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

81–90 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#81

Post by bitexploder »

marcell wrote: post #42
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

It was a long time ago, but when PG first started writing, nerds into programming were a marginal group, not rulers of the tech world with great influence. His writing resonated with that group at a time when they didn’t seem influential or especially important in society.

It’s weird. Been programming and in tech since 97. I never felt marginalized, but I didn’t care. I was doing STUFF in tech, always learning. My young mind was aflame. I felt like I was changing the world in the dot com boom/bust. Then I grew up and so did tech apparently.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#82

Post by felipemnoa »

ouroboros1 wrote: post #77
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…

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 wea…

>>Billionaires often make compelling arguments for why they should get to keep their money

Well, it is their money.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#83

Post by hkai »

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…

Not to mention that mass media is an agency nearly entirely dedicated to promoting health theater.

"You and your children will die soon and there's almost no way to stop it" is the dominating message on the front page of many media organizations.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#84

Post by pdonis »

ishansharma wrote: post #44
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…

I admit that politics is mixed into my opinions here. It's just that based on current political climate, I think it's hard to keep politics aside. My thoughts about pg have essentially gone through this flow: - Start reading some of the old essays in college, agree with most of the points - Start working, the essays slowed down. I read old ones once in a while, still mostly agree - Start following pg on twitter. Ther…

> I don't see any alternative arguments

There aren't any arguments in that essay at all. It just describes, with numbers, the consequences of a wealth tax for startup founders.

> I see his position as against the transfer of wealth and societal equality

The essay states no position whatever. Not every essay has to state a position. Some essays are just about stating some facts.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#85

Post by hkai »

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,…

Perhaps the fact that a writer doesn't share a society's dominating ideology (in this case, democratic socialism and anti-capitalism) is what makes a writer's ideas original and interesting, as opposed to rehashing what the dominating ideology already tells us.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#86

Post by hkai »

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…

See, I always thought that socialism degenerates into tyranny.

My socialist country didn't even allow people to travel - to prevent capital flight and brain drain - and now you are proposing to basically close borders to some people until you buy your own freedom.

That's scary as hell and a return back to 1920s.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#87

Post by specialist »

hkai wrote: post #80
jkubicek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What plan do you favor for ending the pandemic?

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#88

Post by vlunkr »

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…

On the other hand wouldn't it be good for some of the extra hygiene to stick around? Allowing kids to do online school when they're sick rather than prioritizing in-person attendance is a great step forward IMO. Not only because schools spread illness quickly, but because it's a horrible experience to be sick at school. Same goes for work.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#89

Post by DominikPeters »

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…

Airport security is very similar (if more efficient) in non-US airports, so rent seeking can't be the whole explanation. As far as I know, in most countries security is done by private contractors and not a government agency.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#90

Post by hkai »

ouroboros1 wrote: post #77
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…

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 wea…

If I didn't know whether I'll be born in the bottom 1% or top 1%, I'd still choose a society that incentivizes wealth creation. Poor people in those societies are the richest poor people in the world. They have more prospects, they have more rights and they have more access to the benefits of civilization like education or electricity than the societies that promote the idea of taking away someone's property and make it difficult to start businesses.
Post reply on HN