Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#221

Post by breck »

dustingetz wrote: post #29

Billionaire can also be framed as succeeding at creating a power differential at scale. The trick is that you can't achieve scale without using power differentials, and iphones are the fruit of scale. Idea: what you kind of want is for the power difference to decay at scale, so that way you don't have amazon workers pissing in water bottles. Remember: "Sufficiently Powerful Optimization Of Any Known Target Destroys A…

I think there's an important point here. Bill Gates wouldn't be a billionaire if he didn't build amazing things, but he also exploited at scale the unjust IP ("ImaginaryProperty") system, which was a critical part of achieving the scale Microsoft achieved.

Startups like Airbnb and Lyft likewise have built amazing things, and would easily make their founders 100' millionaires, but there is a point where to reach a certain level you need to leverage some flawed, unjust legal system at scale (stupid regulations around housing/hospitality/and taxis, in these examples).

None of these founders created these legal systems, but their rapid success and scale I can't see happening without those dumb legal environments they found when they started.

Now, maybe the best method to fix unjust laws is exactly this: when you see a stupid legal system, found a company to exploit it, become a billionaire and then finally society will take notice that the legal system is stupid and will fix it.

So I could see an argument that maybe not only should we not penalize billionaires who built their wealth from scratch, but we should thank them, like we thank white-hats, for identifying inequitable laws that they were able to leverage at scale.

Re: Billionaires Build

#222

Post by julienb_sea »

phnofive wrote: post #160

‘Make something people want’ is hard for me to understand - is this a fair expansion? Make something people want that can evolve into a commodity, ensure only the inventor can profit (e.g. with IP protections), and architect your business such that returns scale independently of operation costs.

Just because people want it doesn't mean it is a commodity or can be commoditized. We can argue that a social network is borderline commoditized, and yet the value of each network is defined by its user base and their commitment - not something that is a commodity in any imaginable sense.

Re: Billionaires Build

#223

Post by yetanothermonk »

dang wrote: post #195
yetanothermonk wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the heads up. The old title was also clickbaity but this new title is even more so. I wonder if even HN comment reactions are more towards the title vs the content.

I don't think the reactions are primarily to the title since the comments were much the same before the title changed.

Great point, you're right

Re: Billionaires Build

#224

Post by hnracer »

chillwaves wrote: post #212
austinpena wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

Do you believe in meritocracy? Because ownership of that amount of wealth is surely going to skew the entire system. How long before we just have a permanent ruling class, and how does that move humanity forward?

Familial wealth disperses and collapses pretty quickly, eventually being split up between 2 to the n heirs thereabouts.

Irrespective, the wealth is the property of an individual who earned that wealth through voluntary exchange. If they want to give it all to their kids, to a charitable cause, or just destroy it, that should be their right as owners of that property, it is not just for the state to steal that property because some people don't like it when the parent decides to give that wealth to the child. Focus taxation on things that harm an unwilling third party, not things that involve only two consenting parties where nobody is made worse off.

Re: Billionaires Build

#225

Post by austinpena »

lambda_obrien wrote: post #214
austinpena wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

If I had a billion pounds of rice, and millions of people were starving, would it be immoral for me to stockpile that so 50 generations of my family would be taken care of before the millions of starving people now? Edit: because i can't reply right now: I'm curious if a direct application of your question to something you need to survive would get a different answer. We think of money as something we can accumulate…

I’m not here to make a point. Just ask a question to hear other’s thoughts.

Re: Billionaires Build

#226

Post by Siira »

season2episode3 wrote: post #96
staunch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon didn't kill small businesses. We killed them by using Amazon. And I'm glad to have participated. I much prefer Amazon passing the savings of time and money to me rather than some small business owner. The small businesses I was forced to use previously were inefficient, slow, overcharging, had terrible customer service, exploited employees, etc. As an example: we killed tons of movie rental businesses by switc…

Small businesses are important for a whole host of intangible reasons. They provide dignified employment (as opposed to invisible work in a warehouse), they encourage entrepreneurship, they increase the tax base of a locality (by ensuring money stays within a local economy), and they contribute to local culture, community and character. Amazon killing small businesses has sucked even more of the life force out of sma…

I find all your reasons are either fluff, or just saying that small businesses are good for their owners. Economic efficiency is net positive, and people who aren’t small business owners benefit a lot from online, efficient shopping. If some segment of society needs charity, they need to convince either the gov or nonprofits to give them some money, not rent-seek on other people.

Re: Billionaires Build

#227

Post by austinpena »

chillwaves wrote: post #212
austinpena wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

Do you believe in meritocracy? Because ownership of that amount of wealth is surely going to skew the entire system. How long before we just have a permanent ruling class, and how does that move humanity forward?

Is your stance that wealth in the hands of billionaires tends to do less good to raise the “common good” than if it were to be distributed in some way?

If so, what kind of distribution do you think makes sense?

Re: Billionaires Build

#228

Post by lotsofpulp »

chillwaves wrote: post #211
RestlessMind wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing nugget which should be the context for any controversial discussion about "Billionaires". I have utmost respect for the former category, but I also believe that the later category should not exist (as in those people should exist but they should not have any unearned billions and all the unearned power and privileges that come with it).

Neither category should exist. The fact billionaires exist is an indictment against our system and how we allocate resources.

So what should happen to your assets when the total of their market capitalization crosses the $1B line?

Re: Billionaires Build

#229

Post by pwinnski »

austinpena wrote: post #206
RestlessMind wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing nugget which should be the context for any controversial discussion about "Billionaires". I have utmost respect for the former category, but I also believe that the later category should not exist (as in those people should exist but they should not have any unearned billions and all the unearned power and privileges that come with it).

You don’t believe that if someone makes billions they should be able to pass it on to their children?

In America, at least, we have historically rejected the idea of a hereditary monarchy.

Literally nobody is suggesting that the children of the wealthy should be penniless.

Post reply on HN