive or beyond their budget at least

  2. this needs to be cheap because you use it roughly (eg:workout earphones) or is likely to get lost (a toy)

3. This was given by a loved one or is a gift

Any which way, it makes sense to use the "invisible hand of the market" here because the preferences of your customer are difficult to find - let them decide.

Oh! I used a similar mathematical model while finding a spouse.

I figured, that for me, 37% (1/e) worked out to 13 people.

This (finding people) is a space I've spent a lot of time doing, planning, understanding, and thinking about :)

Also, there are a lot of scientific papers on how to model these in scholar.google.com (sorry that I don't have links that I can give right now)

Android has multiple users mode with a separate pin etc. Not sure about parental controls though

Haha "remote controlled dog" was funny. You've recreated Pavlov's experiment albeit updated it for our tech century :D

I don't equity investments align in interest either - among Founders, angels, VCs, PEs and public shares.

There's enough material to backup the struggle between any of these entities

Tariffs would hurt US more than it would California. Tariff is a cost paid by US citizens to benefit non-competitive US suppliers.

California needn't have heavy border patrol if US-California relations are peaceful. For reference: see European borders. You can just walk over to another country most of the time.

I empathize with your condition and your thoughts.

However, the problem is not the rich. This is a classic case of [tall poppy syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome).

There indeed are a two sets (or multiple striated on your lobbying power) of rules. The rich lobby to get exceptions, we don't 'cause we can't (afford it).

TL;DR It's the government which is to blame here for the rich stashing their wealth in tax havens rather than deploying them productively in the economy.

Details:

- The rich don't like stashing their wealth in tax havens. I'm not rich myself to have first hand experience, but let's logically think this through.

  - If you've capital, you want it deployed and earning money for you. And you'll choose the best risk adjusted ROI you can get (you'll be especially rational about this if you have the means to hire consultants like the rich do).

  - Therefore, we can reach the poignant conclusion that stashing it away in tax havens, which in fact costs money to do, is the best option you've. There is a lot of cost involved even if you want to re-route money to invest it via tax havens - 1) Risk of government(s) confiscating your money 2) Cost of setting up and operating complicated corporate structures.

- Taxation is theft. Pretty radical, but please humor me and read through. This is not even an original idea, this is a common notion in libertarian circles (eg: https://mises.org/blog/taxation-isnt-only-theft-its-destruct...). Let me share a few points why:

  - Why #1: Government is a bad monopoly. The ditches on the road you referenced, is because you can't stop paying govt for doing a bad job on roads and enlist an alternative vendor. The reason why it's _bad_ is because it's forced upon you - you cannot stop paying taxes to enlist someone else to make your roads better, you'll be put in jail. Google is a good monopoly, because we all voluntarily use google. If something better comes around, you can use it and google wouldn't (shouldn't) force you to use theirs. They can persuade, but not force.

  - Why #2: Government (policy makers) are humans. They put their self interest above yours (just like you do) and make bad public policy as a result. Paying them money (tax) blindly is silly.

  - Why #3: Government (policy makers) don't understand (or  perhaps deliberately mislead everyone on) economics. We still think public roads are good, public healthcare is good, public police, public (fiat) money, rent control, import tariffs, export controls and more are all good. They are all patently bad for reasons which you can google out. This distortion is a wealth destroyer and distorts & cripples the economy. Paying them money (tax) when the policies don't benefit you is insane.

## Conclusion: There is an alternative system to government which works - privatize everything a.k.a Free Markets. This is also known by the rather dire name "Anarcho Capitalism" (please don't go by the bad connotations of the name). Why use free markets:

  - Why #1: They're ethically, morally superior to government. All transactions in an economy are voluntary and involve no force. Force is immoral, and unethical. Every action that government does implies force - if you don't pay taxes, you get jailed => force; etc.

  - Why #2: Good monopolies. Everyone competes to be a monopoly by providing the best service at the lowest cost, which is a benefit to society, if they don't, you can choose an alternative. Note: Monopoly here rarely means the strict definition of just one compnay providing a good, there are usually alternatives.

Edit

- formatting

On tangential note, California should secede from US.

I think there is systematic bias in such rules because employees outnumber employers and corporations can't vote. For example:

1) In such scenarios, I wonder how is it okay for an applicant to use all tactics they want (note: there is minimal if not no regulation on applicants to a position. Okay, let's make this concrete, this new law bans Cali employers from asking applicants their prior salary. There are more laws which ban or force an employer to do something. BUT an applicant is NOT banned from asking any question. This next sentence I might be going out on a limb here, the applicant is NOT forced to do something either (as opposed to a ban on something). This is systematic bias.

2) It's NOT okay for a corporation to discriminate on race or sex, etc. But it IS OKAY for an applicant to discriminate on race or sex, i.e. if an employer is black, I can choose not to work for him just on that basis, or if it's a woman, I can choose not to work on that basis.

You might say the positions of power are asymmetric and in favor of the employer. I'd say you're correct about the former (asymmetricity) but not about the latter. The employer has power by having more money and applicant has power by having more skills. Employers usually respond to such laws as this by coming up with new ways to accomplish what they want, then govt responds with even more regulation. Compliance is a cost which takes away from the pie which any of the stakeholders could've benefited from.

A voluntary unregulated hiring market would benefit all parties involved.

The youtube video you've linked is so satisfying and exciting to watch. I guess this is the premise of Twitch :)

I've spent quite sometime on super hexagon myself.

Just curious, do you mean that SV's a dead end for talented software engineers? or just that it tracts most of them?

Can you expand on this? This seems more like an allegation at this point.

I can only think of taxi unions, politicians and such who would want these services to stay around if not grow.