Interview with Paul Graham • Hacker News Board

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#71

Post by mattmanser » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:48 AM UTC

Reedx wrote: post #37

gonehome wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ange…

> It just comes across to me as a 'hate the rich' policy that creates perverse incentives. Indeed, wealth tax sounds good because there are problems with income inequality and it's currently fashionable to hate the rich. But that's about where it ends, while second-order effects are ignored or at least not taken seriously. Andrew Yang was one of the few high-profile Democrats brave enough to push back on it. "I think…

Easy ways to stop that, start with a huge tax on your wealth when you renounce citizenship.

They built the wealth on the back of their nation, on the back of the infrastructure, education, laws and blood of their ancestors, no good reason they should keep it when they choose to leave.

It's the fundamental basis behind tax. 95% tax on any wealth over, say, $500k on renouncing citizenship, total forfeit if found to be hiding assets, done.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#72

Post by Swizec » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:49 AM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #18

elevenoh wrote: post #14

I'm hoping we don't continue to see yc turn into 'the old guard'. YC folks, startups & the people yc startup school attracts that I've personally spoken to in the past few years are more imitator-types. YC folks & startups of 2009 were more authentic & original types. Though I suppose it's tough to avoid this deterioration in culture following $-influx & 'success', in any domain.

2009 era YC was epic. Literally once in a century. I was happy to be around, if not involved. Startup School afterparty at Anybots was a dream. Trevor even pinched me with his new robot (at my request). There were posers even back then, though. I remember one guy getting very drunk, saying “Ok, this is it,” and walking up to pg to pitch his startup. I’m not sure who I felt worse for, him or pg.

I was at the 2010 after party and I will always remember trying to pitch Ron Conway and he just turned around and walked away. Scoble listened to me then said “You’re an idiot, RSS is dead”

Fun times for a 22 year old nerd on his first trip to USA. I grew a thick skin fast.

The fact that a random kid from Europe could even get a chance to show up and speak to all those amazing people ... priceless. Just wish I had had the chops to do more with the opportunity.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#73

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:52 AM UTC

tazjin wrote: post #49

samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

I've had a thought about this that I haven't articulated before, so bear with me if this sounds a little rambly: There's a large group of people who've become extremely scared as a result of what's going on at the moment. Most of them haven't actually evaluated what the risk for them personally is, yet they've made significant changes to their behaviours in the name of the health theatre. On the other hand, you've go…

[deleted]

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#74

Post by darkerside » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

yodsanklai wrote: post #40

Abhinav2000 wrote: post #25

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

> he has become too much of a cult figure I didn't know who PG was until recently. I knew he was well respected on HN but I've never found that much value in his blog posts either. Maybe people like his writings in the light of his achievements, rather than for their intrinsic values.

There are many classic books and movies that people read now and say, what's the big deal? I've consumed tons of material that said this just as well if not better!

What they, and you, fail to realize, is that after the copycats have come in, the pioneer looks outdated. But they are the ones standing on his shoulders, even if, with the benefit of hindsight, they've found more effective ways to spread the same message.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#75

Post by somewhereoutth » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

TheDong wrote: post #68

tazjin wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had a thought about this that I haven't articulated before, so bear with me if this sounds a little rambly: There's a large group of people who've become extremely scared as a result of what's going on at the moment. Most of them haven't actually evaluated what the risk for them personally is, yet they've made significant changes to their behaviours in the name of the health theatre. On the other hand, you've go…

I think there may be a third option: people recognize both that the risk is low and selfishly they need not change their behaviors, but they also recognize that the socially correct behavior is to change their behavior so in aggregate we lower risk. I do believe that the risk is fairly low right now. So low that if I'm only thinking of myself, there's not sufficient justification to change my behaviors. However, I al…

Indeed. It would be well if more people appreciated this point.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#76

Post by ghufran_syed » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:56 AM UTC

ishansharma wrote: post #47

gonehome wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's dis-incentivizing wealth creation in general and taking ownership away from people that build companies. There's a compelling argument that growth (that accounts for human rights and protecting the environment) is the best way to help the most people the fastest: https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments . Policy that dis-incentivizes wealth creation creates perverse incentives that limit growth. We're bett…

I agree with most of your comment and it's making me rethink some of my opinions. But is this accurate: > Wealth creation isn't zero-sum, just because someone builds a business and creates wealth doesn't mean they're taking it from others. I'd say that's exactly the model that some of the startups are taking. Uber and Lyft come to mind. A part of their wealth is coming from the pockets of workers who have to work for…

>A part of their wealth is coming from the pockets of workers who have to work for lower wages than before and get hit by depreciation that they didn't account for when earning

I'm pretty sure that the large majority of uber/lyft drivers never worked as taxi/limo drivers, so not sure how we can compare their earnings to "before". The cost of the vehicle has always been an import part of the economics of the taxi/limo business. In the old days, you would either have to be an employee, with lower hourly rate, lots of mandated hours, but with employee benefits, or you would have to pay rent for the use of someone else's vehicle, which would come out of your earnings if you were working for yourself. At least when people buy their own vehicles for ride-sharing, they are getting the vehicle at cost, not cost + profit margin, and they get to use the vehicle for personal use, meaning they don't need to spend money on a separate vehicle for personal use. For a lot of potential uber/lyft drivers, the additional flexibility of working or not working whenever you like is better for them than being an employee. Seems unclear to me how taking that choice away from them would improve their lives somehow?

There is a separate issue about whether adults should have the right to make their own decisions, even if they may turn out to be harmful to them. But it's not clear to me whether making the choice to be a taxi/limo driver 20 years ago was very different in that regard to becoming an Uber/lyft driver today?

Fyi had a family member in the taxi/limo business in NYC for many years. They started as a paid driver, then managed to find someone to rent them a limo so they could work for themselves, then saved up enough to get their own limo, then eventually gave up driving and just rented their limo to other drivers. Both parties at each stage were consenting adults.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#77

Post by ouroboros1 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:57 AM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #35

marcinzm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is disincentivizing the accumulation of massive wealth in a small subset of the population bad for society? What is the advantage to society of an individual accumulating tens of billions of dollars worth of wealth?

It's dis-incentivizing wealth creation in general and taking ownership away from people that build companies. There's a compelling argument that growth (that accounts for human rights and protecting the environment) is the best way to help the most people the fastest: https://press.stripe.com/#stubborn-attachments . Policy that dis-incentivizes wealth creation creates perverse incentives that limit growth. We're bett…

Billionaires often make compelling arguments for why they should get to keep their money (Paul Graham and Elon Musk being two examples).

I disagree with their point of view because:

1. My neighbour having enough food to eat and a warm house is a form of wealth FOR ME.

2. If wealth that is generated is taxed, this means that it is harder to accumulate wealth, this means that the people that do manage to accumulate wealth have better qualities than the people that do so in a tax free environment. And thus they make better decisions about how to allocate their money.

3. Billionaires are not accountable to anyone for how they spend their wealth. This is fine if they are all like Musk. But they are not. Of the countless number, only two are trying to build rockets to Mars. Counter examples are Osama Bin Laden and the guys who funded the NRA. If the wealth is taxed then it is fought over in a shared space in which we all have a say, no matter how small.

I like the argument that Rawls made in "A theory of Justice", where he said that when you are deciding how to make a fair society you should think from a perspective in which you do not know what role you will have in that society.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#78

Post by darkerside » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:59 AM UTC

ghufran_syed wrote: post #57

ishansharma wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's the opposing view, other than "they are rich, they can afford it + we really need the money for $good-things"? I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with the math or making a separate point about why we should do it anyway?

I truly don't know the answer on whether the wealth tax is a good idea (and there probably isn't a single right answer). But, that sure is a shitty way of saying, "I don't understand, can you explain your viewpoint to me?"

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#79

Post by felipemnoa » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:00 AM UTC

mattmanser wrote: post #71

Reedx wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just comes across to me as a 'hate the rich' policy that creates perverse incentives. Indeed, wealth tax sounds good because there are problems with income inequality and it's currently fashionable to hate the rich. But that's about where it ends, while second-order effects are ignored or at least not taken seriously. Andrew Yang was one of the few high-profile Democrats brave enough to push back on it. "I think…

Easy ways to stop that, start with a huge tax on your wealth when you renounce citizenship. They built the wealth on the back of their nation, on the back of the infrastructure, education, laws and blood of their ancestors, no good reason they should keep it when they choose to leave. It's the fundamental basis behind tax. 95% tax on any wealth over, say, $500k on renouncing citizenship, total forfeit if found to be…

>>Easy ways to stop that, make it illegal to take your wealth when you renounce citizenship.

If you have to come up with ways to stop people from fleeing your country instead of too many people wanting to enter your country then you probably have a problem. And no, I don't think it is as easy as you say. Simple sounding solutions like this can have huge disastrous consequences.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#80

Post by hkai » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

jkubicek wrote: post #45

samatman wrote: post #36

> But a few years after it's over, we'll be acting as if [COVID] never happened. We're good at that. I fear this prediction won't come true. There's a great risk that 'health theatre' will join security theatre as a durable if not permanent part of our existence. That years from now, we'll be getting temperatures checked, schools will be shutting down for worse-than-usual influenzas, and so on. I still can't bring an…

I don't think there's any chance at all this is going to happen. Security theater in airports is perpetuated by an agency that depends on fear to secure its funding and a government that depends on us fighting the "bad guys" (even if they aren't any close to as dangerous as they want us to think). COVID fear isn't being perpetuated by any government agencies at the national level. If anything, the federal government…

The federal government doesn't promote the covid fear only because of which party is in power right now. One of the presidential candidates promises a nationwide mask mandate, and, judging from the actions of authorities in NYC or other places, there will be other severe restrictions on freedom of business, assembly and travel.

So yes, I also tend to agree that many people will continue supporting the health theater and fears for the foreseeable future.