The US can still be a leader, I think. I'm curious as to if this is the time for a YC-funded startup to take the reins for a lot of the programs and policies being cut. As geohot showed unequivocally yesterday, who else is better to lead than the technical minds of the 21st century!
What sort of startup could ever replace the services that are being performed? The point of a startup is increase value massively by building revenue. The services that are being cut are meant to be public infrastructure upon which everybody else builds their startup, that enables all the innovation that makes the US a leader.
You can’t replace infrastructure with the private sector because infrastructure doesn’t generate any money. Instead, it works like a velocity multiplier that helps others generate money.
Infrastructure is also dependent on centralization. As opposed to some industries, the free market actually makes infrastructure less efficient.
Imagine there are 1000 companies developing roads and they all use different signage. All use different licenses. Would that work? Could you live your life? Probably not, and if you did, it would be absurdly expensive.
Some things MUST be a centralized public service. Pretty much all countries, independent of each other, figured this out 150 years ago. But here we are, still arguing the point.
I don't know if I agree, but I'm not as smart as PG or Garry Tan to evaluate what incoming infrastructure startups could make the cut for YC funding. Put it this way, if we as a tech community can band together and create protocols for various bits of infrastructure, then each startup is free to build upon that protocol so we can standardize what we need. That way we get the benefits of the free market while also gaining efficiency in government. Eventually I envision a world where the best implementation wins, but others are still free to compete. If I wanted to create a startup if I had better ideas for road protocols or standards, then I am blocked by government. It's effectively a non-starter, and a gap in the ability for the US to innovate.
They could do that, but it’s in direct contradiction to the free market. When you implement protocols, what you’re doing is enacting a non-compete agreement on those specifications. It’s a collusion of sorts, it’s just one we allow because everyone knows it’s good.
But inevitably, someone comes around and creates something better and new. And it is actually better. Because the problem with standards is they age. They’re fundamentally compromises. They have flaws by their nature.
You even mention innovation. Those are two contradictory ideas. Centralization and standardization are anti-innovation, because they favor status-quo. They tend towards longevity, maintenance, and incremental improvement.
Building the Internet on top of voice lines was certainly a shitty solution. It was slow. But it also allowed existing citizens to access the Internet. I think this perfectly exemplifies the trade-off.
We, of course, can build new infrastructure. But when we do, we do it deliberately, centrally, and slowly. And we’re very careful to leave no gaps. The old and new must exist together, at least for a couple decades.
