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

91–100 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#91

Post by CPLX »

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…

It is worth noting that there has been a 40+ history of organized terrorism against commercial aviation with dozens of fatal attacks.

It’s essentially a law enforcement problem. I agree liquid rules are ludicrous but the current situation didn’t happen overnight, and also it’s not that similar to an infectious disease threat.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#92

Post by hkai »

specialist wrote: post #87
hkai wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Unless the IFR of covid is shown to be significantly higher than other common diseases that we accept and don't fight by locking down cities, it doesn't seem that any major, world-shattering intervention is needed.

Please wash your hands for 20 seconds though, and don't come to the office if you're sick.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#93

Post by ouroboros1 »

hkai wrote: post #90
ouroboros1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wealth taxes are common in Europe. But not in Africa.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#94

Post by bpodgursky »

BrianOnHN wrote: post #33

Once upon a time I saw pg as a guy that was leveling the playing field, and I think he succeeded because of that. As another comment pointed out, concerning his writing about the wealth tax, I think he's lost sight of the fact that's there's more wealth to be created that's outside the scope of what the wealth advisors for the uber-wealthy are familiar with.

I don't think you can expect anyone in the startup scene to support a plan which forces founders to give up equity.

His objection wasn't about taxation as a concept, it was about a wealth tax on stock assets, which definitionally requires founders to give up control of their company as they liquidate shares to pay taxes.

Not really sure how you extrapolate "there's more wealth to be created that's outside the scope of what the wealth advisors..." from that. His opinion is that it would sabatoge the wealth-creation mechanism he knows and has built.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#95

Post by throwaway713 »

Swizec wrote: post #72
sillysaurusx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

> he just turned around and walked away

> You’re an idiot

That seems awfully rude of them. They don't sound like very pleasant people.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#96

Post by brian_foxx »

I never got the after popularity that this guy enjoyed after his major accomplishments. Look, Marrying your intern is one thing, but some of his more recent views are reflective of senility as one of my friends put it.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#97

Post by ghufran_syed »

darkerside wrote: post #78
ghufran_syed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

I think it's an accurate summary of the arguments in favor of a wealth tax. But I would really like to hear if there are other arguments that can't be characterized that way. But it's hard to be persuaded when no-one actually presents the argument, and instead just criticizes the tone.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#98

Post by marcinzm »

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…

>We're better off with policy that limits how wealth can be leveraged into political power

Has there ever been a case in history where a society has successfully limited the political impact with those of disproportionately immense wealth?

edit: >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:

I'd prefer to be an average or below person in most of Europe (free healthcare, free education, 6 weeks of paid vacation, various other benefits, low crime, etc.) rather than America. Yet America values growth a lot more than Europe.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#99

Post by marcinzm »

hkai wrote: post #90
ouroboros1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Poor people in those societies are the richest poor people in the world.

I suspect the average poor person in much of Europe is much better off than the average poor person in America. Yet Europe incentives wealth creation a lot less than America.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#100

Post by marcinzm »

felipemnoa wrote: post #82
ouroboros1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Money is a societal construct and as such it belongs to exactly the person society says it belongs to. That may not be the billionaire depending on the society.
Post reply on HN