Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#2"Paul Graham
@paulg
·
15h
... she typed into her iPhone, and then posted on Twitter.
(Lesson: You don't need billionaires per se, but you do need startups, and startups cause billionaires.)"
Twitter and all but "startups cause billionaires"? Really?
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#3Startups would not have existed if not for free and open source software. You know, Stallman and the like, which people like Graham pretend don’t exist or don’t matter. But than again, a person that retweets trump is not someone I’m particularly interested in hearing what they have to say in general.
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#4While I really like the open debate directly between influential people without journalists gatekeeping, I don't think Twitter is a good medium for this.
There's only so much nuance you can convey in a few short sentences.
Really wish politicians wrote essays to persuade their case instead of just tweets or news interviews.
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#5"Paul Graham @paulg · 15h ... she typed into her iPhone, and then posted on Twitter. (Lesson: You don't need billionaires per se, but you do need startups, and startups cause billionaires.)" Twitter and all but "startups cause billionaires"? Really?
Also I was basically in the room for the birth of the modern consumer smartphone and I'm not a billionaire. Huh.
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#6Ridiculous. PG says that startups cause billionaires as though this is a law of the universe. Why should it be? It would surely be possible to structure society in such a way that startup founders of unicorns don't obtain more wealth than they can possibly spend in a lifetime.
Further, not all startups become decacorns or megacorps. Small business exists, even though PG and the broader VC community would rather focus on the startups that make it huge. A sustainable business that employs 30 people, even under existing social structures, won't make the owner stunningly wealthy. And yet these businesses provide jobs just as well as the next uber or airbnb.
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#7Ridiculous. PG says that startups cause billionaires as though this is a law of the universe. Why should it be? It would surely be possible to structure society in such a way that startup founders of unicorns don't obtain more wealth than they can possibly spend in a lifetime. Further, not all startups become decacorns or megacorps. Small business exists, even though PG and the broader VC community would rather focus…
> they can possibly spend in a lifetime
Doesn't seem as a good working schema, in my opinion. Surely its possible to know how to spend quite large amounts, like quadrillions of dollars, in a lifetime.
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#8Ridiculous. PG says that startups cause billionaires as though this is a law of the universe. Why should it be? It would surely be possible to structure society in such a way that startup founders of unicorns don't obtain more wealth than they can possibly spend in a lifetime. Further, not all startups become decacorns or megacorps. Small business exists, even though PG and the broader VC community would rather focus…
> they can possibly spend in a lifetime Doesn't seem as a good working schema, in my opinion. Surely its possible to know how to spend quite large amounts, like quadrillions of dollars, in a lifetime.
Maybe we should not enable what happens after you get more than, say, $50 million. After you've bought a few really nice houses and given your kids the best education money can buy, all you're really doing with that money is imposing your will on others without that kind of money, and often without their say. Lobbying politicians, setting up foundations, etc., is usually a rich person telling others what they should do, rather than enabling individuals to do what they think is best. Maybe this is ok if rich people were really just always super intelligent, but I think it's clear that that's not necessarily true (luck (and sometimes even a bit of ruthlessness and lack of compassion) is big in getting rich). And people who are experts in one field can be clueless in other fields without realizing it. Just give the excess money to individuals, on the basis of need, and we'll probably see it used more efficiently.
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#9I’m convinced that AOC is backed by the GOP at this point
Re: Paul Graham's response to AOC's statement on billionaires
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they can possibly spend in a lifetime Doesn't seem as a good working schema, in my opinion. Surely its possible to know how to spend quite large amounts, like quadrillions of dollars, in a lifetime.
Maybe we should not enable what happens after you get more than, say, $50 million. After you've bought a few really nice houses and given your kids the best education money can buy, all you're really doing with that money is imposing your will on others without that kind of money, and often without their say. Lobbying politicians, setting up foundations, etc., is usually a rich person telling others what they should…
Maybe we should ban prime numbers above 50 million also...
Or stop fighting reality...
:)