Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

cryoshon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 249 posts

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#81

Post by gist »

Mz wrote: post #46

Got this far and stopped reading: To quote Graham, mafioso of the startup incubators: I have lots of valid reasons to be really grumpy about lots of things. I am also not a fan per se of PG. But any supposed debate that starts by basically smearing the character of the person you are debating is unlikely to be based on sound, objective reasoning. This piece is almost certainly not motivated by a desire to correct any…

Maybe it's actually better that OP did that as in "you've been warned" as to some bias. I didn't see it as a smear and by the way Ron Conway has been referred to as "the godfather" by the mainstream press and bloggers (at least as I recall).

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#82

Post by Pyxl101 »

owyn wrote: post #61
Pyxl101 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People aren't asking for "income equality" they are asking for some level of humanity and democracy to be restored to our version of Capitalism, to strengthen that capitalism. That phrase could mean anything in practice that anyone wants it to mean. If we're going to discuss these things, we should be specific. What specific policy is desired, and how is it going to help? "Humanity" and "democracy" are not economic…

It's not as if wealthy people take their money and put it under their mattress. No, they invest it. That investment money flows to other corporations who then spend it on goods and services, or spend it on their employees. No they don't. From what I've read (Piketty etc) they do not re-circulate it into the general economy. They use investment vehicles which are increasingly divorced from "real world" economics and m…

> They use investment vehicles which are increasingly divorced from "real world" economics and more like moving chips around on a poker table.

Which investment vehicles are those?

You cannot in general invest money into vehicles which earn a good return but which are divorced from the real world. Imagine if you invest in a company like Apple. Apple developed products like the iPod and iPhone, and the company's value comes from the fact that 500 million people gave their money to Apple in exchange for an iPhone. Apple's $233 billion dollar revenue, and resulting net income, leads to their valuation, which leads to the return on our hypothetical investment.

The investment profits because Apple developed a useful product that people chose to spend money on - the people who bought the products benefited, and the investor benefited from a return. Everyone is better off, and the standard of living has risen. Technology makes things cheaper over time, so that more people can afford such devices. A vast majority of people living in poverty in America own cell phones.

Can you describe how these investment vehicles work such that they're earning a return while being disconnected from the real world? Where does the money come from for the returns?

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#83

Post by analog31 »

owyn wrote: post #61
Pyxl101 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People aren't asking for "income equality" they are asking for some level of humanity and democracy to be restored to our version of Capitalism, to strengthen that capitalism. That phrase could mean anything in practice that anyone wants it to mean. If we're going to discuss these things, we should be specific. What specific policy is desired, and how is it going to help? "Humanity" and "democracy" are not economic…

It's not as if wealthy people take their money and put it under their mattress. No, they invest it. That investment money flows to other corporations who then spend it on goods and services, or spend it on their employees. No they don't. From what I've read (Piketty etc) they do not re-circulate it into the general economy. They use investment vehicles which are increasingly divorced from "real world" economics and m…

I wonder if this explains why the money supply is increasing without any accompanying inflation. The money is just getting turned into economic dead weight.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#84

Post by Mz »

cryoshon wrote: post #50
Mz wrote: post #46

Got this far and stopped reading: To quote Graham, mafioso of the startup incubators: I have lots of valid reasons to be really grumpy about lots of things. I am also not a fan per se of PG. But any supposed debate that starts by basically smearing the character of the person you are debating is unlikely to be based on sound, objective reasoning. This piece is almost certainly not motivated by a desire to correct any…

Ah, I was being lighthearted with that word choice, and I don't have any axe to grind with PG personally. An alternative which captures the same sentiment without any negative connotations would be "maestro" "majordomo" "magnate" or even "de Medici".

"Founder" or "investor" are equally accurate as to who and what PG happens to be. If you are writing for the HN audience, you can assume that the vast majority of your readers are well aware who is and how much power he exercises. To me, your "clarification" smacks of "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and (in my opinion) pg simply has a too distasteful amount of power to be assumed to be a decent human being."

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#85

Post by davesque »

dang wrote: post #51
davesque wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's great. But those of us who don't agree feel as though our opinions are being squelched by those who are in control of the system (ironic, no?). Consider that before you enforce your policies and potentially alienate a large part of your community.

"Those who are in control of the system" in this case are simply your fellow users. The community is often in disagreement about what should be on the front page. To the extent that we intervene as moderators, it's often to try to balance the competing concerns. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to do that perfectly.

I'm fully aware of that. However, partly since it's impossible to quantify the number of users who wish to avoid so-called duplicate posts, it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion.

At the end of the day, if Paul Graham's opinion gets a chance at prime blog real estate, shouldn't people who disagree with him get the same chance?

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#86

Post by cxromos »

this feels like populism. pg's articles are well thought and argumented. i actually learned a lot from them. it does not matter do i agree with everything there or not though i mostly do. if someone can write that good from a different aspect or point of view so that i can learn more on his/hers views that would be great.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#87

Post by Mz »

gist wrote: post #81
Mz wrote: post #46

Got this far and stopped reading: To quote Graham, mafioso of the startup incubators: I have lots of valid reasons to be really grumpy about lots of things. I am also not a fan per se of PG. But any supposed debate that starts by basically smearing the character of the person you are debating is unlikely to be based on sound, objective reasoning. This piece is almost certainly not motivated by a desire to correct any…

Maybe it's actually better that OP did that as in "you've been warned" as to some bias. I didn't see it as a smear and by the way Ron Conway has been referred to as "the godfather" by the mainstream press and bloggers (at least as I recall).

Sure. And we also have the expression "PayPal Mafia." But those are written for mainstream audiences. This piece appears to have been written for Hacker News, where the vast majority of readers know exactly who pg is, what he does and that he is enormously powerful. Almost no one here needs to be told by analogy that pg is a serious contender of that sort.

But have an upvote.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#88

Post by heretoo »

cryoshon wrote: post #6

I hope I didn't go too overboard by dissecting PG's essay like this, but I felt it was necessary to correct many of the items that I read. It may seem spurious now, but economic inequality is relevant for the tech industry, too. The massively increased productivity that information technology provides is very infrequently distributed proportionally to the people who actually forged it-- exactly the same condition as…

I enjoyed it, though I haven't read PG's essay yet.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#89

Post by dnautics »

nickbauman wrote: post #74
dnautics wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do understand that this is basically the argument that slaveowners used to justify continuing slavery in the 19th century?

It would be a mistake to say I'm advocating slavery by making this comparison. The slave to a master is just like an automobile: you have to put gas into it to make it go. Turning a human being into something the equivalent of an automobile is an abomination. But I don't really think wage slavery is really all that different at the end of the day. My point is both are abominable.

that may have not been your intent, but it does reveal the error in your thinking. You may call both abominable, but do you not see the fundamental reason why one is categorically worse than the other? If not then you are doomed to advocate for the very problems that were the root of the atrocity of slavery, just in other, possibly more cryptic and slyly paternalistic forms.

Re: A Response to Paul Graham’s Article on Income Inequality

#90

Post by [deleted] »

davesque wrote: post #28
dang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The limited space of the front page is the defining constraint of HN. We often treat follow-up articles as duplicates for that reason, so the flags are acting in a moderation capacity here. Some users would like to see two heated discussions about income inequality on the front page, but I can assure you that many others would not.

That's great. But those of us who don't agree feel as though our opinions are being squelched by those who are in control of the system (ironic, no?). Consider that before you enforce your policies and potentially alienate a large part of your community.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN