111–120 of 193 posts
An anthropologist would disagree. Counter-examples are numerous. Ironically, individuals inside a corporation don't interact with each other via free market behavior. Friends, family, etc. Whole societies back in the day.
>> Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Everybody in the world can have a house. This is false and the people who say this tend to be in elite circles so they don't see the scarcity which is obvious to everyone else. The fact is that there aren't going to be enough builders to build houses for everyone. Why? Because those people are too busy building mansions, building yahts, building private jets, mining gold, making jewe…
A farmer builds up a flock of sheep or a herd of cows, and everyone in the village is richer. A miller builds a water mill and everyone in the village gets bread. A blacksmith builds a forge and everyone in the village now has access to metal items.
Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
>> But then of course Uncle Sam show up, and basically say, “Hey, you know what, you just made a lot money this year. Therefore, you’re rich. Therefore, you’re evil and you’ve got to hand it all over to us.” The government doesn't tax rich people because they're evil - they tax rich people to provide food, education, and security for society. Progressive taxes are useful because they help fight poverty and allow the…
Of course, there are two major obstacles to that happening. First, income taxes are very convenient, because income is much easier to measure than net worth, and one would have to be careful with net worth taxes to make sure they don't have unintended consequences around illiquid wealth. Second, a lot of powerful rich people would be against it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I bet the average googler The point is that the average person is not the average Googler. His philosophies are intended for people who aren't lucky enough to be a Googler, or to inherit wealth, etc.
Getting a job at Google is way easier than starting a large successful software company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yes, investing in a useless startup is not real investing; it's consumption; the real purpose of most startups is to bring pleasure to a rich person and their friends when the startup gets acquired, not to serve society. And yet it is the very same startups that have improved your standard of living exponentially where luxuries reserved for the rich like private chauffeur (Uber/Lyft), matchmaking (Tinder/OkCupi…
Except that I don't care about Uber, Tinder, or AirBnb. I would happily pay more for regular Taxi and regular Hotels if only I could afford what I really want; to live in my own house in a place I actually want to live in. Now because of the job market, I am forced to live to a big city where all the rich people have their toy startups and houses are too expensive. As a software engineer, I'm just an entertainer for…
That's due to regulatory capture and a high tax rate due to excessive regulation. There is a book I highly recommend that you read. It is called "The Kingdom of Moltz" by Irwin Schiff, a bonafide political prisoner in the United States who died for his beliefs. When you read this book, you'll realize that crony capitalism and fiat central banking has sacrificed the well-being of the vast majority of US citizens.
>> Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Everybody in the world can have a house. This is false and the people who say this tend to be in elite circles so they don't see the scarcity which is obvious to everyone else. The fact is that there aren't going to be enough builders to build houses for everyone. Why? Because those people are too busy building mansions, building yahts, building private jets, mining gold, making jewe…
There are countries with an over 90% home ownership rate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_owne...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And both are effectively impossible for many people in the world. His advice is meant to be applicable for people who aren't lucky enough to have either of those options. The option to invest in income-generating assets over costly status-signalling devices is available to far more people in the world. E.g. https://www.kiva.org/about/impact/success-stories
So he's arguing buying stock instead of a nice car will make you wealthier? No argument here.
But a significant shareholding in a small-medium business that provides a valuable product/service and ends up generating steady cash flows over the long term seems like the optimal approach in terms of risk/reward, and is something that a lot of people in the world could figure out how to do if they put their mind to it over a long enough period of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yes, investing in a useless startup is not real investing; it's consumption; the real purpose of most startups is to bring pleasure to a rich person and their friends when the startup gets acquired, not to serve society. And yet it is the very same startups that have improved your standard of living exponentially where luxuries reserved for the rich like private chauffeur (Uber/Lyft), matchmaking (Tinder/OkCupi…
You're kind of missing the point. The examples you give aren't useless. The vast majority are useless and die without achieving anything or are pointless financial engineering like ICOs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, started as a poor kid in India doesn't really present the whole picture. He was lucky that his family moved to New York when he was 9 which broadened the scope of opportunities he had. From the Wiki article, "Ravikant moved to New York City with his family at the age of 9". I still think what he has achieved is great and love some of what he shares but Naval can sometimes make things sound grander than they are…
> Naval can sometimes make things sound grander than they are. Please share a specific thing. Just curious.
> Free markets are intrinsic to the human species An anthropologist would disagree. Counter-examples are numerous. Ironically, individuals inside a corporation don't interact with each other via free market behavior. Friends, family, etc. Whole societies back in the day.
"I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist."