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

Life is Short

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 452 posts

Re: Life is Short

#191

Post by numlocked »

joslin01 wrote: post #113
numlocked wrote: post #67

And for a completely different perspective, we have Kurt Vonnegut: [Vonnegut tells his wife he’s going out to buy an envelope] “Oh, she says well, you’re not a poor man. You know, why don’t you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I’m going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a…

I really don't think this contradicts PG's point or challenges it in a way to be deserving of the phrasing "entirely different perspective." For one, from the essay: > But different things matter to different people, and most have to learn what matters to them And for two, Kurt is at odds with himself in that quote though his overall sentiment is correct. He says to "fart around" and then creates a straw-man with com…

I think it conflicts because of pg's focus on intentionality the way you spend your time - which, if not the strict opposite of 'farting around', is darn close. If pg preaches impatience for what matters, Vonnegut preaches farting around because, who knows what you want?

Re: Life is Short

#193

Post by giaour »

xiaoma wrote: post #187
giaour wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keeping in mind that PG is a venture capitalist -- as in, a financier -- how should we apply your interpretation of his essay to PG himself? His current job is incubating companies and then collecting returns, so are you saying that PG was arguing that he is the problem? Edit: s/rents/returns/

Rent collecting or rent-seeking behavior has a special meaning in economics. It's different from investing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking A an example of rent collecting would be if he used his wealth to lobby for a law requiring all start-ups to have a license which an organization he controlled granted (and charged for).

Thanks; I edited my comment. The point remains, though, that PG is not "creating wealth" under the terms laid out in his essay.

Re: Life is Short

#194

Post by wfo »

asuffield wrote: post #178
wfo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People got riled up because he touched an issue that effects people a lot in real life, is seriously effecting our society and democracy for the worse and got it really, really laughably wrong. And as one of the hyper-rich he has a bully pulpit with which to broadcast his thoughts. Also because most of his essays are very good, so this one was uncharacteristic and surprising.

Regardless of my personal perspective, this is unfair. He stated a position which is not only widely disputed, but the dispute over which has an entire field of media and academics devoted to it, and which routinely splits the population roughly half and half (look at basically any election result in the western world). And he disagreed with your side. He's in the other 50% of the population from you. To claim that b…

This isn't really about red vs. blue -- the "red" side acknowledges massive wealth inequality as a genuinely bad thing as much as the blue does (recall the president most known for trust busting, and recall the 'R' next to his name -- Republicans like markets, not wealth inequality). The two sides just have different explanations for what causes it and what will resolve it. This is about understanding an issue. The essay is indefensible; many, many people have taken the opportunity to eviscerate it because it presents such an easy target. There are plenty of other HN threads for you to peruse if you need specifics.

Half the population does not agree with the stance given in the essay. This argument has not been made for centuries; it has not been made at all because it is wildly out of sync with reality.

I would agree it's very reasonable to bow out of it because life's too short if you are a millionaire; in that case the argument really doesn't effect you so why bother with it, it's just academic.

Also "bully pulpit" doesn't have anything to do with being a bully.

I would reiterate OP of this thread: I love PG's essays and I hope this one isn't a way of saying he is dissuaded by his readership challenging him on one that didn't quite hit the mark. We read them in the first place because they never cease to provoke thought.

Re: Life is Short

#195

Post by akkartik »

Svenstaro wrote: post #34
silverlake wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my least favorite. I respect his advice on startups, but little else. This sounds like the stuff Oprah used to say.

Which freely available works on this matter would you recommend reading instead? I'm interested in seeing what kind of philosophy other people prefer.

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html

(I'll throw in, with all humility, my philistine take on philosophy: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2014/09/09/geopolitics-for-individ.... It was inspired partly by Paul Graham's previous http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html, which IMO is far superior.)

Re: Life is Short

#196

Post by mattmcknight »

giaour wrote: post #180
mattmcknight wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition. PG's argument is that being driven is necessary, not sufficient. You have to be driven to get rich doing a startup, but being driven on its own is not enough. Thus, you can be driven and poor. He then weakens his claim even further, as quoted in the parent: "Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality" such…

PG strongly implies that wealth can be created by anyone with enough drive and determination. Put another way, if you are not creating and amassing wealth, it's because you don't want it hard enough. To quote from his essay: "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them. Suppose new policies make it hard to make a fortune in finance. Does it seem p…

No, it doesn't imply that at all. It doesn't say anything about the people that aren't creating and amassing wealth. It simply says, of the people that are getting rich, most of them are driven. The thing you could get away with saying it implies is that you could have all of the other positive attributes and opportunities of those people, but not be driven and fail. It doesn't say anything the people without the opportunity or positive attributes to get rich, because being driven is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency ] From the perspective of that quote, the people getting rich in finance that would be switching into startups already have the combination of sufficient positive attributes and opportunities, including the necessary condition of drive/determination. If they lacked those things, they wouldn't be in that group of people that would have gotten rich in startups.

Re: Life is Short

#198

Post by geofft »

crimsonalucard wrote: post #184

You as pg's wife have vested interest in pg's reputation as your well-being is intrinsically tied with his reputation and well-being through marriage. Your words are not totally empty though as it is still supporting evidence, it is just not solid evidence and it is not something I will totally accept, unlike the op. The probability for this essay to pop-up right after PG started a fire with his economic essay is jus…

I am no fan of pg's worldview but I think there are less conspiratorial and more good-faith ways to attack it. I genuinely accept what jl said, but even if I didn't this just isn't a point worth pressing (unlike, oh, "you have presented no evidence that increasing economic inequality is inherently necessary to the social good which you wish to do, as opposed to simply a convenient approach with externalities you could avoid but don't care to"). Whether or not this essay is self-deception, if he does not believe that it is and cannot be convinced that it is, there's nothing productive in arguing further and certainly nothing productive in doing so aggressively.

Re: Life is Short

#199

Post by [deleted] »

ScottBurson wrote: post #144
drhayes9 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From PG's essay "Economic Inequality": "Most people who get rich tend to be fairly driven. Whatever their other flaws, laziness is usually not one of them... Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources." This feels like the heart of that particular essay and displays a r…

>> Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality, but it is the irreducible core of it, in the sense that you'll have that left when you eliminate all other sources. > This blames poor people for being poor. How am I misreading this? FWIW, I read it differently. I think Paul is saying that even if we had a world where everyone had a truly equal opportunity, in the sense of having simila…

[deleted]

Re: Life is Short

#200

Post by jmcmahon443 »

Mr. Graham:

I believe you meant "ensure" not "insure" here:

"Indeed, the law of supply and demand insures that: the more rewarding some kind of work is, the cheaper people will do it."

Thank you.

Post reply on HN