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

Interview with Paul Graham

pullrequest.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#21

Post by dvt »

gonehome wrote: post #15
renewiltord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy you're replying to isn't saying he doesn't have that knowledge. The guy you're replying to is saying he isn't giving us any of that anymore. It's kind of true.

My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. Basically when PG was writing about stuff they considered part of their in-group then it was great and wonderful. When he writes about stuff that's no longer aligns with their existing political in-group's beliefs (his arguments against the wealth tax [0], his essay about conformism [1], his essay about economic inequality [2]) - suddenly he's 'di…

> My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political.

I think this is unfair. For example, I don't really relate to building a multi-million-dollar startup in my 20s, so the wealth tax article is simply not relevant. The article on Conformism is just highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing. Compare these to classics like "What We Look for in Founders" or "Ramen Profitable" and we have a pretty clear shift in focus. This takes nothing away from pg being a bonafide genius, it's just that his focus is no longer actionable and insightful advice to founders.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#22

Post by john-shaffer »

gonehome wrote: post #15
renewiltord wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy you're replying to isn't saying he doesn't have that knowledge. The guy you're replying to is saying he isn't giving us any of that anymore. It's kind of true.

My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. Basically when PG was writing about stuff they considered part of their in-group then it was great and wonderful. When he writes about stuff that's no longer aligns with their existing political in-group's beliefs (his arguments against the wealth tax [0], his essay about conformism [1], his essay about economic inequality [2]) - suddenly he's 'di…

He's always written about conformism and wealth. See "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" (2003) [1], "What You Can't Say" (2004) [2], and a lengthy discussion of what wealth is and what it means for society in "How to Make Wealth" (2004) [3]. All of these are featured in his book, "Hackers and Painters".

[1] http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html [2] http://paulgraham.com/say.html [3] http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#23

Post by jedberg »

elevenoh wrote: post #13
ishansharma wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t agree more. I read all his essays in my early 20s and became a huge fan. Not just startup advice wise, but general big picture stuff wise too. Then I saw his recent tweets and especially the essay about wealth tax, I was a bit disappointed. But as you said, his position is well earned. But I don’t see any useful real life advice from him anymore.

>Then I saw his recent tweets and especially the essay about wealth tax, I was a bit disappointed. Why? He points out [the non obvious to many fact] that wealth tax kills compounding. And this is something to seriously consider.

> Why? He points out [the non obvious to many fact] that wealth tax kills compounding.

His analysis was deeply flawed to the point of being disingenuous. For one, it assumed that your wealth never grows once you get it. And for two, it completely forgot that there is a baseline on the wealth tax (the current proposal is at $50M).

So no, it doesn't kill compounding, it just shrinks it a bit.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#24

Post by gonehome »

ishansharma wrote: post #19
elevenoh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Then I saw his recent tweets and especially the essay about wealth tax, I was a bit disappointed. Why? He points out [the non obvious to many fact] that wealth tax kills compounding. And this is something to seriously consider.

It’s my opinion but that was a very one sided view. And I need to read more on this but I don’t think the way he pointed it out is how anyone is proposing wealth tax.

What PG describes is basically what's proposed - the main difference is that most American proposals have a floor before it kicks in.

That floor is pretty high depending on the proposal ($30-50 million), but that doesn't stop the problem of equity ownership being eaten away over time when a lot of your worth is tied up into a successful company (like Bezos).

You also get other incentive problems with things like angel investing. If someone is at the wealth cap they're less incentivized to risk money when they'll either lose it because the investment fails, or lose it because it gets eaten by the wealth tax.

Other proposals have low floors where you just have the problem of a lot of wealth getting taken.

In general it's good for a society to incentivize wealth creation/growth and still protect the lower bound of society. A wealth tax dis-incentivizes wealth creation - and for what? It just comes across to me as a 'hate the rich' policy that creates perverse incentives.

Disclosures so people don't think there's hidden motivated reasoning here:

- I'm nowhere near the wealth cap and probably never will be

- I think trump is an idiot and the republican party is a disaster

- I voted for Hillary and will vote for Biden.

I still think the wealth tax is a bad idea and bad policy.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#25

Post by Abhinav2000 »

Honestly I never found PG’s writing that insightful and ANSI Lisp was a bit of a pain to read

That doesn’t take away from any of his success, which has been immense (anybody who has made over a billion is obviously amazing and had the ultimate life) but he has become too much of a cult figure in comparison to others in that stratosphere

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#26

Post by gonehome »

dvt wrote: post #21
gonehome wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. Basically when PG was writing about stuff they considered part of their in-group then it was great and wonderful. When he writes about stuff that's no longer aligns with their existing political in-group's beliefs (his arguments against the wealth tax [0], his essay about conformism [1], his essay about economic inequality [2]) - suddenly he's 'di…

> My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. I think this is unfair. For example, I don't really relate to building a multi-million-dollar startup in my 20s, so the wealth tax article is simply not relevant. The article on Conformism is just highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing. Compare these to classics like "What We Look for in Founders" or "Ramen Profitable" and we have a pretty clear shif…

Thanks for the reply - I might have read motivated reasoning into your comment that wasn't there.

I think it's fair to point out that there are fewer actionable startup advice essays recently, but 'highfalutin pseudo-psychologizing' is just dismissive without talking about any of the ideas, and he did have well-liked essays like What you Can't Say and Why Nerds Are Unpopular that were of a similar type - so that kind of thing was something he's always written about (though he also wrote about more actionable advice alongside it too).

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#27

Post by ponker »

dvt wrote: post #2

As a huge fan of pg (since my early 20s), it feels bad (but also good) to see him so disconnected these days. Most of his Tweets read like the musings of "some rich dude" in an ivory tower (which is quite literally where he lives), whereas back in the day YC and pg's essays were very much "where the rubber meets the road" -- apologies for being a bit metaphorical. Anyway, I think he's enjoying his well-earned money,…

He literally lives in an ivory tower?

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#28

Post by gonehome »

john-shaffer wrote: post #22
gonehome wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My read from dvt and ishansharma is that they're just being political. Basically when PG was writing about stuff they considered part of their in-group then it was great and wonderful. When he writes about stuff that's no longer aligns with their existing political in-group's beliefs (his arguments against the wealth tax [0], his essay about conformism [1], his essay about economic inequality [2]) - suddenly he's 'di…

He's always written about conformism and wealth. See "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" (2003) [1], "What You Can't Say" (2004) [2], and a lengthy discussion of what wealth is and what it means for society in "How to Make Wealth" (2004) [3]. All of these are featured in his book, "Hackers and Painters". [1] http://paulgraham.com/nerds.html [2] http://paulgraham.com/say.html [3] http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

Yep, I liked those too.

I think it was harder to narrowly categorize those as in-group vs. out-group than the newer ones though.

Maybe it's because people are more polarized now and there's less room for talking about interesting points that don't clearly fit into an existing political group? Maybe if those were written today people would find them similarly 'disconnected'?

I don't know, but I agree his new stuff isn't that different from the kinds of topics he's historically written about.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#30

Post by lowdose »

chrisco255 wrote: post #4

For me, this interview was disappointingly short. I'd love to see Eric Weinstein or someone similar do a long form interview with PG.

But Eric Weinstein asks of his guests to practice difficult words listeners have to find in a dictionary. He practices difficult words with an ANKI spaced repetition system himself.

What I find intriguing is that Peter Thiel has yet to appear on the Joe Rogan podcast while he clearly bankrolled that operation.

Post reply on HN