As a counterpoint, things we rely on like Amazon are actually a lot of tiny businesses that have ideas and now we are able to get their more tailored products, whereas two decades ago, I just got to buy whatever walmart or bestbuy was willing to sell us.
Also consider youtube, I watch a lot of tiny creators and two decades ago the only thing available was the major tv networks and cable tv.
It may be true that big organizations deliver these things, but big organizations delivered them before and it’s definitely more possible for small organizations to have big impacts now than it was before.
1. small organizations have been carved out by a move toward the individual and a move toward large organizations. 2. This provides some comfort in the form of cheap goods while contributing to a sense of meaninglessness or being undifferentiated. 3. Tao thinks we would benefit by seeking and participating in grassroots groups.
- on average, complexity is increasing.
- most patterns in how civilization is arranged oscilate over time
- what's happening right now is most likely an artifact of right now (economics, power structure, culture, politics, etc).
- it seems that a shift back to smaller groups is likely in the future
- what I'm not sure about is whether the larger groups need to dissolve or stabilize in order for smaller groups to rebound
- I can't help but think that if our whole economic system reconfigures after reaching sufficient abundance, more of people's time will be spent on satisfying the soft needs met by smaller social groups, and less time will be spent on what feels meaningless
50-years ago, if you wanted to:
- read the news (local paper),
- get coffee (local coffee shop)
- get groceries (local grocery)
- buy tires (local tire dealer)
You’d get this from your local small business … and this created local small community groups.
But now between the internet and national distribution of goods/services - all those small local companies are gone (or has a much reduced role as Tao would say) … because CNN, Starbucks, Kroger, Discount Tire has replaced the need for those small local businesses.
I love hardware but I have basically abandoned any hope of bringing products to market. Just to get compliance certifications can cost upwards of $250k for a basic product, nevermind needing to wrangle with supply lines, manufacturing, and physical distribution. Forget it. You all have seen the graveyard of Kickstarters.
At my day job though, these huge costs can be readily absorbed and amount to a small fraction of the total cost.
"Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them."
Tao is observing the consequences of a society that increasingly has abandoned subsidiarity as an operating principle. (I had hoped that crypto might be able to bring subsidiarity back, but so far the opposite has happened in practice.)
This is basically the thesis of Bertrand de Jouvenal's "On Power" (1945).
Interestingly, in the past, the US federal government actively made efforts to keep private organizations from becoming too dominant. Here are just a few examples, from memory:
* The Bell system was broken up, resulting in a geographically distributed telecom network: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System : Your phone company was local.
* Banks could not cross state lines, resulting in a geographically distributed financial system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFadden_Act : Your bank was always local.
* Banks were prohibited from entering riskier businesses, resulting in a compartmentalized system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_legisla... : Your bank did not try to sell you investments.
* Monopolies and oligopolies were routinely busted, resulting in less concentration in many industries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_law#United_States_... .
The companies you dealt with every day were typically smaller, more local, more subject to competition, and less able to yield economic and political power, particularly at the national level.
Nowadays, power and resources seem to be far more concentrated.
I'll posit a mechanism: when times are good, small organizations are born, growing out of people's spare time and sense of security in the future. After all, by definition organizations start small. And then when times are bad, small organizations are the first to die, because they lack the economies of scale and financial reserves that allow them to weather a contraction. We've entered a time of scarcity since COVID; that's put severe pressure on many smaller organizations, leading to them withering and shrinking away.
Interestingly, bad times often lead to large organizations becoming dysfunctional, but not dying because they have sufficient reserves to weather the storm. We see this with Big Tech now; we saw it with American automakers in the 1970s. During the next expansion period they often lose competitiveness to new startups, and then in the next contraction they die and their replacements become large organizations.
"There is nothing, according to me, that deserves more to attract our regard than the intellectual and moral associations of America....
In democratic countries the science of association is the mother science; the progress of all the others depends on the progress of that one."
I don't see a move back to a "smaller" world any time soon, but I'm glad people are talking about this (and the downsides of your only options rapidly being conglomerates or big institutions).
This is HN though so my complaints are ironic for sure
I'm not familiar with all of these subfields, but I know that the scholarship on the history of communication networks is extremely deep. Why would there be so much work if things were actually explained so easily? If you are interested in these topics, go read the scholarship!
EDIT: With a little more clarity, I guess what I'm trying to say is that this is #1 on HN right now and I'd encourage people who are interested in this topic to read the mountains of scholarship on these topics written by experts and I wish that Tao had used his visibility to point readers at these experts. You may find that it complicates things.
I think in the big picture I would say overall it’s the big organizations that have grown dominant. The inductive reason is because it is the goal for small organizations to become big so that’s where things head logically speaking.
From an evidence based standpoint, in the end, look at YouTube and Amazon. In the end the big organizations are in control. YouTube for example can cut off their creator and it’s pretty much over for them no matter how popular they once were.
I do! Unironically: AI assisted software development – and please, we can call that anything else, we do not need to confuse it with Serious software development.
Just the amount of super simple software (Apps Script, Office Script) that baseline tech savy people can now/soon build to enhance what they think their business needs are, without the impossible constraint of having to pay a dev to find it out for/with them (because that is really not how you can find that out, while you find out everything else about your super small business) gives me a lot of hope here.
Instead, I am sitting here right now working on a blogging engine so I can create personal blogs to let my friends keep up to date with my shenanigans. Basically give them a chance to participate in my life without enabling them to doom scroll.
I really hope its not only me growing tired of all these addictive unhealthy apps and subscriptions that sneaked into most peoples everyday life. I can only recommend boycotting big tech with CEOs only caring about their own enrichment.
Its only the internet part of life, but this is where I spend most of my time. In real life I try to buy from the local stores as much as possible. However, I do not participate in many other smaller organizations...
* Big banks prefer to lend to big companies because it's more profitable to make one $100M loan than 1,000 $100k loans.
* Banks also prefer to lend for non-productive consumption like mortgages because loans backed by hard assets are less risky than productive loans to small businesses, despite those loans not contributing to growing the economy (but creating money out of thin air to flood the market with mortgages does increase housing prices...).
One way to solve this problem is to break up the big banks and incentivize small regional banks to lend to productive small businesses. Worse for the bankers but better for the economy. Incidentally, this is exactly China's strategy, but as long as big banks are paying politicians millions for luncheon talks, it's unlikely to happen here.
- Would TSMC have gotten as far if Apple couldn't reliably buy out months of capacity on the next node, bankrolling TSMC's tech development?
- Would we even have >10B-param LLMs at all?
There is something to be said for the concentration of resources, such that they can be deployed on projects with payoffs years or decades later. The same could be said for all the tech that came out of Bell Labs or PARC. Advocating for smaller businesses is advocating for shorttermism to some degree; even startups today are funded based on the premise that they could potentially capture an entire market in a few years.
The trend has been resistant to any particular link to localized economic ups or downs. Characterizing the 2023-2025 era (at least in the US) as "a time of scarcity" is divorced from any sort of factual reality; there is no quantitative data to support this idea and it seems to mostly be based on social media vibes (hence the oft-commented "vibecession").
One could make a much stronger argument exactly to the opposite: wealthier societies tend to become more individualistic and separated, people choose to live on their own if possible, and in bigger places; large companies have such attractive economics and pay people so much more than small companies do that it is difficult for small organizations to compete for talent.
So there is a natural size of a firm that is a tug of war between savings of contracting out and the cost of contracting to the market
My still to be published magnum opus claims this is upended by software - that processes can be written and followed in software reducing the cost of hiring and changing the dynamics in favour of large companies.
But software literacy in all employees will enable smaller companies to outperform larger ones - we hope
There's a much simpler explanation. Most entities most of the time (with such probabilities increasing with the size and age of the entity) seek to defend and expand their power. The American political tradition held that the blessings of liberty would be granted and prosperity would grow if the power of the largest such entities were kept in check; first and foremost the British Crown, second the newfound American governments (at different levels), and eventually the largest private entities as well. But America abandoned its commitment to that tradition in all but name. America is no longer committed to property rights, free markets, free expression, or free association, such protections exist today only on paper. So every entity makes locally optimal decisions, leading society into a slow collapse.
This could be as simple as a small community club where your assigned a role like treasurer or something, my grandmother did this when she was young. People actually know you and care about your problems .
For various reasons, these groups just aren't as significant anymore.
There's not a really good solution to this. I'm lucky enough to be in a game dev group, and I do have my bar that I go to every now and then, but aside from that I'm not really a part of any small organizations.
I haven't been to church in decades, but arguably that's why most people actually go. It's not because you imagine God is taking attendance, but it's the joy of being around other people. Historically most people stayed in the same town from cradle to grave, maybe you would move for work, or marriage, but for the most part you just stayed put.
Right, but you don't know these people. You're not in a community with them. Tao points to Dunbar's number as a rough boundary between small and large communities; how many of these "tiny" creators have fewer than 150 followers, and how many of them foster close social ties among those followers in ways that couldn't scale to a larger audience?
Before the era of ~2k subscriber youtube passion project channels, people were forced to find people in their area with shared interests and establish social clubs. This necessarily meant a smaller audience, but it also meant actually being friends with the people you were communicating with. Youtube is definitely a different kind of thing.
That said, I do think there's an argument to be made that the Discord- and groupchat-ification of the social media ecosystem is a backswing toward smaller groups.
But not sure I'd pre-position small organizations as having some kind of "role" -- effect maybe?
I'm reminded of a term "the locus of relevant possibility" used to characterize where people spend their time and effort. This enables one to compare across activities (say, believers, merchants, workers, etc.), and also to propose that change happens where people put their efforts -- nowadays into larger organizations.
Small organizations became relatively less effective at producing any relevant possibilities for people due to loss of locality for people and gain of targeting by large organizations.
People now are participating fans in sports, politics, hardware, and of course work (most jobs come with a cultural context). If/when organizations get better at targeting people, they can scale.
"Local" is a function of time/space/effort cost. Often now it's hard to visit your parents, but easy to engineer complex PR with someone across the world. So physical locality is not a proxy for relevance or possibility any more.
(Too bad locality is still the basis for political representation.)
There's also a key difference in the small organization: it incentivizes people to take some responsibility for others, i.e., some organizing roles, to keep the organization afloat. A world with large effective organizations has fewer leaders -- fewer individuals effecting change.
Probably the main small organizations are personal work networks. That's what determines ability and possibility in an increasingly productive world. In many cases, it centers on a rainmaker effect: people who can find and/or make work are followed.
(I would love to see some clean way to distinguish the organizations with their own cultures vs. those that labor under rainmaker sub-cultures -- alignment vs competition, efficiency vs relevance...)
> In a highly popular statement, we are told that the family has progressed from institution to companionship. But, as Ortega y Gasset has written, “people do not live together merely to be together. They live together to do something together”. To suppose that the present family, or any other group, can perpetually vitalize itself through some indwelling affectional tie, in the absence of concrete, perceived functions, is like supposing that the comradely ties of mutual aid which grow up incidentally in a military unit will along outlast a condition in which war is plainly and irrevocably banished . Applied to the family, the argument suggests that affection and personality cultivation can somehow exist in a social vacuum, unsupported by the determining goals and ideals of economic and political society.
Going on a tangent, my current beliefs are that:
1. Social functions (i.e accomplished through association) has always had, and will always have high marginal utility, independent of and utilising any technology.
2. That there are political and not technological barriers suppressing it in our current age.
3. That humans are evolved to interact with large numbers of humans (probably seasonality), and that our evolved sociality is scalable even to the present day and beyond (i.e a rejection of Dunbar's number as an evolved constraint)
I suppose analysis of existence of smaller NGOs in societies and how they are distributed, but not any real idea as to what the analysis should look like.
It's interesting how this intersects with Tao's point, about the social benefits.
Small organizations provide a sense of belonging.
Both can and do exist at the same time. We don’t need to compare them using the same scales and we don’t need to sacrifice one for the other.
You can shop at Amazon but go to the local bar. Work at Google and attend church. Vote for The Party and start a garage band. Now more than ever we have the time and resources to do both.
Although I agree this is easy to forget.
I call your attention to an earlier, 19th century German philosopher...
> The theoretical basis of alienation is that a worker invariably loses the ability to determine life and destiny when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of their own actions; to determine the character of these actions; to define relationships with other people; and to own those items of value from goods and services, produced by their own labour.
But your main paragraph following them reads to me like you want Waymo, a powerful TSMC, and huge LLMs.
If there is one thing concentrating power and wealth does it is preferring shorttermism. Growth in the next quarter trumps anything else. Humanity’s ecological niche is suffering long term. Civilization suffers as wealth inequality increases (which concentration of power makes happen).
That is precisely the moral hazard we're now living with. Become so big that you can't fail and can't be disciplined.
In what way is china "bullying" europe. It's more like the EU trying to bully china on the US's behalf and failing miserably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nisbet
and
One thing I find annoying about that movie is that it doesn't mention Nisbet one of whose major ideas is that a panopoly of organizations of all shapes and sizes mediates the relationship of individuals with the state and other megaorganizations.
Is this LLM output?
And larger organizations have begun to imperfectly step in the void formed by the absence of small communities, providing synthetic social or emotional goods that are, roughly speaking, to more authentic such products as highly processed "junk" food is to more nutritious fare, due to the inherently impersonal nature of such organizations (particularly in the modern era of advanced algorithms and AI, which when left to their own devices tend to exacerbate the trends listed above)
This is a real issue, but a poor posting. The classic on this is "Bowling Alone" (2000) [1] That book predates most social media. The author bemoans the decline of local organizations such as Rotary International, local Chambers of Commerce, Odd Fellows - all those organizations that have little signs on the outskirts of medium-sized towns. (In Silicon Valley, both Redwood City and Half Moon Bay have such signs.)
Here's a useful question for Americans: do you belong to any organization where the members can, by voting, fire the leadership? Small organizations used to have elected leaders. Today, they tend to be run by self-perpetuating boards. Being involved in such organizations is where people learned how to make democracy work.
When was the last time you went to a non-government meeting run by Roberts Rules of Order? Do you even know what that is, or, more important, why it is? The whole point of Roberts Rules of Order is that the group is in charge and the result is a decision to be acted upon. The Rules are intended to keep the loudest voice in the room from running over everyone else.
Her takeaway is that the value of small, antimemetic, high-trust groups has risen -- exactly because there are less than before
This paper proposes that idiosyncratic firm-level shocks can explain an important
part of aggregate movements and provide a microfoundation for aggregate shocks. Ex-
isting research has focused on using aggregate shocks to explain business cycles, argu-
ing that individual firm shocks average out in the aggregate. I show that this argument
breaks down if the distribution of firm sizes is fat-tailed, as documented empirically.
The idiosyncratic movements of the largest 100 firms in the United States appear to
explain about one-third of variations in output growth. This “granular” hypothesis sug-
gests new directions for macroeconomic research, in particular that macroeconomic
questions can be clarified by looking at the behavior of large firms. This paper’s ideas
and analytical results may also be useful for thinking about the fluctuations of other
economic aggregates, such as exports or the trade balance.
Besides the main identified contributors of personalized media, suburbanization, real estate prices, and the increase of dual-income households, I've started to suspect that government-funding of organizations has also had a significant impact.
In the past, organizations had to raise funds from their communities. As government grants for organizations increased, the cost floor was raised on all organizations (i.e. fundraising, rents, salaries, etc.), and led to the professionalization of what was previously handled by volunteers.
In the same way that the 30-year mortgage and zero-interest-rate policy made it harder for individuals to raise the initial funds to buy a home (by enabling an increase in home prices, making it easier to buy a home if you already own one), I suspect access to government capital has made it harder for small organizations to remain small while they compete with more professional (read "larger") organizations for their members' time and money.
And this is a problem because as Terence Tao points out, "...[Small Groups] also fill social and emotional needs, and the average participant in such groups can feel connected to such groups and able to have real influence on their direction."
Does the king support smaller aristocracies nowadays? No. The king works with the larger aristocracies to eat everyone else.
The choice of the government to allow a non competitive market is a choice to transfer consumer surplus to producers, which is effectively a tax-by-regulatory choice. So the counter argument to “what about Bell Labs” would be that the democratically elected government (in theory) can more efficiently gather that tax and pay for research.
Recognizing counter arguments about effective allocation of resources to useful research. But also recognizing that much R&D goes to future profits for the company rather than just societal benefit.
Downstream reliance AI companies is not "smaller" in any sensible manner
In other contexts I've seen Tao cite scholarship outside of his field when engaging with it. I wish he'd done that here.
In Amazon... You'd be surprised to know how many brands sell 90% of the products availabile there.
The same applies to Youtube, you'd be surprised to know how many channels per country gets 90% of the views.
It's an illusion. We have billion of people...
This premise ignores the existence of the Internet. Wherein small groups of distributed actors can combine their efforts through a nearly instantaneous communications mechanism to match that of the larger groups.
The federal government was conceived when horses were the only way to transmit large amounts of data over a great distance.
We built the replacement for large global groups but then kept the large global groups. The results were entirely predictable.
The example I like to trot out is the amalgamation of furry and queer persons into a larger unit when collaborating at scale, but otherwise fostering positive impacts in smaller groups. The response to their successes has been attacks by larger orgs who are unable to integrate or co-opt them for profit (corporations) or power motives (politicians), as well as cringe-y reputations by individuals not included in those groups (see the mocking of both subcultures and groups by eRandos). Yet despite these negative attacks, both groups continue to grow and create parallel economies, logistics networks, communities, and even limited forms of governance (cons, parades, and social forums).
So in that vein, I believe we’re simply in the midst of an era of transformation, from a broken system to something new. Smaller orgs often lead these changes until one or more balloon in size, at which point they become the larger and more dominant organizations in the new era that follows. What we’re seeing now is a classic fight between opposing political, social, and economic views, aided by technology on both sides of the battle and fundamentally reshaping how conflicts are waged.
I see all kinds of "small organizations" forming in Slack communities, subreddits, and other online spaces. Some might be described as influencer driven communities like substack. Or audiences of a specific podcast. And so on. It's almost never been easier to participate in one of these "organizations".
Even locally, where I live, the school board, city council, local advocacy groups, etc are heavily attended. We have a local group advocating for immigrant rights. Another YIMBY group. Another group that argues against the YIMBYs. PTA meetings. Another group that advocates for the homeless.
I'd say its true that many are in the "universe" of one political sphere (in my case left-leaning). But that does not mean they have been wholly subsumed by "The Left", they often disagree and fight against "Left" politicians. And often "The Left" is not a uniform thing in a city with differing interests and stakeholders.
All of your examples are profit-driven, and not necessarily (even if we do benefit) done for the greater good of all or advancement of society.
We can still accomplish big innovations without those innovations coming from, or being controlled, by nation-state private companies. We've ran high-risk R&D projects successfully before as public projects - Manhattan project, the space race & moon landing, ARPANET, etc.
Waymo could still happen, only it'd be a publicly funded project and the societal benefit would be broader and not tied to a single company's market dominance.
However, I'm not persuaded it was necessary in the specific cases you mention:
* Waymo: EVs were repeatedly killed by corporations highly in concentrated industries that would suffer disruption by EVs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
* TSMC: Wouldn't we all be better off if the entire world weren't so dependent on a single company, located in a such a geopolitically sensitive territory?
* 10B-param LLMs: Wouldn't it have happened regardless, once everyone realized that increasing the scale of early models like GPT-2 and GPT-3 was key to improving performance? I'd add that the model that launched the deep learning craze (AlexNet) and the model that launched the LLM craze and (the Transformer) were developed by tiny teams on the cheap.
Is it a naive way to view the world? Yes. But it resonates with people more than "ChatGPT is going to replace you."
I press down arrow to slowly read the rest of the text - and instead it jumps me all the way down
I stopped reading at 1/5, the text after is too small on my phone.
I run a cheap dedicated server for $25/mo and run a blog on it, and it just shows my fuxxing writings like a regular article. Surely TT can get someone to host a blog on his University's servers. Someone help this man!
Your second point is totally correct, but it is exacerbated as a result of (broadly good) government policy. A bank wouldn’t mind making uncollateralised loans any more than a mortgage, although it might charge more interest for the risk. However the government penalises banks based on (approximately) the sum of their risk weighted assets [0]. Here mortgages, as collateralised loans, are greatly incentivised over uncollateralised loans to business.
It’s hard to say if the situation would be worse without it, it’s possible we might have more risky business loans leading to growth, but also more likely we could see a serious global financial crisis.
[0] I am simplifying here slightly but you can see how the US ranks major banks here, higher is worse from the banks point of view https://www.fsb.org/uploads/P261124.pdf
It's worth noting that Bell's size and reach allowed it to create Bell Labs, and the subsequent breakup led to their eventual demise.
We also have plenty of problems that are natural monopolies. Take, for instance, credit card fraud detection. High level detection involves giving a risk score to a transaction. I sure can give a better fraud score if I see almost every transaction this card makes, and I have a very high percentage of visibility of all transactions in the world, than if I had to do the calculation by just knowing what, say, my boardgaming website has seen. The smaller contender has to be so much better algorithmically to be able to compete with a massive advantage in data quantity and quality.
And that's the real problem we have with monopolies right now: The bigger company often doesn't have a huge advantage because they are making extra shady deals, or they have to compete less, but because being bigger makes them more efficient in some ways that are completely above board.
Monolithic systems are scalable and efficient when well-governed, but brittle under errors or bad leadership (e.g. China closing its ports in the 14th century had centuries-long repercussions).
Distributed systems are less efficient but more resilient to errors and poor governance.
It’s not always one or the other though. American founding fathers found a right set of tradeoffs in designing checks and balances (like separation of powers) and federalism structures that harden the system against bad governance (though this is under strain today).
Not sure it is bad times which drives this. Plenty of examples in human history of the tendency of humans to form small local support groups when times get tough.
Volunteerism has been on a massive decline my entire life, good decades and bad decades. There is some other force in our current social order which is tearing it apart.
By almost any metric, life in western society is better than ever, you cannot say now times are not good.
From my perspective one of the main reason is the modern internet: people are glued to screens instead of participation in local community.
Why bother to go somewhere if you have everything in your pocket and also on the enormously big tv screen in your room?
One remarkable counter example in my neck of the woods is the Orthodox Church, which has done extraordinarily well since covid, picking up tons of converts. Of course, people themselves are conserved, too. That growth has come at the expense of protestant churches which in my reckoning sorta stopped being churches during covid. I'd estimate 1/3 of my local congregation is non-Greek converts who seemingly have no intention of learning the language (services regularly run 1.5 to 2 hours, largely in koine Greek)!
I think North, Wallis, and Weingast's Violence and Social Orders is a little more directly on point to his posts, but I believe I share at least part of your point of view here — and would love to see a precis of the magnum opus!
Yes, that's exactly how power works. You can dilute power (in non-hierarchical organizations) or you can concentrate it (in rigidly hierarchical societies), but there's a finite amount of it and it's deeply coveted by all
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2025/01/06/africa-h...
I don't see any reference to the game being zero-sum in Tao's words.
> Since when do these uncontrollable intangibles exhibit a genuine agency of their own?
I don't think Tao is saying the uncontrollable force of technological and economic advancement exhibits a genuine agency of its own. Just that our current technology and society and has expanded the role of the extremely large organization/power structures compared to other times in history. This is a bit of technological determinist argument, and of course there's many counter-arguments, but it at least has a broad base of support. And at the very least it's a little bit true; pre-agricultural the biggest human organizations were 50 person hunter-gatherer bands.
Honestly, I feel like you are filtering his words through your own worldview a bit, and his opinions might be less oppositional to your own than you might think.
You posit that the situation has a political cause, but I think this is just what happens when a system requiring exponential growth reaches the limits of its bounding box.
They got everything tight again with WWII, McCarthy and the Cold War, though. Lucky, right?
I think there has been an intentional effort to isolate people from each other, and to destroy communities, and even make them look suspicious or evil in some way. Isolated, atomized people are more easily controlled. I think the encouragement of labor mobility and the trashing of small towns and small business in favor of the internet has also been an intentional effort in that regard. I also think there has been an intentional effort to consolidate media and merge it with government, which reached a frenzy during the Biden administration. Oracle's nepo baby is going to have Paramount, CBS, Tiktok, and who knows what else.
An evil antidemocratic streak has been encouraged among the "left," who now love benevolent dictators, credentialism, and decision by "consent" which immediately devolves into rule by the loudest and the whiniest cluster B personality or sociopath. Votes mean that you don't get your way a lot, but you get stuff done. If you don't get your way too much, you can just leave and join a group that works for you. Monopoly, and rule by anointment take that away from us, and that's what's happening.
It's been devastating for black Americans. Our media used to be vibrant and exciting, now it doesn't exist at all. This is the fate of all minorities under cultural consolidation. Alone, getting your directions from a screen, with the screen listening to any conversation you manage to have and reporting it to your rulers.
They'll eventually go after the churches, too, or consolidate them. I'm sorry, they'll go after the "christofascists."
There was a lot of stuff available that was advertised in magazines and stuff as well. To use one niche as an example: I'm thinking of the ads in computer magazines sometimes with hundreds of obscure items crammed into a page.
Businesses with 50-100 people are pretty rare compared to the past
I mean sure, that's one way to describe dropshipping from huge chinese manufactories
If your country prevents any domestic tech companies from becoming trillion-dollar behemoths, but such things are still permitted in at least one other country with a similarly-sized economy to yours, then that just means that all your smaller domestic tech companies are going to be outcompeted by the foreign trillion-dollar behemoth selling into your domestic market.
I do think there's a dearth of scholarship in the decline of social organizing in the US. There's studies that show the decline but other than Bowling Alone every subsequent book I've read or skimmed on the topic uses this decline to rail off against their boogeyman of choice, more set dressing than problem to consider.
oh man, your mind will be blown when you find out about essayists. or completely horrified, can go either way. A whole field, a respected field, completely devoted to vibes.
Empiricism is not the only right way to interrogate the universe y'know
So this is 99% of the internet and a lot of what passes for journalism too. If you want official sources, you're limited to published papers. People typically don't have sources at hand when making opinions.
Nevertheless, state-level power, for a state government or business, is still far above the kind of sub-Dunbar number (~120 people) organisations that Tao is talking about, where everyone might know each other and the network can be organised by reputation and trust rather than through state-level laws or contracts (and the attendant forms of impersonal bureaucratic enforcement that come with those).
Edit: I don't mean to object to the general theme of your comment which is that power has become increasingly concentrated and unchecked, just to point out that even if those limitations that you mention had been retained it would still represent a society where the role of immediate trust-based relationships is diminished or eroded relative to the previous situation where these were the primary aspects of people's livelihoods and security
Heck, ChatGPT should be able to answer that.
Do you have any links?
Yes but one can't just ignore the federal government itself, as if this wasn't an organization. In this framing of small organizations kept small by the government the largest organization is the State. Indeed in this framing the State's job is to control other organizations. While a democratic state is different than a private organization in that it derives legitimacy from its voters, I'd be hard pressed to say that the state is sufficiently different from any other large organization. We can certainly see this now in the US in highly polarized times where the State bears opposition from half the country depending on who is in power.
I think this "anti-monopoly" framing is a bit dangerous as it smuggles a political position into a much more complicated situation. There is an overall decline in the West of small association groups. More and more of these groups happen on Discord voice chats and are divorced from the real life constraints that offer a more "grounded" character. And I think this issue has been written about much less than the "anti-monopoly" one. Even if you fervently believe that the State needs to play an aggressive role in policing private organizations, I think it's more thought-provoking to think about ways to encourage more grassroots organizing.
They seem to do the opposite now because small businesses can expect little support from the government (and surely no big subsidies like the large players are getting in for example the Stargate joint venture). Especially COVID was seen by many small business owners are extremely tough since larger stores were allowed to stay open while the small businesses were not.
Freemasons: what do they even do? I just know a few secretive fat white guys who belong. They're serious about it. They don't talk about it. Why would I join? I have no idea what they do. Not obviously recruiting in my area.
Boy/Girl scouts: I wasn't able to have a kid and so couldn't volunteer here or sports. It's kinda creepy to do so without a kid. Not obviously recruiting in my area.
YMCA/YWCA: this seems like a straight up company these days. Do they even take volunteers? I don't see any recruiting for it.
Kids who code / other code bootcamps: sent multiple emails. All I got back was marketing asking for donations if I even got that. They did like 2 events a year.
I do volunteer EMS/Fire/Ski Patrol... That requires actual training. Groups were obviously recruiting once I had the skills. They need people to help run large events / medical.
I think the biggest flowering of organizations both small and large happened in the post-WWII period. In the US sure that was a very hopeful time. But many of the other belligerents were reduced to rubble and Germany and Japan were occupied by foreign powers. Yet organizations did still sprout in this period of, what we modern people would probably think as, utter despondency. I think there's more to it than just time and security.
It suggests to me that there is a long running flaw. I believe Bowling Alone pegs the inflection point in the late 50s or early 60s, ('57?) and the substantative issues came about with the generation hitting the workforce in something like 1960. So the kids born in the 1935-1945 era had something in their culture materially different than prior eras that kept on spreading.
What terrifies me is a pocket thesis I have that the local leadership—the local activating & bringing people to a purpose— vanishing is a symptom or symptoms directly coupled to Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. Capital swallowing up all the wealth & managing the world from the top down means there are way less people with Buck Stops Here responsibility, and that they tend to be in much loftier offices, far more remote and detached from the loved experiences of the business. Capital manages the world from afar now, exacts it's wants and desires via a very long arm of the invisible hand, and it doesn't involve us, doesn't involve humanity anymore.
We humanity don't see the world working before us, and are thrown into the world without much chance to carve a meaningful space out for ourselves. It's all very efficient and the scale of capital enables great things, but it deprived us of the human effort of stumbling through, deprives us of ingenuity's energizing reward of seeing things around us change and improve, seeing people connect through and around our actions. Society at a distance isn't social media & it's parasocial relationships: it's the new megacongolmerated world that left us Bowling Alone in 2000.
MBA-ification of our professional lives erodes the social animal. The less social animal, lacking experience, does not build social and business organizations around themselves. The social environment degraded further, the center cannot hold, we are moored less and less to purpose and each other.
For many, life seems aimless. Your future is to simply contribute what you're told to some faceless multinational for which after 20 years your only recognition will be a small piece of canvas with a mass produced screen printed design.
Suppose further that corporate managers were prohibited from making tax-advantaged donations to non-profits except upon a fixed percentage of employees approving the donation. Would that help?
Aside from employees, there are also the communities within which corporations operate. Suppose we required that a certain percentage of any taxable profits be earmarked for donation to non-profits within the communities within which the corporations operate. Would that help? But maybe we would we have to pair this with the proposal above for this to work?
One way to address the relative inefficiency of a larger organization is to consume more energy and not worry about the waste on entropy. This works so long as the large organization is growing — i.e., so long as it is able to extract more energy from its environment than it is wasting (in a relative sense) on its internal processes.
The strategies for minimizing entropy within an organization — large or small — seem to boil down to two, which are intertwined: 1) what @pg called "Founder Mode" and 2) alignment around mission and vision. In both cases, the effect is to drive the organization towards a "critical state" in which small details of information picked up at the edges can be shared relatively quickly across the entire organization, allowing every part of the organization to react in alignment to that new information. In the case of 1), this is facilitated by a dictator (i.e., the founder) who everybody willingly submits decisions to when they themselves are unsure of how the founder would decide. In the case of 2), this is facilitated by a shared understanding of what the "right" decision is across the organization in view of the mission and vision, which are clear and crisp enough to answer most questions, even about relatively obscure issues or questions that arise.
The ability to operate at scale seems more or less to be derived from one or both of these. Coase's theory of the firm in The Nature of the Firm can be understood in these terms — that is, 1) and 2) are the mechanism whereby internal management outperforms spot markets in coordinating production.
because the bank will immediately sell the loan on
(but they will have collected a fee on both sides...)
only just. Mastodon is basically a twitter clone.
When the topics are entire subfields (the development of multinational corporations, the development of states, the development of communication networks) it makes sense to build takes off of actual research.
The history of communications networks (just one of the many enormous topics he covers here) is a whole field with piles of academics publishing constantly.
But crypto has also made US dollar stable coins popular, which are arguably better than holding some hyper inflating currency like the Argentinian Peso, but the holders of those stablecoins are still "taxed" when the US government/banks inflate the currency (and are worse off than US citizens who should at least benefit a small amount from whatever the printed money is spent on).
The holy grail is a new internet-native stable coin that keeps a relatively steady price but can't be easily inflated away by a small group of people (e.g. backed by a basket of assets), but so far most attempts to do that have failed. I bet eventually we'll have a popular one that works, though.
So you prefer nation-state nations over nation-state private companies. :-)
You really think so? All of the examples you gave are military technology during wartime, which the government does tend to be able to do since the existential risk motivates the organization to root out graft and free riding.
I could see some kind of alternate reality future government funded Waymo being spun out of drone tank tech from WWIII but we wouldn't have it today.
If things continue to be advanced haphazardly just because these companies have budget capacity what’s to say that in a hundred years the bulk of humanity will have lost capacity for independent critical thought? Is that really the world you want to create?
It’s not just a “ChatGPT will replace you”. Our humanity is potentially at stake if we don’t deliberately evolve this tech.
In fact, I would say this is a key source of the tension between large and small that Terry has identified. Yes, large organizations are more efficient at most of what we need as humans. But our ape brains still benefit from being close enough to smell the people we're working with. Until we evolve biologically, it's going to be a problem that it's so much easier to work remotely than it is to work together in person. And the world is only making it harder to do the latter right now.
A PTA doesn't do that. The folks in the PTA all have the same shared interest in the school their kids attend. They can't just splinter off into another PTA over a perceived difference. This forces the folks on the PTA to work together and makes the organization sticky in a way an online group might not be.
If the activation energy to form and join a community needed it's also really easy to just churn from the community. Moreover when splitting is this easy it prompts the creation of hyper-specific communities which lead to things like radicalization and dehumanization of the other (look at the acrimony between leftist identity-politic progressives and center-left liberals on the internet right now for example.)
We need to think about durable small organizations, not ones that are based around the social mores of the moment. The magic of a neighborhood group is that as long as people live in an area together there will be neighbors.
FWIW opposition-based interest groups have a long history in pretty much every state we've ever had records of.
I wonder whether this post is just a reflection of Terry living in California, which from where I sit looks like an end-stage capitalist hellscape.
In general, economic central planning is a dead end. People keep trying to claim that it would be more efficient or benefit society but it just doesn't work. Bureaucrats and politicians can't be trusted with resource allocation decisions.
I'm not sure we agree enough on the definitions of these things to justify a democratic redistribution of resources towards them. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny after all. The nice part about private enterprise is that it's hard to argue they didn't earn their money. Google, Apple, et al provided some value to some folks who volunteered to pay for it in a free exchange. Their claim to use their earned wealth as they see fit is much easier to substantiate than a government intervention which is neither voluntary nor obviously providing value to the people who pay for it.
The reason the world is so dependent on a single company is because it costs country-breaking amounts of money to keep-up with the semiconductor manufacturing technology. You can only have cheap semiconductors if there are very few entites building them.
When you mention the space race, you should also add that once the Moon landing was over, the government-supported part of space activity got mostly bogged down in cost-plus boondoggles (see: Space Launch System, also called Senate Launch System), and without a vibrant private sector with deep pockets, the US would be launching maybe some twenty rockets a year now, more likely twelve, each at an extreme cost and without much technological progress. And American capability of supporting human spaceflight would be tenuous at best, or possibly nonexistent.
(NASA is not at fault here. The politicians which command it, though... they seem to love giving Boeing et al. expensive projects.)
The idea that Tao can’t be insightful while microblogging outside of his field of expertise is silly. We here at HN allow plenty of nonexperts a wide latitude to pretend like they know something of which they have no real knowledge. The result is, I’m sure you’ll agree, occasionally insightful.
On this note, I've lived in a couple states with ballot initiative processes and while they are not perfect, I think they are absolutely necessary for citizens to truly be able to hold their elected representatives accountable (i.e. override them) and I wish we had them at a federal level.
China being a good example. Google being a monopoly in the rest of the world doesn't really impact them much since they just block the foreign products.
This is exactly the key core distinction. The purpose of the state is to be the most powerful organization in the room - to constrain other actors. It’s imperative, therefore, that it be democratic and representative. Notably, part of the instinct to break up other large organizations is to prevent them from assembling enough resources to have a supersized impact on the state - the problem with monopoly is that monopolies buy out their competition and neuter regulations, the problem with wealth disparity is the ultra wealthy are sufficiently powerful to move the state in the direction they want it to go.
I agree with you generally regarding reducing the overall size of governing bodies and I agree with Terrence about the benefits of small organizations and the drawbacks of large specifically around the investment and perceived ownership of members of those organizations, but having a small state fundamentally requires having small organizations everywhere - and anti-monopoly, antitrust, and anti-wealth concentration - because for the state to be democratic and representative, it must be the most powerful organization in the area it covers, otherwise it’s just a tool for the more powerful to use.
Without profit as a motive, innovation would be decades behind (if not longer than this). Governments can barely afford crumbling infrastructure maintenance as it is. I seriously doubt they are going to invest in projects for the 'greater good'.
"We've ran high-risk R&D projects successfully before as public projects - Manhattan project, the space race & moon landing, ARPANET, etc."
Yes, for defensive or offensive military purposes. Not much beyond this.
Even big pharma supplies the world. The rest of the world with socialized medicine create knock-offs at a fraction of the cost, because they didn't have to spend decades going through testing and billions of dollars developing it.
The current system selects people that have allocated resources effectively in the past by providing them more resources to allocate.
> We've ran high-risk R&D projects successfully before as public projects
And what is stopping countries from doing this today? This isn't an either or thing, public projects can still exist, there is no law of nature saying that massive companies are the sole source of innovations but for some reason people treat it like they are mutually exclusive. You bring up projects from decades ago but are there any modern examples?
Since when has throwing money at systems that haven't shown success worked? And you are suggesting that we take money from others to throw it at a system that doesn't work.
As for TSMC, the counterfactual assumes such technology would've happened regardless. Just because technology seems to happen inevitably, doesn't make it so. We have evidence of one approach (private) giving incredible results. And also some examples of public (in wartime) giving incredible results. I don't know the evidence for peacetime public incredible results. Maybe warpspeed?
That job market only existed in a handful of countries for a ~40 year period on all of human history.
Saying that should be the norm ignores that historically it wasn't and it may very well be that it isn't a sustainable basis for a society.
Is it even possible en masse in a market where you are competing against double income no kids kind households?
Those things Americans say about the rest of the world...
It’s the same as junk food, people will freely choose it over healthier options.
Basically, products on the free market optimize for what people prefer to buy, and people’s preferences are shaped by evolution to a world in which physical rest and high-calorie foods were scarce. This makes us mismatched to the modern landscape.
Isn't Bitcoin (or Ethereum, or Solana, or whatever your L1 favorite is) itself the "internet-native stable coin" we want, except for their lack of stability? In other words, if we didn't have a need to exchange into local currency, what remaining need would there be except for lower price volatility?
I'm not a mason, but their motto is "to be one, ask one". You won't see them recruiting, you have to inquire.
Some friends and I just started a tool library in Central Oregon: https://cotool.org/
There some quite generous community donations of tools (not money) to get started. Startup costs were small, and now a couple weeks after opening we have dozens of members.
It scales nicely because we can just buy more or less new tools. It's very impactful to some people, and once started there's very little recurring expenses.
I think something like only turning on the internet and TV for like a single hour each morning and evening would do so much for society, like you wouldn't believe. Not just encouraging better engagement outside of those times, but also causing you to demand better of the hour you do get, avoiding mindless slop.
Have you ever taken a proper break from all media? Like tv, internet, phones, heck even books. You find yourself suddenly with amazing amounts of time. Some people describe being catastrophically bored but for me I just find that all those little tasks that rack up that seem like too much effort suddenly become approachable and you can check off like 6 and still have time for relaxing in some grass and just kinda chatting with passers by. I really think its that simple.
Sadly, in the modern American government, legislation is too slow, justice is sold, and the executive runs amok unchecked. None of them are able to effectively attack the zoning and permitting processes that prevent developers from exercising their property rights to develop additional housing; markets have been captured by oligarchs who actively undermine the competition necessary for a free market, again with complicit legislative, judicial, and executive branches.
From start to finish it's fantastic. It's not a highly scientific work though, it's more of an observation mixed with some autobiographical touches.
Username checks out.
You can also vote in the shareholders meeting.
I feel like that's sorta where we are in America. In the glory days of the 50s-70s, people wanted the game to continue - they were willing to sacrifice a little bit of winning for the sake of keeping the system intact. Then starting in the 80s, people gradually started sacrificing the game for the win, doing things that they knew would eventually lead to the collapse of everything so that they could come out on top. This is corrosive. Once it starts becoming apparent, everybody will start sacrificing the system as a whole for their own personal gain, because the system is dead anyway.
I think we're right on the brink of everyone realizing that the system is now dead, and bad things will likely come of it.
You're correct to note that this phenomenon crosses all aspects of life in the US, whether talking about churches, PTAs, book clubs, business, forums, fraternities, and politics. There is hardly a part of our lives anymore that isn't intruded on by national narratives anymore. There is a very fundamental question of why that is, why it's allowed, and who benefits from it.
True, though (at least in principle) a democratic government is a very special organization because it (again, in principle) exists only because it's the people's will.
(1) Power and money generally lead to more power and money
(2) Government and corporate/wealthy power are a revolving door (regulatory capture, pay-to-play politics, etc).
... then someone who is skeptical of abuses of power should be wary of both government and corporate/wealthy power. But that seems like an untenable position — you can't check the one without muscling up the other.
Is there a way to maintain a small, decentralized, local-oriented government that can still check the power of corporate/wealthy/majoritarian impulses and provide a social safety net?
And then kids who grew up without mentors are less likely to try to be that for someone else.
Basically the orgs don't have enough volunteers to do important things, and the people don't volunteer because the org isn't important to them.
What's not okay is that only they have to accept the short end of the stick and the others can profit from that.
But in actuality, I like some parts of how society is organized, and dislike some other parts. I don't want to leave society - I want society to be better.
the lack of public funding towards automated cars isn't due to a lack of potential, it's due to a lack of focus and lower-hanging-fruit.
Could you remind me what war was going on when the CDC eradicated malaria from the United States?
Could you remind me what war was going on when FDR build our basic social safety nets?
Broadly speaking, people have 3 ways to organize large groups: business, government, and (organized) religion. Each has strengths and weakness. To say that only one can produce social good is a bit of a stretch.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article-abstract...
Specifically, the EU has no ability to fight foreign monopolies. Though, it has an ability to fine them and extort some pocket money from them. However, this hasn't had a tangible effect on creating more competition in those markets.
Yes, the CCP can say jump and expect their corporations to do so, but when everyone in a modern economy jumps at the same time, massive oversupply is the result. More market-based economies are also prone to similar overproduction when everyone gets caught up in the same mania (see AI datacenters), but investors will eventually stop lighting their money on fire when it becomes clear that the returns aren't there. Chinese companies, on the other hand, will just keep jumping until the CCP decides that they are done jumping.
Our feedback loop is geared towards only doing things that provide a return on investment. Their feedback loop has things like social stability and global competitiveness as competing goals to actually doing productive work.
Yes, they are able to accomplish a tremendous amount when they set their minds to it, but doing a tremendous amount more of something than there is actual demand is waste, the opposite of efficiency.
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/china-is-sending-its-...
The CCP does put a heavy thumb on some scales, but so does every country. Perfect efficiency is not optimal when circumstances change, so states always enforce some redundancy.
There are many differences, of course, but just don't get the idea that China consists of monopolies in a command economy. They call it "capitalism with Chinese characteristics."
The places that do still have a physical location are often almost grandfathered in where the organisation bought the land decades ago and now pulls in enough from investments to continue perpetually, but could not afford to buy or rent the space at market rate today.
The current system rather heavily optimizes the ability to make resources into more resources for the shareholders. See e.g. Uber.
Also worth mentioning that in that time period the rest of the world was recovering from devastation. Either the devastation of two world wars or the devastation of imperialism.
The current system selected people that have maximized shareholder value and financially engineered it into other financial assets that provide power under the capitalist system. This includes private equity services that have simply squeezed money out of consumers for no increase in quality of life, or companies that managed to avoid the consequences of the externalities of their economic activity.
> And what is stopping countries from doing this today? This isn't an either or thing, public projects can still exist, there is no law of nature saying that massive companies are the sole source of innovations but for some reason people treat it like they are mutually exclusive. You bring up projects from decades ago but are there any modern examples?
Regulatory capture and lobbying that attempts to force a profit motive behind every large government initiative when the profit motive substracts value away from society at large.
I'll take the parent commenter's option, thanks.
>They want a job market where one single breadwinner can support their house, spouse and kids
If society also wants women to be able to have the same income earning opportunities as men and hence have financial freedom.
Animals compete, and so everywhere, dual earning households will outcompete single earning households.
I see the cycle as one of: corporatism depriving us of organizational experience (power instead trickling top down from often far off far above offices), weakening organizational muscle & maturation of human agency. Resulting in people who don't have the experience to make & run orgs, leaving less orgs, which cuts off the remaining opportunities to participate & organize.
More simply: the less organizing opportunities we have the less people do organize which results in less opportunities still. Contrapositively perhaps, to organize is to non-zero sum grow & developer human agency.
The second one will have more money in the modern context so they're better off. At some times in the past, they wouldn't have been better off because their expenses would increase more than their income. Basically it's about cost of childcare.
The main difference is, ideally, the project was voted on by the public, and is being steered as such. A public-private collaboration, with the public driving it rather than it being entirely the domain of a single private entity for their own profit.
I'm not sure this is a universal definition. Some of us just want a state that maintains a monopoly on violence, and otherwise does not constrain peaceful actors. An administration of peaceful coexistence rather than a mandate for cooperation. While administrating the peace does require some absolute power, it is required narrowly, to prosecute true crime, defend from outside threats, and resolve disputes.
My point is: the social problems of disenfranchisement that come from large organizations are a property of their size. They may differ in that they're volunteer based, profit oriented, non-profit in a capitalist system, democratically organized, or several hundred or thousand more distinctions. But I'm going to feel just as disconnected from my national government as I will from the workings of Google as a small shareholder as I will from the NBA as someone that plays pick-up on a basketball court. The experience of going to a minor league baseball game is much more personal than going to a major MLB game.
To me the important issue is: the US specifically and the Anglophone West more broadly is seeing a decrease in its small institutions. This decrease predates the modern internet and social media landscape (see Bowling Alone.) I have many, many questions around this. Why is this happening? What is its effect on society? How can we reverse this? Is this something we can reverse?
It's an important issue to me because this trajectory is very different outside of the Anglophone West. Japan for example is not seeing the same decline in its small organizations as the US is, despite population reduction. If anything Japanese life is dominated much more by huge conglomerates than US life.
The state derives a lot of its power globally from wealth, influence, military power (funded by wealth). The state is only as powerful as it is - and only as capable as it is at promoting American interests in the world because it has many of the biggest winner-take-all corporations in its jurisdiction.
A world where it breaks them up while China keeps them is probably a world where China is far more powerful than the US
The meta as a state today is to cultivate as much wealth and power as possible by encouraging super corporations
The reason that governments have such a restrictive budget in the first place is people are individually profit-motivated. Governments do invest in projects for the greater good - you yourself note "big pharma" research, and in fact historically the US gov provided more than half the funding of all basic research nationally.
> Yes, for defensive or offensive military purposes. Not much beyond this.
Shinkansen.
Anyways, governments across the world are driven by incentives that do recognize long-term economic/strategic interests. You can see it with AI, with climate change, even with the broad desire to create a "homegrown" Silicon Valley.
The increase in performance of computation has been happening for so many decades now that it's been given names like "Moore's Law." People like Hans Moravec predicted way back in the 1980's that the cost of compute would continue to decline and become cheap enough for AGI by the 2020's or 2030's. That's half a century ago!
Surely you're not suggesting...
Stock corporation, even if flawed, are accountable to their stock holders at least to an extent; thus your point
> Private companies are accountable to no one
clearly does not hold. Corporations, of course, can also be steered and course-corrected (shareholders meetings).
> Donald Trump called it "the largest AI infrastructure project in history", and he indicated that he would use emergency declarations to expedite the project's development, particularly regarding energy infrastructure.
So it might not be strictly a subsidy, but it surely is taxpayer-support.
Sure a democratic government derives its legitimacy from the people's will but not from your will, and that is the role of the small community organization.
The legislation limited the power of wealth which made government more willing to police corporations bad behavior.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United, we are now in a free for all. Wealth now translates to political power. We are seeing not only de-regulation but the active collusion of the current administration and favored corporations.
At least when applied to Government in the form of "Representative Democracies" I think this overly simplistic view is not useful to analyze what's happening in the real world.
The assumption behind electing representatives is precisely that they will advocate and advance agendas on behalf of the majority - no matter their social status. However, for this to work it requires a populace that is sufficiently informed, educated, and intelligent to understand what sensible solutions look like.
Unfortunately, Rousseau, Voltaire, Kant and many others were wrong and even after 300 years of putting young homo sapiens through 10 years of public education and teaching them rational thinking this assumption turns out to be false.
If I were to make a lightly educated guess - those who were teens in the 40s and 50s saw the world of their parents and their sacrifices, along with the totalitarianism of the USSR and Nazi Germany, and decided to pursue individualism over community. So as they got to an age to participate they opted out, as well as increasing the total social individualism. And here we are.
I don't know exactly what the way out here looks like, but I believe it absolutely means involvement with local organizations. Kiwanis, elks, rotary, religious, etc.
I encourage HNers to try it! Just mentally replace "God" with "Nature" and "Jesus" with "Me" in every line and you have a good framework for self-reflection and appreciation of the natural world.
People want to have their cake and eat it, too. And that obviously doesn't work.
You cannot be serious, the whole thing was called the space race for a reason. Space tech has always always been primarily a military venture, and it remains so to this day.
> Malaria
Glad you asked, chloroquine was developed during WW2 for soldiers, and chloroquine resistance of soldiers in Vietnam drove the creation of mefloquine and artemisinin.
> Social safety nets
Not a science breakthrough
> To say that only one can produce social good is a bit of a stretch
I 100% agree. It's not "everything ever created was because of war". It is rather that "a lot of difficult amazingly unimaginable things i.e 'root node science' would have never been created had it not been for war, and this is what unlocked an exponential number of amazing things we have today". We would certainly have scientific advancement even without war, just exponentially less.
Also, we need to count derivative works of these works as primarily existing because of war reasons too.
This is not an American specific or 20th century specific phenomenon either. Science and war have always been friends, and to my point, with reciprocal benefits, not just war benefiting from science. For example, Fourier was part of napoleons egypt expedition. Euler worked for the Russian Navy, and even has a direct book "Neue Grundsätze der Artillerie" (“New Principles of Artillery”) (1745). Lagrange similar: a lot of his projectile analyses arose out of problems posed by the Turin artillery school.
Most crucially, Euler and Lagrange and many other household names were entirely funded by the military complex. Ecole polytechnique which employed Lagrange was a military engineering school[1], and St. petersburg academy which employed euler[2] was heavily supported by the navy and army.
That said, there are also examples of people creating science for purely fun -- most of gauss' work, galileo's work and a lot of 1300-1600 era indian mathematics arose purely out of astronomy studies, and, I suppose, rolling random crap down a slope for the funsies(galileo) and visions from a goddess (ramanujan). I'm sure there are a gajillion other examples too, of "root node" science being created for non-war reasons. But it's also true that a massively larger number of insanely cool things we have today only ever existed because of war.
[1] and it remains under the French defense ministry [whatever it's called] to this day!
[2] fun story, he was employed by both Frederick the great in berlin and by Catherine I in St. petersburg at different points in his life. He was even accused of espionage.
Multiple edits: looked through my notes and edited some inaccuracies.
You're right about this generally, though. I've got two different theories for why this is happening.
First, I think the US is "individually nomadic" in a way that many other countries and cultures are not - it is unusual, at least in the populous areas, for someone to spend their entire life in one area, and doubly so for an entire family or community to stay geographically colocated long enough to really build durable organizations. I think this changes a bit as people get older, but it's quite normal for someone to move every 5 years or so between the age of, say, 20 and 60. Arguably this is driven by economics - job availability, especially for professionals, is a big reason for these moves.
I think there's something self-reinforcing about the trend, as well - notably, as, say, the focus in politics concentrates on the federal government, it becomes harder for people to really see the benefit in local politics. The repeal of Roe v. Wade, for example, is a policy made at the national level with strong impacts locally; similarly the recent change in policy around both trans rights and immigration are hard for people to look past towards local politics (I think this is a mistake - large politics are built on small politics - but I think it's a factor).
I'd also suspect impatience plays a part - it's hard to build an organization, it's hard to negotiate status and relationships, it's hard to keep something viable, and we've got a lot of easier routes to dopamine than bothering to meet up with other people now.
The cause of disengagement is that organizations, large or small, are not responsive to customers needs or citizens needs. In many cases, they are actively working to the detriment of their own customers and the country at large.
This is due to regulatory capture. It is that simple.
You've got the cart before the horse; the government would not have a budget at all if people were not individually motivated to generate taxable events.
Profit is the practice of accumulating more resources than you immediately need in the anticipation of their future use and enjoyment. Without a government, a profit makes the bearer a target for anyone who can overpower you. So the essential purpose of a government is the preservation of profit by opposing the forces that would destroy or carry it off: criminals, scammers, foreign militaries.
Governments did not command the invention of penicillin, powered flight, electric light, transistors, the blue LED, or the majority of software products that are essential to society today. But it protected individuals to invent with the knowledge that their work could be rewarded on some timeframe rather than being immediately destroyed by an interloper.
I genuinely struggle to think of a social ill we're currently facing that isn't down in one way or another to some mega-entity acting against the public interest with no fears of reprisal because it is "too big to fail."
> A world where it breaks them up while China keeps them is probably a world where China is far more powerful than the US
The US has demonstrated thoroughly it cannot and is not interested in preventing the ascent of a Chinese superpower, simply from the fact that, if you believe them at face value, the current ruling party and administration are absolutely ripping the walls out from the U.S. Government largely to prevent that exact phenomenon, and have utterly failed to do so. And, in their ineptitude, have in fact both made the United States a global embarrassment and left tons of soft power just sitting on the damn table for China to pick up.
> A world where it breaks them up while China keeps them is probably a world where China is far more powerful than the US
... but we have a lot of these supposed super-corporations. The problem is the United States, contrary to the ramblings of numerous chronically online people, does not actually use it's authority. Those corporations are in fact far more worried about accessing China's market than ours, because we don't regulate and they do, and there's far more Chinese consumers than American ones.
Add to it America's consumers are already strip-mined to the studs and China's middle class is growing... I mean. It's just full steam ahead on American irrelevance.
I think the real lesson is that when you're the big player already benefiting from global free trade in virtually every single way, laying tariffs on everything and sabotaging foreign investment in your own country is... well. Fucking stupid?
(1) I'm convinced at the very least LLMs can feasibly speed up paperwork.
See page 3 on https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2023/12/goldin-lecture-sl... for an illustration.
Arguments about efficient allocation are laughable when you consider that someone who is socially 6 steps removed from an institutional 'money printer' lives in a monetary environment where money is 10 times more scarce than it is at the source (due to taxation between each hop). Few people are so far removed in practice but the effects are still very powerful even with less distance. Taxation brings all economic activities closer to the government and banking sector.
In competitive industries were profits are paper thin, monetary asymmetry can fully determine business outcomes. The company receiving government contracts on the side has a massive upper hand over its competitors during a monetary contraction. Same can be said about companies which operate in environments where their customers have access to large amounts of credit by virtue of their highly valued collateral. Their success has little to do with optimal allocation and a lot to do with socio-economic positioning and monetary system design.
> Surely you're not suggesting...
Indeed I see the evidence on the side that these ideas were some temporary fads that might get out of fashion in the foreseeable future. This is clearly not a suggestion, I just see the signs on the horizon that this is indeed plausibly to happen.
Perhaps a more mathematical framing looks to game theory, a la John Nash. In the prisoner's dilemma two equilibrium exist, the "good one" where the prisoners cooperate, and the "bad one" where they both defect. Good and bad is determined by summing the outcome value for both prisoners. Social norms help stay in the "good" equilibrium despite the occasional defection. Once the defectors learn how personally profitable it is to defect, it becomes common practice, the norm changes, and the society as a whole has switched from one equilibrium to the other, and society is, overall, much worse off. The path from good to bad equilibrium is incremental, cumulative, just like pollution. It's less clear to me what the incremental, cumulative path is going the opposite direction.
The cold war. Putting a man on the moon was meant to demonstrate how easily we could put a nuke on Moscow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge
After the DARPA Urban Challenge of 2007 I naively thought that commercial self driving urban vehicles were about 5 years away. It actually took until 2020 for Waymo to offer services to the public, and just in one city to start:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waymo
That's a long timeline from "tech demo" to usable technology. I don't know how to maintain government funding for that long in a democratic system. No president, senator, or representative goes that long without fighting for re-election. Any technology that still isn't working after 12 years is likely to be considered a dead end and canceled. The big impressive government projects of the 20th century delivered results faster; there were only 7 years between Kennedy's "We choose to go to the moon" speech and NASA actually landing on the moon.
Companies with large resources can behave more like "planned economies" that aren't subject to short term whims of the electorate. Of course they can also exhibit even more short-term orientation -- the notorious "next quarter's earnings report" planning horizon.
It is much easier to exit from or steer a private org. For example, it is very possible to run a company which caters to 10 percent of a consumer base by providing niche products which may be slightly more expensive. Those 10 percent will simply consume less of some other good. It is very difficult to do an analogous thing at the state level, because we generally don't get individual "ticket books" which we can "spend" on more of one state service vs. another. The democratic model is that you first get 50+ percent support and then your coalition decides how resources are allocated for almost everyone.
Corporations only exist as a legal construct of other entities. Absent government, they wouldn't be corporations since there'd be no law to create them.
Dividing people into groups of 50 or 100. Initiatives are voted on in these groups, if they are passed they go to the next level, 1000 people.
Sort of like that idea in the Yes, Minister episode about 'genuinely democratic local government'. The idea here is the tree structure is to prevent people to push initiatives other than as individuals.
The practical side is substantially harder - the anarchist-communal version of the world requires a citizenry committed to their community, phobic to bigness, and willing to assert that something that is not in the interest of the commons is not allowed to happen. Again, this ignores the practical question - balances of innovation vs unknown potential costs, etc - but the bigger practical concern is building an actual durable social contract that people will uphold and enforce over time, even when that means giving up personal glory.
This was basically the state of most societal groups in the pre-modern era - by and large, most people's day-to-day existence was within local community groups that had a lot of say over what they allowed within their sphere of influence - but the modern world creates the ability to concentrate power in ways which are harder for a smaller group of individuals to combat. A teenager with an AK-47 would've mowed through a squadron of Roman soldiers like they weren't there, and the mechanization of industry allows for more rapid consolidation of wealth than prior means, which renders the whole affair much harder to keep in hand.
See how the DoD funds the development of the multitude of platforms on it depends on (land, air, sea or space), for decades at a time.
This (socalled "luxury space communism") is impossible insofar as a good lifestyle includes positional goods and social status. Demand is infinite, even your own demand, and you have to be able to outrun it.
The best technology I know for this is Ozempic. If there was a way to ban yourself from getting loans that would also help, but you wouldn't like it.
For instance, say you think pesticides are a bad thing. You can get 49% of the population to vote to the ban them and what do you accomplish? Nothing
No wonder people look at politics with despair.
If you can get 5% of the population to eat organic food on the other hand, you've reduced pesticide use by 5%. You create trade associations, the idea of organic food spreads more widely and maybe someday you get enough support that you can change the law.
That's hope.
What you really need to live, and the luxury you want can be very different. I've lived in a one bathroom house, I'm willing to pay for more. I can eat "beans and rice", but I want more (not just meat, there are vegetables that are more expensive). Most people are not willing to live without a lot of luxury and honestly would choose both parents working a full time job to get more luxury.
Media != MSM
By moving the locus of control, whether it be considered the ceo or shareholders, so far from the actual business and implementing mandates based on whatever the current fancy is and meaningless targets of growth on such a giant scale you get the same sort of excesses.
The current system is marked by irrationality and uninformed and ill considered decision making. With smaller organizations and actual business competition they would be held to account by their competitors or just by running out of money before something catastrophic for the greater economy happened.
In some metrics (such as GDP), yes. And in other metrics (such as wealth inequality and health care), the answer is less clear-cut.
2. The 'voting' and 'steering' in a corporation is also completely dependent on money. The value of your 'vote' is proportional to how much money you have. This isn't a democracy or some sort of equal system that will converge on serving people, it will converge on serving money. I'm genuinely baffled at how "you get one vote per person" and "your value and voting power is directly tied to your net worth" are in any way comparable. You and I have zero effective power over them, and always will.
Incidentally this also points to the path from a bad to good equilibrium. You have to throw away the big system and start with a system small enough that the participants will interact repeatedly. This rebuilds trust. Then you have to defend that system from outside influences, or at least carefully control them so they play by the same rules as existing participants. The act of defending your local community also builds trust - arguably [1] post-WW2 U.S. social cohesion was actually generated by the experience of defeating the Axis powers and then getting enmeshed in the Cold War. Finally you can gradually expand the system through carefully controlled immigration and naturalization.
Unfortunately, this probably means that the Internet, globalization, and likely large states like the US/China/Russia are all toast. And as Terence Tao's post here points out, large organizations are usually more efficient than small organizations. That means that as large organizations have outcompeted small organizations, the transition as those large organizations themselves become dysfunctional and disintegrate is going to be wrenching. We're going to lose access to several material conveniences that we take for granted.
But if the US (same applies to other countries) became an anarchy today, then entities like Goldman Sachs and Constellis (formerly Blackwater) are going to fare much better than most. So a naive "burn it all down" anarchy doesn't seem an answer.
UPDATE: I remembered Noam Chomsky is sometimes called an anarcho-syndicalist but never looked up what meant. Turns out that is exactly the kind of "anarchism" that answers my question. (New concept to me, so not sure in what sense this might be called anarchism. No central government?)
In a democratic country, only the people who have citizenship are allowed to vote. In a shareholders meeting, only the shareholders are allowed to vote.
You sometimes cam buy your way into citizenship. As a shareholder, it is your given right to vote in a shareholders meeting.
"To him that hath, more shall be given and to him that hath not, more shall be taken away"
I suppose it was more popular in seemingly simpler times when the playing field was more even and the players more evenly matched and distributed. But here we are in the future, and that game seems to have been concluded.
I myself rather preferred the view from the shoulders of giants than the undersides of their feet.
Large monopolistic mega-corporations do tend to have the same issues that one would see in the old 20th century planned economies like the Soviet Union.
Suffrage*. Not personhood.
It is not, eg. Zuck didn't control Facebook because he was a priori rich, he became rich because he controlled Facebook in a successful way. He gained those shares and that control with his skill and labor (and maybe one symbolic dollar or something).
Oh, hey, the first text I picked from the Anarchist Library answers the question in my previous comment! https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alex-stefanescu-rela...
> A revolution would be necessary to topple a political regime. But, if your starting point is the rejection of authority, if you don’t need “permission”, you don’t need the revolution either. Anarchy starts not with a bang, but with a whimper — not with an announcement on public television that it is the time to dismantle hierarchies, but with our collective work to slowly build something on the lack of the hierarchies themselves.
I'm not sure I understand the rest of this document, but this bit seems straightforward.
[1] Rational subsection of the Background section (section I) in this pdf: https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20...
The whole thing is worth a read too, it explains all the other military use tech that will arise from the self driving car ecosystem, further justifying the investment.
Which seems to just devolve to "the lizards listen to whoever/whatever has money" at the high levels where the number of voters is very high.
> You sometimes cam buy your way into citizenship. As a shareholder, it is your given right to vote in a shareholders meeting.
Maybe - depending on your jurisdiction. Just like whether you have citizenship or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
More people = more economy = higher wages. Otherwise killing people and stopping other people from having children would increase your pay.
As for the middle class, most of the reason for the decline is people moving into the upper class.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...
Historically, there did exist experiments that not each person has the same voting power (for example the Prussian "Dreiklassenwahlrecht" [three-class franchise]):
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreiklassenwahlrecht
Depending on the amount of taxes you paid, you were assigned to one of three classes. The sizes of each of these classes were chosen so that each class paid 1/3 of the whole tax volume. The votes in each class elected representants for this class.
The idea is obvious: those who pay a lot more taxes should have more influence.
Thus: each citizen has the same voting power is just the "currently fashionable" implementation of democracy.