Tag: SV

The Great Silicon Valley Shakedown: Pearls, Sophistries, and the Hymn to Stability

By the time the sun rises over the spires of Silicon Valley, a certain brand of chaos has already taken hold. It’s a controlled chaos, carefully crafted and nurtured by the so-called “disruptors” who sit in high-backed chairs made from the bones of yesterday’s industries. These men—and they are almost always men—are the Venture Capitalists, the VCs, the self-proclaimed apostles of innovation, prophets of the new world order. They wear their disruption like a badge of honor, a symbol of their willingness to throw the dice and turn the tables on the stale and outdated.

But don’t be fooled by the gleaming rhetoric and flashy PowerPoint slides. Underneath that thin veneer of rebellion beats the heart of a rank coward. The moment you so much as hint at the idea of taxing their unrealized gains, the profits they haven’t even pulled out of the market yet, you’ll see a transformation that’s as predictable as it is pathetic. The disruptor becomes the defender, the revolutionary the reactionary, and the bold, brave iconoclast turns into a pearl-clutching prude, muttering sophistries about stability and the dangers of tampering with the sacred free market.

These VCs, with their sleek Teslas and designer drugs, talk a big game. They’re all about shaking up the status quo, smashing the establishment, and creating a world where the little guy finally gets a piece of the action. Or so they say. But threaten to take even a slice of their ill-gotten gains, and suddenly they’re channeling the spirit of William F. Buckley, standing athwart history and yelling “Stop!”

What they don’t tell you is that the system they’re so eager to disrupt is one they’ve already rigged in their favor. They’ve got their tentacles wrapped around the throats of politicians, their hooks buried deep in the flesh of the economy. They don’t want to change the system; they want to own it. And they’re damn close to doing just that.

The irony is almost too much to bear. The same people who built their fortunes on the idea of “move fast and break things” are now desperately clinging to the very stability they claim to despise. They’ve built a gilded fortress out of stock options, shell companies, and offshore accounts, and the last thing they want is for anyone to come poking around and asking uncomfortable questions about who really benefits from all this so-called disruption.

When you suggest that maybe, just maybe, the public ought to get a cut of the action—after all, it’s our roads, our schools, our infrastructure that these companies rely on—the VCs start wringing their hands and wailing about how you’re going to kill the golden goose. They’ll tell you that taxing unrealized gains is a slippery slope, that it’ll stifle innovation, that it’ll bring the whole house of cards crashing down.

And maybe it would. Maybe the whole damn thing needs to come crashing down. Maybe it’s time to stop listening to the technocrats and the financiers and start asking what kind of world we really want to live in. Because if this is the best they can offer—an endless cycle of boom and bust, where a handful of people get filthy rich while everyone else is left scrambling for crumbs—then we’re in deeper trouble than we thought.

The VCs will keep singing their hymns to stability, clutching their pearls, and spinning their sophistries, but the truth is staring us all in the face: the only thing they really care about is protecting their loot. And if that means throwing the rest of us under the bus, they won’t hesitate for a second. The revolution was never about you, or me, or anyone outside their little bubble. It was always about them.

So, the next time you hear some slick-talking VC yammering on about disruption and innovation, just remember: the only thing they really want to disrupt is your ability to hold them accountable. The rest is just noise, designed to keep you from seeing the truth. And the truth is this: they’ve built their empire on a lie, and they’ll do whatever it takes to keep it from crumbling.

But crumble it will. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But the reckoning is coming, and when it does, they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. Until then, keep your eyes open and your wits about you. The great Silicon Valley shakedown is just getting started.

Free Stuff

The irony is thick when a Silicon Valley VC criticizes the concept of “free stuff” while the entire tech industry often thrives on giving away services for free, monetizing data, or operating on a “freemium” model. Silicon Valley’s success has largely been built on repurposing industries and offering free or heavily subsidized services to consumers, banking on long-term gains, whether through data, advertising, or eventual market dominance.

It’s a bit like railing against the very system that has allowed their sector to flourish. This comment seems to miss that the “free stuff” model is not just a political phenomenon but a cornerstone of the tech economy. The notion of “mutually assured destruction” might hit closer to home than the VC realizes, given the precarious balance many tech companies maintain between growth and profitability.

Here are more examples of the irony embedded in the VC’s critique:

  1. Data Monetization: Many Silicon Valley companies offer free services—search engines, social media platforms, and email—in exchange for user data. The “free” model that appeals to consumers is funded by monetizing this data, often in ways that consumers don’t fully understand. Criticizing “free shit” while benefiting from this model highlights a lack of self-awareness.
  2. Venture Capital Strategy: VCs often invest in startups that operate at a loss for years, prioritizing market share and user growth over profitability. These companies frequently rely on massive infusions of capital to stay afloat, essentially using “free credit” to survive until they can dominate a market or sell out to a larger company. This mirrors the very “free shit on credit” mentality the VC criticizes in the public sphere.
  3. Freemium Models: The freemium business model, where basic services are offered for free while premium features are charged for, is a staple in the tech industry. This model hooks users with free access and then gradually upsells them, similar to how political promises of “free stuff” can hook voters. It’s ironic that a VC who likely supports companies using this model would criticize similar dynamics in politics.
  4. Disruption and Devaluation: Silicon Valley is known for “disrupting” traditional industries by undercutting prices or offering services at no cost, often driving competitors out of business. For instance, companies like Uber and Airbnb repurposed transportation and hospitality, respectively, and initially offered services at unsustainably low prices to capture market share. This approach devalues entire sectors, creating the same kind of unsustainable “free for now” dynamic that the VC criticizes in broader economic terms.
  5. Government Subsidies: Many tech companies benefit indirectly from government subsidies, whether through tax breaks, grants, or other forms of public support for innovation. These subsidies help tech companies thrive, yet the criticism of “free stuff” in the public sector fails to acknowledge how much of Silicon Valley’s success is built on such support.
  6. Zero-Margin Economies: Companies like Amazon have thrived on razor-thin margins, using their massive scale to undercut competitors and offering free shipping or other perks to consumers. This model is sustainable only because of the vast capital backing these companies, akin to running on “credit.” The irony is in criticizing a similar dynamic in public finance when it’s a standard practice in the industry.

In essence, the VC’s critique overlooks how Silicon Valley has institutionalized “free” in various forms, often relying on delayed or deferred costs much like the “free stuff on credit” he criticizes in politics.

The hypocrisy is palpable. This VC, who likely champions startups built on the very concept of giving things away for free in hopes of monopolizing markets, turns around and bemoans the idea of “free shit on credit” when it comes to public policy. It’s as if he’s blind to the fact that Silicon Valley’s entire playbook is based on the same principle—offering free services, burning through investor money, and banking on some nebulous future profitability.

He decries the “average voter” falling for free handouts while conveniently forgetting that his own success hinges on consumers doing exactly that—lapping up free services while their data is mined, their privacy is eroded, and their choices are funneled into ever-narrowing corridors controlled by tech giants. This is the pot calling the kettle black, only the pot is wearing gold-plated blinders.

The Big Exit

When Jean-Paul Sartre penned No Exit back in 1944, he didn’t have a clue that Silicon Valley would turn his existential nightmare into a business model. There, in a well-ventilated room with glass walls, soft bean bags, and artisanal cold brew on tap, the brightest minds of our generation are sweating bullets, not because of Hell’s torturous climate but because Moore’s Law is slowing down, and the exits they dream of seem further away than ever.

This statement suggests a satirical take on how the principles of existentialism, as explored in Jean-Paul Sartre’s play No Exit, have been unintentionally mirrored in the business practices and culture of Silicon Valley. In No Exit, Sartre presents a vision of Hell where the characters are trapped in a room together for eternity, realizing that “Hell is other people.” This setting reflects the core existentialist idea that people are condemned to be free, meaning they must constantly make choices and confront the consequences, often leading to anxiety and despair.

The statement humorously implies that Silicon Valley, with its relentless pursuit of innovation, disruption, and exit strategies (like selling a startup or achieving immortality through technology), has adopted a similar, albeit unintended, “business model” of existential entrapment. In their quest for continuous growth and escape from limitations (be it mortality, financial risk, or technological barriers), the tech industry’s leaders have, in a way, created their own version of Sartre’s existential nightmare: a cycle of perpetual striving with no true escape.

So, when the essay says Sartre “didn’t have a clue,” it highlights the irony that a philosophical concept about the human condition and the inescapability of existential dilemmas has been unwittingly reflected in a modern, capitalist context—one that thrives on the pursuit of exits and solutions that may, in the end, be as elusive and self-defeating as the characters’ quest for freedom in No Exit.

Moore’s Law, for the uninitiated, was the golden rule of Silicon Valley: the number of transistors on a microchip would double every two years, making computers faster, smaller, and cheaper, ad infinitum. But here we are, folks, in the era of “slow Moore.” It turns out, like the rest of us, transistors can’t shrink forever. Now that chips aren’t getting twice as powerful with each spin of the Earth around the Sun, it’s time to wake up from the fever dream of exponential growth and ask the unthinkable: What happens when we hit a wall?

But let’s not lose our heads just yet. The Valley’s power brokers, those entrepreneurial Sisyphuses of the digital age, are not the type to go quietly into that good night. They’ve seen the writing on the wall (it’s in 4K resolution, after all), and they’re scouring the horizon for a way out—an “exit opportunity,” they call it. Exit from what, you ask? From the whole damn mess they’ve made, of course.

Now, if you think “exit” means cashing out with a 10x return on some app that lets you share pictures of your dog’s breakfast, you’re only scratching the surface. The true believers, the VCs with more acronyms than compassion, are eyeing the biggest exit of all: leaving this mortal coil behind. They call it the Singularity, where man merges with machine, and death is just another bug to be patched out in the next update.

It’s here that Sartre’s No Exit comes into play. In the play, Hell is other people. In Silicon Valley, Hell is a future where the only thing doubling every two years is the panic among the über-rich that they might not make it to their own digital afterlife.

And let’s not forget ZIRP—the Zero Interest Rate Policy, the Fed’s favorite gift to Wall Street and, by extension, to the Valley’s bubble-blowing machine. With money as cheap as it is, anything that smells even faintly like the future is getting funded. But when Moore’s Law falters, and all the free cash in the world can’t buy you a solution, the cruel irony is that you can’t buy your way out of Hell either.

There’s a Sartrean twist to this whole affair. Imagine this: a group of silicon titans, forever plotting their escape from the slowing growth of Earth, sitting in their glass offices, gazing at their dwindling stock portfolios and disillusioned engineers. Every plan to escape, every new startup, every AI-powered, blockchain-secured cryogenic chamber is just another locked door in a room with no exits. Like Sartre’s damned souls, they find that Hell isn’t other people—it’s themselves, trapped in a cycle of ever-diminishing returns, both technological and existential.

In the end, it turns out that the real exit was never about leaving at all. Maybe Sartre was right. Maybe the Hell these tech moguls find themselves in isn’t some dystopian nightmare but the very world they created, where the relentless pursuit of growth at any cost has led them to a point where there’s nowhere left to go.

So here we are, in the great slowing down, with Moore’s Law sputtering like a Model T out of gas, ZIRP turning everything it touches into fool’s gold, and the so-called visionaries of our time realizing that the exit door is bolted shut. They might have built the future, but now they’re stuck in it, just like the rest of us.

And that, dear reader, is the true legacy of Silicon Valley: the dream of exit that turns into a prison of our own making, where the only thing left to do is sit back, crack open a can of Soylent, and wait for the next update.

Deferrement

Yes, deferment or deferral is indeed a concept that ties directly into existentialist themes, particularly in the context of Sartre’s work and the culture of Silicon Valley. In existentialist philosophy, deferment refers to the postponement of action, decision, or the confrontation of reality. It’s the idea of putting off the inevitable, avoiding the responsibility of facing one’s own existence, choices, and the consequences that come with them.

In No Exit, the characters are stuck in a room, unable to leave or escape their own self-deceptions, and they continually defer facing the reality of their situation. They try to avoid the truth of their condition and the realization that they are, in a sense, their own jailers.

Similarly, Silicon Valley’s culture of constant innovation and the relentless pursuit of “exit opportunities” can be seen as a form of deferment. Tech entrepreneurs and investors are often chasing the next big thing, the next product launch, or the next exit strategy, always looking for a way out of the current situation without ever truly confronting the deeper existential issues at play, such as the limits of technology, the ethical implications of their creations, or the ultimate purpose of their work.

The deferment in Silicon Valley manifests as a continuous postponement of facing these realities, with the hope that technology, capital, or innovation will eventually provide an escape or a solution. However, as with Sartre’s characters, this deferment only leads to a deeper entrapment in the very systems they are trying to transcend. The more they defer, the more they realize that there might be no true exit—just like in Sartre’s existential nightmare.

All-In

“All-in“ as microcosm of Sartre’s No Exit—a space where the hosts are trapped not by four walls, but by their own ambitions, fears, and existential anxieties. Listeners tune in for the underlying drama of watching these titans of tech grapple with the fact that, despite all their brilliance, they might never truly find a way out. The “exit,” they realize, is just a concept—a fleeting promise that keeps them all coming back to the mic, episode after episode, with no end in sight.

Declaration of Economic Independence

When in the Course of financial events, it becomes necessary for one class of Men to dissolve the outdated economic bands which have connected them with the broader Public, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and superior station to which the Laws of Wealth and Influence entitle them, a decent respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to this separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men of Wealth are created more equal than others, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Wealth, Power, and the Pursuit of Absolute Profit—That to secure these rights, Institutions are established among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Most Affluent, that whenever any form of Regulation becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Affluent to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Systems of Governance, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Systems long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all Experience hath shown, that Mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Economic Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Regulation, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of the Affluent; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Governance. The history of the present Regulators and Legislators is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these Corporations. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world:

  • They have forbidden us to profit from practices, long established and time-tested, under the pretense of legal and ethical standards.
  • They have obstructed the free Market, by imposing undue burdens upon those who create and sustain the wealth of this nation.
  • They have refused to pass Laws for our immediate and pressing interests, unless suspended in their operation until their Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, they have utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • They have sought to bind us with Laws crafted by those who are without wealth, insight, or the burden of responsibility that such affluence entails.
  • They have endeavored to control and restrain our innovations by imposing sanctions, fines, and other detestable inconveniences.
  • They have encouraged the Public to rise against us, fueling their resentment, and fostering insidious notions of equality.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Regulator whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to govern a class of free and affluent Men.

We, therefore, the Representatives of Banks, Venture Capitalists, and the Sanctified Valley, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Power of Wealth for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Institutions, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Corporations are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to outdated Regulation, and that all political connection between them and the Public is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy profits, conclude acquisitions, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Wealth, we mutually pledge to each other our Fortunes, our Power, and our Sacred Corporations.

Thinking About Rome

In the flickering neon of late capitalism, we glimpse the mirrored chrome of a fallen giant. The Roman Republic, that sprawling, data-driven empire, its coliseum servers humming with gladiatorial content, serves as a stark historical prompt.

Remember the burn Notice, the flickering scroll that announced the Empire’s terminal error? It wasn’t a barbarian horde at the gates, chums, it was a system crash. Reliance on a legacy mainframe – slave labor, chum – coupled with rampant inflation? Classic case of Byzantine bloatware. The plebes, those perpetual betates of the system, grew restless, their bandwidth choked by taxation.

Meanwhile, the Senatorial class, a tangled web of VCs and pols, squabbled over the dwindling resource pool. Succession crises, power struggles – same old legacy code, rebooted with a toga. The Praetorian Guard, those elite sysadmins,couldn’t patch the security holes fast enough.

Imperial overreach? Think of it as a server farm stretched past capacity, the latency crippling every frontier outpost.Fragmentation? That’s the network balkanizing, chum.

And then there’s the ideological firewall. Christianity, a new disruptive protocol, threatened the old gods’ dominance. The empire’s firewalls couldn’t handle the dissent, the cracks in the system widening with every heretical download.

So, as we raise our venture capital chalices in celebration of the Next Big Thing, remember the flickering ghost of Rome.The future might be just a server crash away.

<>

A flickering neon sign across the Bay, all chrome and fractured Roman capitals: “Veni, Vidi, VCs.” Yeah, right. The Empire’s center might be a server farm these days, but the rot at the core feels timeless. Same glitches in the code, just a different language.

We’re high on our own hyperdrive exhaust, these Senator-funded VCs. Winner-take-all gladiatorial funding rounds, winner gets the toga of “unicorn” status. Meanwhile, the plebs in the gig economy are grinding for denarii that evaporate faster than a server crash. It’s all latifundia now, sprawling server farms owned by the elite, content to squeeze every last byte out of the plebs.

The Praetorian Guard’s gone algorithmic, a firewall of lawyers and lobbyists bought and paid for. The Senate, a revolving door of tech bros and legacy code politicians, squabbling over who gets to wear the digital laurel wreath. Meanwhile, the fragmentation’s real. The barbarians are at the gate, in the form of disruptive startups and hostile takeovers.

And the new religion? The one spreading faster than a meme gone viral? Disruption. Innovation at any cost, even if it means burning down the whole damn coliseum. The old guard, clinging to their legacy platforms, don’t see it coming. They’ll be toast faster than you can say “unsubscribe.”

In this neon-soaked sprawl we call Silicon Valley, the ghosts of the Roman Republic whisper on the chrome breeze. We, the sovereign lords of disruption, the VR Caesars, are blind to the cracks in our own Colosseum.

Our empire, built on server farms and angel investments, runs on code, sure, but also on a foundation of code-monkeys and code-peasants. The wealth disparity’s a chasm wider than the Tiber, our citizens plugged into experiences they can’t afford while the servers hum with the quiet discontent of the precariat.

Meanwhile, the Senate – a tangled mess of venture capitalists and government bean counters – squabbles over spoils. Succession at the top is a Hunger Games of egos, each new golden boy promising disruption while clinging to the old guard’s gilded infrastructure.

Our borders are virtual, our legions lines of code, but the barbarians are at the gate nonetheless. New ideologies – whispers of decentralization, murmurs of data ownership – chip away at the foundations. We’ve stretched our reach too thin, our ambitions as bloated as a VC’s expense account.

The cracks are there, beneath the veneer of disruption. The future’s a swirling vortex of innovation and obsolescence, and just like the empire that came before us, we ignore it at our peril. The fall may not be to barbarians, but to the next big thing, the next shiny disruption that leaves our gilded servers gathering dust in the digital Colosseum.

Gladiator

[FADE IN]

INT. BATHHOUSE – DAY

Steam billows around the brawny form of MAXIMUS (50s), his body scarred from countless battles. He rubs himself down with a strigil, a hint of weariness in his eyes. A door creaks open and CRISPUS (30s), a clean-cut man in a linen toga that screams “startup money,” enters.

CRISPUS Maximus. Legend. Just, wow. You, uh, look amazing for a guy who… you know…

MAXIMUS (grunts) Fought an emperor to the death?

CRISPUS (chuckles) Exactly. Listen, I, uh, I just wanted to say, you know, I see a lot of myself in you. The drive, the ambition…

Maximus pauses, eyeing Crispus with a mixture of amusement and suspicion.

MAXIMUS You see yourself in me?

CRISPUS Absolutely. Look, I may not be hacking away at barbarians, but in the venture capital game, it’s a gladiator pit out there. You gotta be ruthless, strategic. Just like you.

MAXIMUS (scoffs) Strategic? I fought for what I believed in, Crispus. Not some quarterly profit report.

CRISPUS Come on, it’s all about disruption, right? You disrupted the whole Praetorian Guard! That’s like, a total pivot.And the way you rallied the crowd? Pure marketing genius.

Maximus slams his strigil down, water splashing. Crispus flinches.

MAXIMUS The crowd wasn’t a product to be launched, Crispus. They were people yearning for freedom. They believed in something bigger than themselves.

CRISPUS (flustered) Look, I’m not saying it’s exactly the same. But there are parallels, you have to admit! We both take risks, we both…

MAXIMUS (interrupting) We fight different battles, Crispus. Yours might be fierce, but it’s a bloodless kind of fight.Mine was for the souls of men. Don’t flatter yourself.

Crispus shrinks under Maximus’s gaze. A beat of silence hangs heavy in the air.

MAXIMUS (softening slightly) Though, there is one thing we might have in common.

CRISPUS (eyes lighting up) Really? What is it?

MAXIMUS The knowledge that true victory lies not in riches or glory, but in fighting for what you believe in.

Crispus stares at Maximus, the weight of his words settling in. Maximus throws him a towel and turns away.

MAXIMUS (over his shoulder) Now, get out. I need some peace.

Crispus nods meekly and scurries out, the bravado completely gone. Maximus resumes his ablutions, a hint of a wry smile playing on his lips.

[FADE OUT]

SV as Runaway System

Leave a comment

Silicon Valley is renowned as the hub of technological innovation and entrepreneurship, where some of the world’s most successful companies have been founded. Companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, and many others have revolutionized the way we live, work, and interact with one another. However, it is also true that Silicon Valley was built on the back of runaway systems with no feedback loop.

The concept of runaway systems refers to the phenomenon of complex systems that become increasingly out of control over time, with no apparent way of slowing down or stopping. In the context of Silicon Valley, this phenomenon has been observed in the rapid growth and expansion of technology companies, which often prioritize growth and scalability over sustainability and ethical considerations.

One of the key drivers of runaway systems in Silicon Valley is the culture of disruption and innovation that permeates the industry. Companies are encouraged to push the boundaries of what is possible, to take risks, and to pursue growth at all costs. This often leads to a focus on short-term gains and a disregard for long-term consequences.

For example, the rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter has had profound effects on our society, including the spread of misinformation, the amplification of hate speech and extremist views, and the erosion of privacy. While these companies have made incredible strides in connecting people and creating new forms of communication, they have also created runaway systems that are difficult to control.

Another example of a runaway system in Silicon Valley is the gig economy, which has been fueled by the rise of platforms like Uber and Lyft. While these platforms have provided new opportunities for people to earn income and flexible work arrangements, they have also created a new class of workers who are subject to precarious employment, low pay, and minimal benefits. The lack of a feedback loop in these systems means that the negative consequences of the gig economy may only become apparent over time.

The absence of a feedback loop in Silicon Valley is not limited to technology companies alone. The wider culture of venture capital funding and startup culture has also contributed to this phenomenon. Companies that receive large amounts of funding are often under immense pressure to grow quickly and generate returns for their investors. This pressure can lead to a focus on short-term growth at the expense of long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, Silicon Valley was indeed built on the back of runaway systems with no feedback loop. While the technology and innovation that has come out of this culture have undoubtedly had a profound impact on our world, it is also important to recognize the negative consequences of runaway systems. As we move forward, it is essential that we find ways to build more sustainable and responsible technology, and to ensure that the benefits of innovation are shared more equitably across society. This will require a new approach to innovation and entrepreneurship that prioritizes long-term sustainability and ethical considerations over short-term gains.