Live data from Hacker News

How to Steal a Billion

oversharing.substack.com

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, this is interesting. I completely missed the fact that these two groups are massively differently sized. So his 8 trillion vs 130 billion is laughable. If you define the "middle class" as roughly 50 percent of the population (this is pretty low considering how this word is actually used), then the billionaires 130 billion greatly outstrips the 8 trillion per person. There's just shy of 600 billionaires in the US…

Whether you look at things per-person or per-group is a matter of adopting a punitive outlook versus a practical outlook. If your goal is punitive, sure, it's relevant that the average billionaire makes hundreds of millions of dollars per year, while the average middle class person might make $80,000. But I don't think Americans are punitive. They're not deeply troubled by the mere fact that there is someone out ther…

> But I don't think Americans are punitive.

I don't think this is a remotely justifiable belief. We have the highest prisoner rate per capita, we sanction anyone the second they step out of line, and the entire two prior decades have been shaped by a collective trauma that pushed us into seeking retributive justice against anyone--regardless of their actual role.

I fail to remember which Puerto Rican uprising this was during, but there was a mother who was jailed for the crime of making her husband and children breakfast. When slavery was finally ended, the 10 years of reconstruction was met immediately with horrific acts of terrorism and reactionary violence to reassert white supremacy.

Punitive Justice is a core tenet of the American civil religion.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is overly optimistic, what you're saying. What's he gonna lose? Friends who invested with him? He can buy new ones. Feel bad? You can literally hire a whole team of therapists for life. He can sit in his mansions and not be in the public eye forever, it's not like being in the public eye is some sort of requirement for living. Heck, he might even find a new following among people who want to emulate how…

I'm intentionally being tongue in cheek. Unless he's a total sociopath (which I don't think he is) he's probably going to suffer mild blowback, the kind of blowback and shitty feelings us mortals feel when we've been ousted from a job. But it's the kind of disappointment and anger that you get over in a few months. The only difference is he'll have a billion dollars and the ability to do whatever in life he wants. If…

> If you were in his shoes, would you go back and do things any differently?

Maybe not hire a famous DJ for the announcement of layoffs.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious on how a person can live in the USA for their whole lives for $3 - 5 million. Serious question.

Really? $5M is $100k a year for 50 years. I can live comfortably off of $35k a year a long as I'm not in San Fransisco or something. With just $1M I could live indefinitely off investment income, which would be like $50k a year. Double those expenses to support a family, and you're still under budget.

$35k pre or post tax and what's your total tax rate?

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm intentionally being tongue in cheek. Unless he's a total sociopath (which I don't think he is) he's probably going to suffer mild blowback, the kind of blowback and shitty feelings us mortals feel when we've been ousted from a job. But it's the kind of disappointment and anger that you get over in a few months. The only difference is he'll have a billion dollars and the ability to do whatever in life he wants. If…

> If you were in his shoes, would you go back and do things any differently? Maybe not hire a famous DJ for the announcement of layoffs.

Oh man, that's awful, have a link for that?

If this were reddit I would link to /r/aboringdystopia.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#115

WeWork/Uber/Airbnb... it's interesting how WeWork is classified as tech IPO next to these (e.g. Softbank used its "technology fund" to invest in WeWork). How did this happen? Isn't it an obvious real estate company? Is it because WeWork appealed to tech startups and remote workers?

I hate when people say that WeWork is not a tech company. WeWork is a real estate tech company. They make a ton of internal tools that help them to automate the business, which is exactly what technology is for - affect real life experiences. In a sense, they are a pure tech business.

Except in terms of tech being the core of their product, which is what a tech company is. A hospital uses a network and banks make a ton of internal tools. This does not make them pure tech businesses.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#116
post #46
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s not as though he hurt anybody. He didn't? He didn't hurt his employees, his investors, his contractors, and so forth? He didn't hurt the the tech space (WeWork is not a tech company, but they're widely perceived to be) by reducing even further what little trust it still has?

I think what simonh is saying is that the employees knew what WeWork was. (They were the ones who created the spreadsheets and charts that outlined what was going on and presented it all to the investors in several separate acts of galling transparency.) The investors knew what WeWork was. All of that data was, again, transparent to the point of insult. Contractors may not have known, but certainly had access to the…

Yes, I understand what he was saying, and I also understand the sentiment. I disagree that all of that collateral damage should be written off as "they should have seen it coming", though (although I'm OK with that stance for the major investors).

This part:

> Contractors may not have known, but certainly had access to the same information everyone else had and could have known had they actually reviewed the information.

is unreasonable, in my opinion, but perhaps I wasn't clear on what I meant by "contractors". I wasn't talking about IT contractors, but about all the rest -- the companies providing office supplies, janitorial services, and so forth.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#117
post #38

That's the funny thing about Billions-with-a-b: normal thinking about money and value just doesn't work IMO. The Vision Fund is going to lose ~$19 billion. But Masa Son still controls over $80 billion. That's more wealth and power than almost any human being will ever have in history, ever. At that point the numbers don't even matter. Maybe Neumann took Masa Son for $50 billion. Who cares? A person can live in the US…

It's especially interesting, because although a billion dollars is a staggering amount of money for one person to possess, if you distributed the wealth of the world out to every single person evenly, it would only be something like $50,000 per person (based on some quick Googling), which is a life changing amount of money, to be sure, but it's a one time deal. It's not $50,000 per year of income, it's $50,000, perio…

Not to be a jerk, but I feel this perspective is meaningless from the get go. Redistribution/politics is about the marginal utility of a dollar and the time-value of the application. A dollar in a billionaire's account is worthless. Using those dollars to build a universal pre-k or healthcare system will generate more wealth than a one-time $50k payout.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#118
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>distributed the wealth of the world In the limit of a single individual wealth works in a naive fashion where such distribution is possible. But on the scale of the economy, such a thing is not possible without inventing a better distribution mechanism than capital itself. If you redistribute each peace of your car's engine to each passenger, you will be forced to walk. Even as a thought experiment, evenly distribut…

Yeah I agree it's not remotely practical and that there would be all sorts of crazy consequences, I just think the thought experiment is useful as an intuition check for how much wealth there is. As an aside, I don't agree that wealth is produced by the incentives inherent in inequality. Wealth is created when people make things and do stuff, which often happens because people want more than what they have, and that…

Say a billionaire gave away all his money to middle class families. He targeted those in the range of say 40-80k. In the end he chose people who were entrepreneurial. That's essentially 100k to 1,000,000 families w/ an entrepreneurial bent.

Say just 25% are successful in re-investing that money by buying small businesses w/ cashflow off flippa, or buying rental property, etc... Or starting a SaaS business, and that 25% is able to increase their income to 1 million.

Then that 1 million+ * 250,000, means his investment of 100B brought 250B to the economy. The other 75% who weren't so lucky in business, maybe they also invested and still built up a nice nest egg for retirement, or maybe they bought a home so they had a guaranteed roof over their head if hard times hit.

Many of the 75% might be able to get their net worth to 250-500k because of the 1-time gift.

This is all speculation.... In the real world it might be more like 10% are successful, but maybe 1-3% are super successful (become billionaires themselves).

If we had a cap on how much capital you could hold, then that would at least guarantee it funnels back to the bottom echelons of society. Though, I think the best cap would simply be a CEO cap of 150x average salaries (including contractors/offshore/etc). The CEO could earn whatever they wanted, as long as they simply gave everyone on their payroll a raise to meet their new bonus.

The other fact is that 90% of the successful people ARE successful because they didn't have to worry about money. When you struggle to put food on the table, it's hard to think about anything else or work on a side project. There was a good twitter feed/conversation back and forth w/ some people in SV a few months ago that basically was about one person saying 'anyone can make it', and the others saying 'those same people started at their parent's basement, they weren't exactly homeless or struggling'.

Actually it was Paul Graham who said:"The next time someone claims that starting startups is for rich kids, remind them that Airbnb happened because its founders literally could not pay their rent,"

Matthew Prince, the founder and CEO of Cloudflare replied: "Oh Paul, you know better. I had to borrow money from my mom to pay my taxes when we were starting Cloudflare. But I certainly came from a relatively privileged background, and so did the AirBnB founders. It’s hard to take risks if you don’t have a safety net. #bereal,"

Source: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1129897694984646657

I'm not saying we can ever 100% make everything equitable. Not until we have robots doing 100% of the work and But if we could just give everyone a floor, or safety net then we can see a lot more combined global progress. Imagine if every child had food on the table just in America and a roof, and healthcare, and could focus on being a kid and getting an education. Imagine if just doing this created 1 million new scientists over the next 50 years that wouldn't have originally existed.

What could they find or discover? The goal shouldn't be take everything but.. take enough that the game isn't forever slanted out of control. That's what GBI or a negative income tax would do. Hell just single-payer healthcare might be enough for some families -- if they didn't have to pay medical bills or copays.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#119
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's especially interesting, because although a billion dollars is a staggering amount of money for one person to possess, if you distributed the wealth of the world out to every single person evenly, it would only be something like $50,000 per person (based on some quick Googling), which is a life changing amount of money, to be sure, but it's a one time deal. It's not $50,000 per year of income, it's $50,000, perio…

Not to be a jerk, but I feel this perspective is meaningless from the get go. Redistribution/politics is about the marginal utility of a dollar and the time-value of the application. A dollar in a billionaire's account is worthless. Using those dollars to build a universal pre-k or healthcare system will generate more wealth than a one-time $50k payout.

I don't think it's that simple. Sure, money in a billionaire's possession probably isn't going to be used for consumption, but it's not like that money is chilling in a matress somewhere; it is invested. Those funds are a source of capital for public companies, seed funding for small businesses, VC investments for growing companies, charitable contributions potentially, even funds for countries through bonds etc. I'm going to stay away from making pronouncements on how this money ought to be used; I'm merely pointing out that the situation is more nuanced than how you have framed it.

Re: How to Steal a Billion

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing about rayiner's post is that the language he uses is quite informative of his political views. Notice how he uses the phrase "confiscate wealth" to describe taxation, as opposed to, say, "paying their fair share".

My political views are pro-taxation and pro-public services. (Except we should have the Swedes or Singaporeans come over to run our public services.) Which is why I think waging a class war against billionaires for a piddling $275 billion in additional revenue, while not increasing taxes on people making up to $250,000, is pure insanity. European countries have figured out how to pay for public services with middle c…

Why not both?
Post reply on HN