Javohir Akramov

don't really agree with the sentiment of "work for yourself, not somebody else."

Every self-proclaimed entrepreneur guru will tell you to quit your corporate job and start your own business.

They will tell you to stop working for somebody and be your own boss, have your "own thing," and stop making someone else richer.

I think it's very naive to say that.

Starting a business is hard. Succeeding in it is even harder.

If you want to build something impactful, you can't do it with just 10 or even 100 people, let alone yourself.

You will need a team, a large team.

Yes, you can argue working for startups and small-sized companies is better than big organizations, but can you really imagine a world without Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta, or any other large corporation?

Are you willing to live in the world where everybody starts their "own thing"?

If you want to start your "own thing," that's fine. However, most people don't necessarily have to become entrepreneurs and start their romanticized "own thing."

@javohirakramov

I was supposed to prepare for my government midterm right now, but for once I decided to do what I actually wanted to do at this exact moment - write this post.

This approach was inspired by Naval Ravikant, who mentioned he doesn't use a calendar. He simply does things when he feels like doing them.

Imagine the power of acting on inspiration the moment it strikes:

- No rigid scheduling
- No artificial deadlines
- No forced productivity

When you follow your genuine motivation, that's when you're truly most productive. The feeling is incredibly liberating.

I understand most of us can't afford this luxury all the time. We have commitments, deadlines, and responsibilities.

But perhaps there's wisdom in occasionally breaking free from our structured lives. The freedom to do anything you want, anytime you want, is indeed a luxury worth experiencing.

@javohirakramov

They hate us because they ain't us

Karl Marx, in his analysis of capitalism, argued that the capitalist system would eventually collapse due to inherent tensions between the working class (proletariat) and the owning class (bourgeoisie). Marx believed that capitalism inherently deepens inequalities, systematically making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Ultimately, according to Marx, this would lead to class consciousness and revolution, driven by workers’ resentment and opposition toward the exploitation by the capitalist class.

Thorstein Veblen offered a different perspective. While Marx viewed workers’ resentment as fundamentally driven by exploitation and inequality, Veblen argued the resentment was less about the mere fact of exploitation and more about relative status and comparative consumption. According to Veblen, workers are not angry simply because the capitalist class is wealthy; instead, their frustration stems from their own inability to achieve similar levels of wealth and social status. And no amount of increase in the absolute real income of individuals can relieve these tensions, for individuals want more than others, not just more.

Veblen’s perspective could simply be summarized as, “They hate us because they ain’t us.”

@javohirakramov

You should stress as a founder.

Think about the last time you finished a task right before the deadline. Remember that sudden burst of energy that appeared seemingly out of nowhere when you had a 20-page report due in a couple of hours or had to write a 10-page essay overnight.

When facing a looming deadline, your brain activates your body’s stress response—releasing adrenaline and cortisol. These hormones sharpen your focus, enhance alertness, and boost cognitive performance in short bursts. It’s your body’s natural way of ensuring you get things done under pressure.

That sense of urgency and stress about potentially missing the deadline propels you into an ultra-efficient state, enabling faster thinking, quicker decision-making, and improved short-term productivity.

But what if no one is giving you deadlines? Then it becomes your job, as a founder, to manufacture your own.

As a startup founder, especially in the earliest stages, you usually don’t have clear external deadlines. There’s often no investor breathing down your neck asking for constant product updates, no large payroll to meet, and no immediate penalty for slowing down or pausing.

This is exactly why you need stress.

You must feel urgency—stress—around quickly building your MVP, iterating your product rapidly, and strengthening your team. Stress, psychologically speaking, is like hunger: When you’re not hungry, you don’t think about your next meal. But when hunger kicks in, you instinctively get up and start looking for food. Similarly, stress generates motivation and urgency, compelling you to take action.

Science shows that founders who are deeply passionate—almost obsessed—about solving a problem are more likely to achieve breakthroughs. The stress they experience signals their brains that something valuable is at stake, prompting heightened cognitive focus, creativity, and resilience.

Stress means you’re pursuing something important. Historically, founders thrive under healthy stress because it activates the brain’s survival mechanism, enhancing problem-solving abilities, cognitive sharpness, and mental toughness.

Experiencing and managing stress effectively builds long-term resilience, allowing you to sustain momentum through the toughest challenges. Stress indicates clearly that there’s something worthwhile on the line—something worth fighting for.

Of course, stress can have downsides—too much of it can lead to burnout and negatively affect your decision-making. But the goal isn’t to eliminate stress entirely; it’s to master and manage it effectively. Just like hunger can motivate you to cook, too much hunger can leave you weak.

As a founder, your job is to find the right balance: feel the urgency, channel the pressure into productive action, but also recognize when stress starts to overwhelm you. Take short breaks, set clear priorities, and develop specific routines—such as time-blocking your calendar or setting weekly internal deadlines—to maintain clarity and motivation. When you manage stress strategically, it becomes fuel—not a barrier—to making smart decisions and achieving sustainable growth.

Don’t fear stress—use it. The founders who win aren’t stress-free; they’re stress-powered.

@javohirakramov

Why Democracy is Mathematically Impossible?

The concept of democracy is straightforward in theory: the candidate with the most votes wins. This principle governs the widely-used first-past-the-post voting system, where the candidate receiving the highest number of votes secures victory.

However, this simplicity comes with significant flaws. Under first-past-the-post, a candidate can win without a majority—simply having more votes than others. Consequently, even a candidate opposed by the majority could secure office, as seen in the winner-takes-all approach. This system inevitably concentrates political power within two dominant parties, illustrating Duverger's law: a phenomenon that discourages third-party success and reinforces a binary political landscape.

To address these shortcomings, alternatives such as ranked-choice voting (RCV), also known as preferential or instant-runoff voting, have emerged. Voters rank candidates from their most to least favorite, and if no candidate initially receives over 50% of first-choice votes, the lowest-ranked candidate is eliminated, redistributing their votes based on second preferences. Yet even this method is not foolproof. While RCV theoretically promotes moderation, it can paradoxically lead to extreme candidates winning if moderate candidates are eliminated early due to split moderate votes.

Kenneth Arrow's seminal exploration into voting fairness presented five criteria for rational electoral outcomes: unanimity, rationality of preferences, independence of irrelevant alternatives, collective rationality, and non-dictatorship. Despite their logical appeal, Arrow demonstrated the impossibility of simultaneously meeting all five conditions—a mathematical revelation known as Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.

Duncan Black's theorem adds nuance by proposing that when voter preferences align along a clear ideological spectrum, there's always a stable "median" outcome favored by the majority. Yet, real-world politics often complicates this alignment, diluting the theorem’s practical applicability.

Ultimately, democracy's fairness is deeply challenged by mathematical and practical constraints, as illustrated by Arrow's theorem. Whether first-past-the-post, ranked-choice, or any alternative system, each comes with inherent limitations.

Source

@javohirakramov

US Government Shutdown

You might be wondering, can a government shut down? Well, yes, it can. And not just any government, but that of the United States of America. We are, in fact, less than two days away from a potential shutdown. Let me explain.

The US Congress, among its many rights and responsibilities, holds the "power of the purse." This means any money withdrawn from the US Treasury must be approved by Congress. Ideally, every year, the US Congress should pass a budget resolution determining how much money each federal department (also known as ministries in other countries) and other agencies receive for the upcoming fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30.

However, over the past fifty or so years, the US Congress has frequently failed to pass the budget on time. Sometimes, this process drags on for months. For instance, this year's budget bill, which should have been passed by October 1 of last year, still hasn't been approved almost six months later.

Why does this happen? It primarily results from political polarization. Passing a budget bill requires agreement from both Democrats and Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, an increasingly rare occurrence. While the House needs only a simple majority (50% + 1) to pass a bill, the Senate usually requires a supermajority (60 out of 100 senators) to overcome procedural hurdles. Thus, even if Republicans control the Senate, House, and presidency, bipartisan cooperation is still needed to get a budget bill passed. Additionally, not all Republicans are united in supporting the proposed budget bill.

A major point of disagreement this year revolves around Elon Musk's DOGE initiatives, which have significantly reduced federal workforce numbers. Democrats oppose these initiatives and are leveraging their support for the budget bill to address these concerns. Unless Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson negotiates an agreement with senators, the budget bill might not pass by the March 14 deadline, resulting in a government shutdown.

A US government shutdown means all nonessential federal agencies and departments stop receiving funds. This means all nonessential federal agencies and departments will cease operations, resulting in unpaid furloughs for their employees until funding is restored. The duration of a government shutdown is unpredictable and depends on how quickly lawmakers can reach a consensus on the budget. During this period, essential services continue to operate, but many federal activities are suspended, affecting both federal employees and the public relying on government services.

@javohirakramov

One side of monopolies that I haven't deeply considered before is they intentionally delay progress.

For example, think about Deepseek AI. Since its release, OpenAI has pumped up its efforts to release new models and products. Being the company at the forefront of AI development, they could allow themselves to make incremental developments and charge people as much as they can, while intentionally delaying release of their newer and better models.

Now that Deepseek is here, they are kind of forced to provide their better models faster to the markets and even for free because they can't compete with Deepseek while gatekeeping and charging high costs.

When you establish a monopoly, you not only decide how much to charge your customers, but also what to provide for them. Apple can intentionally delay its feature reveals because they can. No one other than them makes iPhones or ships iOS. Even if there are better phones with better features for a lower price, because people get caught up in the ecosystem, they will still buy an iPhone even if it's not the most innovative product on the market right now.

@javohirakramov

Great product always wins

Having the resources, more investment, and more marketing will help, but at the end of the day, the best product wins. If your product is not good enough you can definitely try to sustain it with money and marketing and it can be winning in the short term.

But in the long run, if you have a sh!tty product it will become obvious so you are likely to lose. On the other hand, if you have a great product you will win regardless. Marketing and money will help you get there faster, but you definitely will win if you have the great product.

@javohirakramov

It's impossible to be exceptional at everything

What does it take to be exceptional at one thing? Obsession. You have to be obsessed to succeed. You cannot achieve extraordinary results if you are not putting in extraordinary amount of work.

In most cases, if people are good at everything, they are not exceptional at any. By trying to defocus your attention from one thing and chasing everything, you are essentially limiting your ability to be great at one thing.

That's why, in hiring, do not dismiss people based on their weaknesses. If they are an exceptional software engineer, but socially awkward, it's fine. You are hiring them for their ability to write software, not their ability to sell. Focus on what they are good at and accept the weaknesses that come with it.

Again, do not dismiss people based on their weaknesses. Focus on their strengths. Because as I said, if they are good at everything, they are likely not be exceptional at anything.

@javohirakramov

Do not offer highest salary

One of the most insightful pieces of HR advice I’ve come across recently comes from Jonathan Ross, CEO of Groq. In an episode of the 20VC podcast, host Harry Stebbings asks Ross why his company never offers the highest salary to potential employees.

Ross explains that they want people to choose Groq—not simply join because of the salary. If employees are drawn in by the highest salary, they may leave as soon as another company offers more. Instead, by offering a competitive but not top-tier salary, Groq attracts individuals who are genuinely interested in the company’s mission and long-term success.

To ensure employees are still well-compensated, Groq provides generous stock options. This structure promotes a sense of ownership, aligning employees’ incentives with the company’s growth. Ross believes that when people feel they have a stake in the company, they are naturally more motivated and committed to its success.

@javohirakramov

Why does Profit exist?

Seems very obvious now but that's a question economists asked themselves for centuries. Adam Smith couldn’t decide if profit was a reward for capitalists or just a sneaky deduction from workers’ hard-earned value. Marx, of course, went full drama and called it exploitation. But then came Joseph Schumpeter with a theory so bold at the time it still feels relevant today: profit isn’t about exploitation or capital—it’s about innovation.

Schumpeter’s big idea was that profit comes from entrepreneurs, those wildcards who shake up the economy by introducing new technologies, products, or ways of doing things. Think of them as the mad scientists of capitalism. They are the people who rewrite the rules. And in doing so, they create something Schumpeter called “creative destruction.”

How does it work? An entrepreneur invents something revolutionary (let’s say, the iPhone). At first, they profit massively because no one else can compete. But then, a swarm of imitators shows up (like Android). Prices drop, profits shrink, and the innovation becomes the new normal. The cycle repeats. Boom, bust, repeat. It’s capitalism’s version of “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”—except sometimes it kills you.

Fast forward to 2025, and Schumpeter’s theory feels very much real. Look at Elon Musk. Love him or hate him, the guy is the poster child of Schumpeter’s entrepreneur. Tesla disrupted the auto industry, SpaceX is rewriting space travel, and now he’s involved in brain chips and AI (and politics). But here’s the thing: Tesla’s early profits are already shrinking as traditional automakers catch up.

Or take the tech giants. Amazon, Google, Apple—they all started as innovators, but now they’re the establishment. And guess what? They’re being disrupted by smaller, nimbler startups. The cycle never ends.

The dark side of all this innovation is that creative destruction does not benefit everyone. Sometimes, “creative destruction” leaves a trail of casualties. Think about how Uber disrupted the taxi industry. Great for consumers, but devastating for drivers who lost their livelihoods. It's also great for shareholders who profit from entrepreneur's innovation.

Plus, Enterpreneurs are a rare breed. They’re not your average Joe with a 9-to-5 job. They’re visionaries, risk-takers, and often, let’s be honest, a little nuts.

As someone who’s heavily involved in startups and seen the chaos up close, I can tell you: Schumpeter’s theory hits home. Innovation is thrilling. But it’s also messy, unfair, and often unsustainable. Most startups fail and the ones who don't create winners and losers.

@javohirakramov

Trump the Negotiator

Ever since he took office, Trump has voiced some outrageous ideas regarding foreign countries—proposing to add Canada as the 51st state, take over Greenland, seize control of the Panama Canal, and rename the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” (a change that Google Maps and Apple Maps have actually implemented for North American users). He also made ridiculous claims about “taking over” Gaza and launching massive development projects there—though, frankly, I think he’s better at real estate than politics.

However, one thing I liked about him is that he was willing to talk with Putin, something the Biden administration has refused to do since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’m not sure what the outcome of these conversations will be, but the fact that Trump is engaging with both Putin and Zelensky offers a glimmer of hope. I personally believe direct dialogue is much better than proxy communication.

Trump’s Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, stated that NATO membership for Ukraine or a return to pre-2014 borders is unrealistic—an approach that former Biden official Matthew Miller believes surrenders one of the main points of leverage before negotiations even begin. It also appears that Trump’s administration did not consult Zelensky regarding the deal.

But what can you say? Trump loves making deals. And if he brokers an agreement that ends the war, he will see it as a personal victory—whether Ukrainians like it or not.

@javohirakramov