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

131–140 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#131

Post by janhenr »

darkerside wrote: post #117
ghufran_syed wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm happy to present one as an example. If be happy to continue discussing it past that as well, as long as you are willing to converse and not argue. Wealth in the hands of a few becomes static. Jeff Bezos can only buy so many jets. When you leave it there, the entire economy stagnates.

As most of Bezos' fortune is in Amazon stock, this money is not exactly sleeping.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#132

Post by abvdasker »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #97
darkerside wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There were multiple prominent politicians with serious wealth tax proposals running in the 2020 Democratic Party primary. If you want implementation details I would suggest that you read their proposals.

As for an "argument" it's really no different than any other political position in that it boils down mainly to what you personally value.

I've observed at least two distinct value systems which can both lead to supporting a wealth tax.

1) Maybe you believe in helping the marginalized and creating a more equitable society. Perhaps you believe it is insane and obscene that multi-millionaires and billionaires walk past tent cities of homeless people every day in the streets of San Francisco. Maybe you care about the well-being of other people and recognize that what is good for them is usually good for yourself.

2) Or maybe you believe that tax policy should optimize efficiency as a facilitator of economic growth. You recognize that the diminishing marginal utility of wealth and the runaway inequality in America presents a problem of inadequate aggregate demand and threatens the entire economy. Maybe you've done the math and realize that the US government must raise revenues to have any hope of staving off an eventual sovereign debt crisis.

From what I've seen, the people opposed to a wealth tax usually believe something else.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#133

Post by [deleted] »

darkerside wrote: post #117
ghufran_syed wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm happy to present one as an example. If be happy to continue discussing it past that as well, as long as you are willing to converse and not argue. Wealth in the hands of a few becomes static. Jeff Bezos can only buy so many jets. When you leave it there, the entire economy stagnates.

[deleted]

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#134

Post by marvin »

gonehome wrote: post #28
john-shaffer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Bingo. The world is more polarized now, and PG’s classic essays would get the same treatment if published today.

Those who don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to the politics they seem to imply, aren’t as loud as those who have to disagree.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#135

Post by WalterBright »

dhbradshaw wrote: post #102
WalterBright wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something made our society irrationally risk-averse Our brains are finely tuned to detect danger. If there isn't any danger, danger will be exaggerated or simply invented. Our society has been very successful at eliminating all sorts of dangers, hence the irrational view of the remaining risk today.

I think this is insightful. Interestingly, in an immunology class I just took, the instructor suggested that allergies come from our immune system doing the same thing. If the environment is too sterile, it will come up with things to worry about even if the danger isn't really there.

That's what the doc told me, too.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#136

Post by tasogare »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #108
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…

I fail to see how this is "health theater", especially mask mandates, which show high effectiveness and relatively low imposition on personal freedoms, considering the pandemic is currently ongoing .

The pandemic has stopped. Sure, there are more and more infected people, yet the hospital admissions are stale. It’s really hard to understand why governments that first reacted like there was no problem when the situation emerged and the virus was totally unknown are now acting like it’s a deadly threat when the data clearly shows it’s only a real issue in aged population. Sure taking precautions is good, imposing authoritarian sanitary rules is not.

At least in France the situation is clearly being used to control opposition, which was strong before the pandemic since the government tried to push a lot of economic reforms. Now, the economy was purposely destroyed there, so harsher reforms will be imposed and people will be really angry when they’ll discover the lockdown was not needed (for the record, I live in Japan where there was no lockdown and things went totally fine). The sanitary rules will be used to control those revolts too. The fact it is a political only move was made super clear when the government allowed huge demonstrations that mimicried BLM in June.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#137

Post by armansu »

"There is one though that I regret rejecting because it was an idea I'd always wanted to fund. I'd been looking for this company for years, and finally it showed up".

Out of curiosity: any guesses what this company might be?

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#138

Post by neilv »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #120
throwaway713 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Some are. Most were nice. Some do that as a way of seeing whether a founder will get discouraged; if you know your idea will work, it’s easy to respond “Actually, that isn’t a problem anymore because X.” That tends to perk up the ears of VCs, since old ideas are bad until they’re suddenly very good.

If the intent is to test for resilience (not getting discouraged by setbacks) or for technical savvy (being able to debate the merits of the approach knowledgeably, and able to refine/pivot when problems with it encountered), I don't understand introducing the variable of rudeness.

If A being rude to B, there's a good chance B will walk away, even if B could argue their point.

If the situation is such that B can't walk away -- meaning that A has power over B -- then A being rude in that context is not only unpleasant, but possibly also an abuse of power by A.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#139

Post by sillysaurusx »

neilv wrote: post #138
sillysaurusx wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some are. Most were nice. Some do that as a way of seeing whether a founder will get discouraged; if you know your idea will work, it’s easy to respond “Actually, that isn’t a problem anymore because X.” That tends to perk up the ears of VCs, since old ideas are bad until they’re suddenly very good.

If the intent is to test for resilience (not getting discouraged by setbacks) or for technical savvy (being able to debate the merits of the approach knowledgeably, and able to refine/pivot when problems with it encountered), I don't understand introducing the variable of rudeness. If A being rude to B, there's a good chance B will walk away, even if B could argue their point. If the situation is such that B can't wa…

To be clear, you’re absolutely right about the rudeness. But it happened to me, when sama referred me to a VC. They were extremely nice in how they said “but that probably won’t work because X,” and I was too young to recognize that they were probing for determination. Nowadays I’d chuckle and say nah, that’s not the problem because x; y is the issue, but we address that with z.

(Only if it’s true though! A surprising number of founders try to BS their way, which is always a mistake.)

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#140

Post by hkai »

MaysonL wrote: post #127
hkai wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Name one, please. EDIT to add: with a link or screenshot.

Have you read any news recently?

CNN:

"A whole generation wiped out"

"China still vulnerable to deadly second wave"

"Covid-19 tests could encourage workers to play Russian roulette"

"Stories of discarded bodies reveal a city totally overwhelmed by covid-19"

"Coronavirus may lurk deep in lungs after patients recover"

"Nearly all patients put on ventilators died"

"Welcome to the house of horror"

"Covid-19 causes sudden strokes in young adults"

Post reply on HN