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

161–170 of 249 posts

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

#161

Post by Mikeb85 »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #135
Mikeb85 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which investment vehicles are those? Hedge funds and the like. > leads to their valuation, which leads to the return on our hypothetical investment. 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. The way markets are supposed to work is you invest in an IPO, then you get a dividend sometime in the future, and then maybe the company buys back your shares. The way it generally works…

> 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. Completely false. Let's talk about how investment money is used, and how that impacts valuation. Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment. He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't afford himself. So I make the investment and th…

You just described what happens when you receive an initial investment, like an IPO. You also didn't describe how the hedge fund gets a return. What you described could also be accomplished through debt.

I was talking about something different.

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

#162

Post by Estragon »

eropple wrote: post #156
Estragon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the overwhelming majority (to the point where the > counterparty is anecdotal and, frankly, possibly > mythical) use it to establish a fundamentally > conservative defense of the status quo While "All lives matter" is an inappropriate response, it is a natural one which well-meaning people come up with all the time. Honestly, when heard out of context "Black lives matter" is more than a little cryptic, and the firs…

If it's a default response for you (the generic you, not you specifically) to say it rather than think through the problem...I mean, that says a lot about societal awareness, and I can't really find much sympathy for that, but you're right in that some well-meaning idiots might view it as a surface-level thing. But those well-meaning, superficial people aren't in the discussion in the first place. Even Hillary Clinto…

My point is that it's not just a question of societal awareness. The links in my GP post show Secretary Clinton and Governor O'Malley making exactly this mistake. They are not idiots and their ambitions depend on courting black voters, so they are acutely aware of the issues affecting black people.

The phrase is probably the best you can do in a slogan, but it is cryptic.

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

#163

Post by [deleted] »

owyn wrote: post #149
Pyxl101 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. Completely false. Let's talk about how investment money is used, and how that impacts valuation. Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment. He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't afford himself. So I make the investment and th…

Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment. That's really not a good example of what we're talking about here. A single family farm is not a profitable business at all. There was an HN story about it just a couple of days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10823747 He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't…

[deleted]

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

#164

Post by efaref »

Umn44 wrote: post #154

"I find it astonishing that people compare modern-day income equality and the position of the poor in our time, in the Western world, to that of historical slavery" I'm sorry to tell you but you're a moron if you believe there isn't mass suffering when you are poor and low status. The amount of psychological abuse you take and feelings of self worth and being treated as subhuman by society and the business community…

One of the common ways to get out of poverty in the past was indentured servitude. People would voluntarily sell themselves into slavery because it was preferable to their current "free" position. You can't eat freedom.

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

#165

Post by yummyfajitas »

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…

Picketty explicitly claims the opposite of this. According to Picketty, the rich invest in the economy and achieve a growth rate r. As a result the level of capital stock grows more rapidly than incomes (which grow only at the rate g, for r > g).

In contrast, money spent on consumption does not grow at the rate r. Picketty even speculates (providing no real evidence however) that only the rich can achieve growth rate r - investments by others will only achieve r' Did you even read Picketty? (The math parts, not the mood affiliation.)

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

#166

Post by efaref »

marshray wrote: post #80
chimeracoder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't mean hardcore enforced-total-equality Socialism, I mean nice Socialism like the kind Bernie Sanders has been raving about. It's taboo to point this out, especially on HN, but I'm feeling bold today: You can't discuss the socialist policies of Western European countries without addressing their wealth. And you can't discuss the current wealth of Western European countries without acknowledging the process by…

Many countries in Western Europe have been destroyed and rebuilt multiple times since the 19th century when slavery was practiced.

I'm sorry to inform you that slavery is alive and well in Western Europe: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/16/lithuanian-guil...

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

#167

Post by eropple »

Estragon wrote: post #162
eropple wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's a default response for you (the generic you, not you specifically) to say it rather than think through the problem...I mean, that says a lot about societal awareness, and I can't really find much sympathy for that, but you're right in that some well-meaning idiots might view it as a surface-level thing. But those well-meaning, superficial people aren't in the discussion in the first place. Even Hillary Clinto…

My point is that it's not just a question of societal awareness. The links in my GP post show Secretary Clinton and Governor O'Malley making exactly this mistake. They are not idiots and their ambitions depend on courting black voters, so they are acutely aware of the issues affecting black people. The phrase is probably the best you can do in a slogan, but it is cryptic.

> they are acutely aware of the issues affecting black people

See...I really don't think they are (or at least were before they got shellacked). I think it's so profoundly pervasive that even at the highest levels it hasn't been An Issue until very recently. So it's pretty tough for me to see that. (While I don't know O'Malley, I don't pay attention to inconsequentials, I think Hillary Clinton is a status-quo-favoring moderate on most things, which probably doesn't make me more sympathetic.)

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

#168

Post by Estragon »

dang wrote: post #96
davesque wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion It certainly is easy, but it's an uncharitable interpretation. We're moderating this thread less, not more, than we normally would. One asymmetry here is that you're upset about a specific case, but we have to moderate HN in general. If you can come up with a viable set of general principles that would make HN significantly better, I'd lik…

  > If you can come up with a viable set of general principles
  > that would make HN significantly better, I'd like to know
  > what they are. I personally have found it to be a hard
  > problem.
How much transparency is there into the decision-making process? It would be great to see the measurements you're making to come to the conclusion that "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."

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #96
davesque wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> it's easy to interpret efforts at moderation as disagreement with an opinion It certainly is easy, but it's an uncharitable interpretation. We're moderating this thread less, not more, than we normally would. One asymmetry here is that you're upset about a specific case, but we have to moderate HN in general. If you can come up with a viable set of general principles that would make HN significantly better, I'd lik…

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by [deleted] »

owyn wrote: post #149
Pyxl101 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'Return' on an increase in valuation isn't a real return. It's exactly like poker. Completely false. Let's talk about how investment money is used, and how that impacts valuation. Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment. He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't afford himself. So I make the investment and th…

Say that a friend has started a new farm as a business and he's seeking investment. That's really not a good example of what we're talking about here. A single family farm is not a profitable business at all. There was an HN story about it just a couple of days ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10823747 He'd like a cash investment in order to buy a tractor, harvester, and combine for the farm, which he can't…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN