^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. I'm reminded of @pmarca's advice for startup founders who want to meet VCs:
> The best way to develop contacts with VCs, in my opinion, is to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way.
> If you can't get hired by a venture-backed startup right now, work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way.
> And if you can't get hired by a well-regarded large tech company, go get a bachelor's or master's degree at a major research university from which well-regarded large tech companies regularly recruit, then work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way.
> I sound like I'm joking, but I'm completely serious -- this is the path taken by many venture-backed entrepreneurs I know.
> ^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades.
The weird thing is how someone who does this is lauded for it, but if it's a family rather than an individual that compounds earlier wins, suddenly it's 'wealth inequality' and terribly unfair.
The thing about capitalism, which I feel is not widely understood, it's that as a participant, you're meant to compete, but you're not meant to win. The need for money to sustain your lifestyle is what drives people to productive work; competition is what drives companies to optimize. But the moment someone wins - a person becomes rich, a company becomes a monopoly - they actually become a problem. At best, they're no longer working and optimizing. At worst, they can disrupt lives of a lot of people.
No; in designing a robust system, you can't rely on what people are "supposed to do" out of their own initiative. As it is on the market, the moment you win and the external incentives pushing you to "aim higher" disappear, you become a wildcard - i.e. a problem.
aiming higher is human nature. The system is based on this evolutionary fact (sometimes called 'greed', or self-interest), not on directing human behaviour.
The market is also based on mutual self-interest. There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
> There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
There are - living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have. Both individuals and companies have to work to balance out their operational (living) expenses; moreover, in case of companies, competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time.
When you "win" in the market game, those incentives diminish or disappear completely.
> living in a market economy requires nontrivial amount of work just to maintain what you have
This is not external, but natural.
Humans need a constant supply of food/energy, food spoils etc. Tell me what kind of economy works otherwise.
I'm also talking more about life goals e.g. getting a better job, as opposed to working at all.
> competition forces you to "aim higher" because not doing so will make your profit fall with time.
This is dependant on a lot of things. There are plenty businesses that have survived being less than innovative. But I'd argue whether being competitive counts as "aiming higher"; competition doesn't always grow, sometimes there is constant competition, and innovation is part of business.
Thinking about it, the real problem is that the market is finite in size. In an infinite market, being a monopoly is impossible (although anticompetitive behaviour should still be discouraged). The problem comes when one fish gets too big for the pond.
I can't really imagine an "infinite" market. The biggest one I can imagine is an ultra-global one, where every living human anywhere can buy anything from anywhere and get it reasonably quickly. In such a market, monopolies would be global monopolies.
Actually, come to think of it, the market for digital services is quite "ultra-global" already.
Either way, whatever the market size is, monopolies in a given market is the the victory condition - the goal - for the monopolist, and a failure mode for the entire market. Hence how it works is that the idea of "the win" is dangled in front of you so that you work, but it's meant to be snatched away in the last moment, so that you never reach it.
Not cheating -- no-one is making a moral claim here -- but to leave running Fandalism out of your description of your success feels like you're eliding crucial information. Like possessing a great marketing channel. And good for Pud for building it and using it!
I read these sort of success threads as basically case studies, and that marketing channel is probably relevant.
When you're self reporting how you think you accomplished something and you leave information out, it's not cheating, it's leaving information out. It doesn't mean it's intentional, but not being intentional doesn't make the left out information irrelevant.
