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

201–210 of 249 posts

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

#201

Post by meagain20000 »

Meh. Your feelings are hurt boohoo. If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it instead of whining about it and saying how we are all hurting your feelings. Sure, there are cases where you need outside help to get out of your current situation. Yes people should help if they can. But if I provide you help and you waste it like it is tipically the case than it is on you. It is not my responsibility to make you not poor if you do not take advantage of opportunities when they are given to you.

Many people cause their children to be poor by simply not giving a fuck. By spending all their money on vices and not taking care of themselves or family. Or by simply wasting their youths doing basically nothing productive even when given the opportunity. So you will not make me feel bad with your sob story when a lot of the fault is on poor people themselves, with lots of exceptions of course. Go and cry me a river.

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

#202

Post by rileymat2 »

puredemo wrote: post #198
sangnoir wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people out there working harder than you, but are stuck in poverty. They were born at the wrong time, or in the wrong family, or didn't go to the right schools. You ought to be self-aware enough to know that blind luck plays a huge part in your employability.

I don't agree with that framing. I don't just work hard, I work smart, and I come from generations who did the same. Capability is substantially more genetic than environmental anyway, equivocating and hand-waving everything away as "just luck" is extremely facile. Some people are oozing with talent and potential, most people are not, that's the reality -- it's science and breeding, not luck.

"Capability is substantially more genetic than environmental anyway" I am confused how the Chinese can have such a surging middle class if it is genetic. Certainly they have not changed their genetics too much in the last 50 years.

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

#203

Post by puredemo »

rileymat2 wrote: post #202
puredemo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with that framing. I don't just work hard, I work smart, and I come from generations who did the same. Capability is substantially more genetic than environmental anyway, equivocating and hand-waving everything away as "just luck" is extremely facile. Some people are oozing with talent and potential, most people are not, that's the reality -- it's science and breeding, not luck.

"Capability is substantially more genetic than environmental anyway" I am confused how the Chinese can have such a surging middle class if it is genetic. Certainly they have not changed their genetics too much in the last 50 years.

They have a high average IQ with a low standard deviation..

http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sftfi1%7Bimage3%7D.gif

A large middle class is pretty much exactly what you'd expect based on the testing.

Why would anything need to have changed in the last 50 years?

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

#204

Post by paulddraper »

meagain20000 wrote: post #201

Meh. Your feelings are hurt boohoo. If you are poor and low status why don't you do something about it instead of whining about it and saying how we are all hurting your feelings. Sure, there are cases where you need outside help to get out of your current situation. Yes people should help if they can. But if I provide you help and you waste it like it is tipically the case than it is on you. It is not my responsibil…

Geez, this isn't Reddit.

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

#205

Post by rileymat2 »

puredemo wrote: post #203
rileymat2 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Capability is substantially more genetic than environmental anyway" I am confused how the Chinese can have such a surging middle class if it is genetic. Certainly they have not changed their genetics too much in the last 50 years.

They have a high average IQ with a low standard deviation.. http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sftfi1%7Bimage3%7D.gif A large middle class is pretty much exactly what you'd expect based on the testing. Why would anything need to have changed in the last 50 years?

If the genetics did not change, then something must explain their past performance. Perhaps the environment.

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

#206

Post by Tycho »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #161
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…

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.

Many hedge funds do invest in IPOs. They also invest in all sorts of debt: corporate, municipal, sovereign, emerging market.

It's true that hedge funds and mutual funds also invest in the stock market, which is a secondary market where the money doesn't go to the original issuers. However the existence of a healthy and liquid secondary market is what gives primary investors the confidence to buy stakes (or lend) to start-ups in the first instance. Who would want these assets if they literally had no choice but to hold onto them forever (or until maturity or acquisition or bankruptcy).

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

#207

Post by puredemo »

rileymat2 wrote: post #205
puredemo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a high average IQ with a low standard deviation.. http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sftfi1%7Bimage3%7D.gif A large middle class is pretty much exactly what you'd expect based on the testing. Why would anything need to have changed in the last 50 years?

If the genetics did not change, then something must explain their past performance. Perhaps the environment .

What are you referring to when you say "past performance" specifically?

Are you talking about the Great Leap Forward, which killed tens of millions?

You realize we're discussing individuals getting hired in a job market, not genocidal dictatorships in Asia 50+ years ago, right?

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

#208

Post by Tycho »

leftwich wrote: post #93
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…

According to two different 'Outlook of M&A' panels I attended in the past two months, corporations have more uninvested cash on their balance sheets than is typical. I mention that because even the money invested by the wealthy into corporations does not necessarily get spent by corporations. This is part of the reason why the argument for 'tax cuts for the wealthy' doesn't hold up under current conditions. Thinking…

On the other hand that uninvested cash should help more companies weather the storm in times of crisis, which should save jobs.

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

#209

Post by MisterBastahrd »

clarkmoody wrote: post #181
djur wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no single entity that holds a monopoly on the use of force and effects taxation, so I don't see anything worth granting a proper noun. Part of the reason I am not an Austrian is because I prefer my political science and economics to deal with concrete actions and actual people and organizations, not Abstract Capitalized Entities. The assertion that taxation is legalized theft enforced through the threat of f…

Of course the individuals who act in their capacity as government employees affect all the outcomes of state action. You may be more of an Austrian than you think if you refuse to recognize "society" and "the state" as independent actors. > The assertion that taxation is legalized theft enforced through the threat of force is a popular one in certain circles, but it isn't the self-evident fact you believe it to be, e…

And there we have it. A mises.org citation.

Good luck finding a country that doesn't engage in taxation. You won't find one with a functioning government, or utilities, or roads, or a military. Keep on with the "taxation is violence" meme. I'm sure that'll get you far.

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

#210

Post by abalashov »

wfo wrote: post #72
md224 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in order to say something that is true, I need to say something that is false. What does this mean?

Language can be used in a rigorous, technical way with definitions and as close to accurately as possible. Like in a technical manual or programming language. Or it can be used in an expressive way, the way that normal people write and talk and communicate, where people say things that are technically inaccurate but express meaning and and allow the listener or reader to understand the position, emotions, facts, thou…

Church.

I wrote a blog post recently that somewhat excoriated the technical community for a blunt and mechanistic approach to argumentation along these lines:

http://likewise.am/2015/12/06/nitpicking-is-the-lowest-form-...

Post reply on HN