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

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#171

Post by DominikPeters »

danielheath wrote: post #125
DominikPeters wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IIRC, if you want to fly through US airspace (say, to land an international flight in the US), the airport you are leaving has to comply with US airport security rules, so the rules are pretty standard everywhere.

Major differences: no ID checks at security, and boarding passes aren’t scanned by humans in make-work jobs, no shoes to be taken off. If it was mostly the US imposing on the rest of the world, you would see separate security for US flights in airports whose layout allow it (and international flights to USA already have lots of annoying extras, like adversarial interviews at the gate (e.g. AA at LHR), and hand searches of cabin luggage).

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#172

Post by wyclif »

somewhereoutth wrote: post #70
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…

No. There is a large group of people who have some sort of understanding of what is going on, and what needs to be done. Unfortunately there is another large group of people who are not able to think as clearly. Large parts of East Asia are now virus free - I imagine they have more of the former group, or at least are better able to deal with the latter.

Writing from SE Asia at the moment. I think we need to recognise that it's not all down to understanding and education. A lot of it is complex cultural interaction and historical development. This is especially true when it comes to authoritarianism. A culture like Japan, Taiwan, or Mongolia is a lot more accepting and unquestioning when it comes to government dictates, unlike the USA or even the UK where people generally speaking don't like being told what to do. I do think that there are large groups of people who don't understand the consequences of going along with their cultural trajectory and can't see how "it's just the flu" or "masks are symbolic of submission" hurt them long term. They just reflexively react based on their cultural influences.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#173

Post by tim333 »

firebaze wrote: post #163
DominikPeters wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Flying within EU, the security theater boils down to restricting fluids to individually less than 100 ml in hand luggage, having all metallic stuff removed from your body as far as possible in order to be screened and maintaining a certain posture while being body-scanned. Occasionally your shoes will be scanned. That's it, at least from my (quite frequent within-EU flying experience) perspective.

And annoying though the liquids thing is I can see an argument if terrorist types are thinking nitroglycerin or anything along those lines. I'm glad they allow nail scissors again (in EU) - that was kind of dumb.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#174

Post by tim333 »

ghgdynb1 wrote: post #149
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,…

What do you mean he quite “literally” lives in an ivory tower?

I was going to say that seems unlikely. He appears to live in a old farmhouse.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#175

Post by tim333 »

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 seems to have moved on a bit from startup stuff. Looking at his essays the most recent startup one seems to be "default alive or default dead" Oct 2015 which is fine in itself but a while ago.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#176

Post by tim333 »

ywei3410 wrote: post #142
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…

> Wealth creation isn't zero-sum, just because someone builds a business and creates wealth doesn't mean they're taking it from others. It absolutely is zero sum - but not from the point of money, but from the point of view of another finite resource; human labour and talent. The fact that someone has more wealth than someone else means that the market will value their time/spend more than someone who is poor. Think…

>It absolutely is zero sum

So the humanity's wealth is the same as a million years ago? There seems to be more stuff now.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#177

Post by whiddershins »

maxfurman wrote: post #156
whiddershins wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. Where are deaths increasing?

Here in Philadelphia, cases and deaths are both spiking. Not as bad yet as the peak from April but the pandemic certainly is not past us.

I just looked it up and there were 4 deaths in all of Pennsylvania yesterday.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#178

Post by ywei3410 »

tim333 wrote: post #176
ywei3410 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wealth creation isn't zero-sum, just because someone builds a business and creates wealth doesn't mean they're taking it from others. It absolutely is zero sum - but not from the point of money, but from the point of view of another finite resource; human labour and talent. The fact that someone has more wealth than someone else means that the market will value their time/spend more than someone who is poor. Think…

>It absolutely is zero sum So the humanity's wealth is the same as a million years ago? There seems to be more stuff now.

I see you didn't bother to read past the first few words; but I'll be charitable and explain why this is _reducto ad absurdum_.

First, we're talking about capitalism as a economic system which has only been in place for ~200 years. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any capitalist which would give credit to capitalism before the birth of capitalism. If your critique is based on the fact that capitalism is a successful economic system and better than what came before it, I fail to see where I suggest the opposite view. To suggest it's the _best_ possible system is rather more difficult.

Second, wealth has no definition without some form of economic system. Is wealth the free time that someone has, the trinkets or baubles that someone owns or their lifespan? By all accounts capitalism has done wonders for the second and third measures of wealth (arguments that technology and scientific progress which capitalism doesn't tend to fund notwithstanding). The first I'm unsure about; census data only shows since the 1970's and of course we have the massive bump due to a doubling of the demographic who are working.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#179

Post by gonehome »

ywei3410 wrote: post #169
gonehome wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It absolutely is zero sum - but not from the point of money, but from the point of view of another finite resource; human labour and talent. I think your point is less about wealth creation, and more about access to capital and how that influences who can fund what work. It's a subtle distinction, but I think an important one - and yes you're right access to capital and how capital is allocated is zero sum and this…

> I think your point is less about wealth creation, and more about access to capital and how that influences who can fund what work. It's a subtle distinction, but I think an important one - and yes you're right access to capital and how capital is allocated is zero sum and this influences what work is done. I agree; I'm talking about the allocation of capital in a capitalist society; I'm effectively arguing that ine…

I appreciate the thoughtful back and forth - I also think we agree more than we disagree.

> "...given that the proposition is such a strong one the burden of proof is on the proposer"

I should clarify that I'm not arguing so much that capitalism is the best possible system that could exist and it's always worth thinking about ways things than can be better. There is a lot of evidence in favor of capitalism though compared to other systems that have existed, mostly in the amount of created wealth it has enabled via growth and the speed at which that improvement happened. Then looking at all of the societal metrics that have improved in that context (infant deaths, violent crime reduction, poverty, etc.)

It's the best structure I'm aware of and a lot of idealized proposals of alternatives fall flat.

The Stubborn Attachments book makes this argument in a way I found pretty convincing.

> "But where we disagree, possibly, is that money is the only driver which causes people to start companies. The IBD banker in your example, would start the company regardless of whether the payout was lower, but by implementing a wealth tax, maybe the we could give the opportunity to the teacher with the great idea about educational technology to create _their_ business and enrich society."

I think you can give this opportunity without a wealth tax and its associated negative incentives (I think these issues are unrelated). I also don't think money is the only driver, but you don't want to dis-incentivize growth when you don't have to.

Re: Interview with Paul Graham

#180

Post by Fnoord »

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.

Its our country, our world. You don't live on it alone; we live here together. People who are very rich don't earn proportionally on how hard they work. Its the people who earn very little who do the hard, tough labor.
Post reply on HN