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

241–250 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#241

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

It seems there's not even an glimmer of an understanding of even basic Marxist analysis here.

If you sell stuff or services to people, you have to pay for that stuff or services, unless you create them yourself out of thin air.

If you pay some people for stuff or services and then resell them to other people, you could:

  * sell them for less than you paid
  * sell them for whatever you paid
  * sell them for more than you paid
If you sell them for more than you paid, the question arises as to why anyone would pay you more when they could have paid someone else less. There are lots of possible answers:

   * you bought in bulk but will sell small
   * you did a bunch of work to make the stuff/services available
   * you did a bunch of work to find customers
   * you did a bunch of work transforming the inputs
So, the question about exploitation really comes down to: do you make more profit than can be justified by whatever work that you personally put in?

In the case of anyone who makes US$1B or more by selling stuff/services that other people produce, I think it's fairly clear most of the time that they have exploited those other people: that is, their profit (vastly) exceeds the value of the work they themselves did.

Re: Billionaires Build

#242

Post by klyrs »

johndevor wrote: post #171
rhizome wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With pittances. What is an example of even a $20 billion project by a private party? Elon Musk's current wealth could fund SpaceX for over 350 years. I have a favorite illustration of what just one billion dollars is: a million dollars per week for almost 20 years.

> With pittances. Bill Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth You don't know what Elon Musk will do with his wealth, but given his track record -- probably something good for humanity

Probably something good for technology. I haven't seen much to indicate a focus on "humanity"

Re: Billionaires Build

#243

Post by oblio »

dcolkitt wrote: post #233
chillwaves wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In aggregate, the 400 richest billionaires put together only constitutes 4% of the total wealth in America.[1][2] Even if you assume that power correlates perfectly with wealth, there's not really evidence that billionaires control anywhere near enough money to become a "permanent ruling class". [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/06/25/six-facts... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_…

Well, expand that category to include every billionaire and also everyone above 100 million, as an arbitrary figure that most people will never make throughout their lives. I imagine that percentage will go up immensely.

Re: Billionaires Build

#244

Post by coward8675309 »

tekdude wrote: post #207

I think one issue with this viewpoint is that while a successful company may be doing wonderful things for its users... not everyone is a user. Even the users themselves are not users 100% of the time. So, even if a company is not actively exploiting its workforce, customers, or suppliers, it might be exploiting its non-users without ever giving them much opportunity to object. Again, Airbnb is probably the best exam…

Airbnb is a great example: While I love the company's product — I've stayed at Airbnbs dozens of times — the company does generate negative externalities, and the company has done what I'd consider shady things (mostly astroturfing and other aggressive PR moves) to get itself past the profitability finish line. Once we get back to the world, I'll surely use Airbnb again, but I have a nuanced attitude about the the pros and cons of the company's offerings, both as a stayer and a citizen.

What PG doesn't address (which isn't his goal, so no dig intended) is a bigger issue than the immortal souls of founders and billionaires: Bad things happen just as often as a result of good people with good intentions as they do from the diabolical acts of sociopaths. That truth is equally under-appreciated by both American progressives and the well-meaning people who help create big problems even as they create joy for billions.

Re: Billionaires Build

#245

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

yetanothermonk wrote: post #208
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's an inevitable framing effect. There are lots of points I'd agree with if presented in isolation, and indeed PG has written solid essays before on the general topic of how destructive it is to say that business owners can only make money by exploiting others. But it's hard to talk about those things when the article explicitly builds towards a thesis that billionaires are great and all good YC founders…

One way I could hear people interpreting your comment--I agree on the framing point by the way, there's also external framing now with a hate-billionaires view--is that the steps to get to the thesis make sense but the thesis is not palatable. I'm not sure you'd agree with that interpretation of your comment; I'd love to hear what the problem is with that interpretation

I actually do agree with that interpretation. My beliefs ultimately imply that there's nothing wrong with being a billionaire, but that's not a conclusion I find palatable so it's not something I'm particularly interested in defending on its own merits.

I'd say it's like writing an argument to decrease penalties for shoplifting and titling it "Don't Punish Thieves". It's not wrong, but it's certainly not a productive way to frame the discussion.

Re: Billionaires Build

#246

Post by hh3k0 »

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?

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

I believe no individual has ever _earned_ a billion USD. If it were up to me, people like Jeff Bezos would have everything to their name seized by the state. It should be used for the benefit of the many -- and not a selected few. He'll be compensated with a trophy, though: "Congratulations, you won capitalism. Continue for New Game+."

Re: Billionaires Build

#247

Post by tylerhou »

loeg wrote: post #166
tylerhou wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When leftists say "exploit," it's because they regard paying workers less than the marginal value they produce with labor exploitative. (Cf. boss makes a dollar, I make a dime.) They claim that it's unfair that that product of labor goes to the company's owners — hence, to fix this, leftists want to "seize" or "democratize" the means of production. (Sitenote: this a core tenet of capitalism: value going to owners.) O…

This is a disingenuous strawman of "leftism." Not all lefties are communists.

Not sure if you're being serious, but assuming you are...

Nowhere did I state that all leftists are communists. In fact, seizing the means of production is also a socialist idea. One key difference between socialism and communism is that communism abolishes all private property in addition.

In leftist circles in the US, leftism colloquially refers to people who advocate for some form of social democracy, with most leftists supporting at least socialism. Those who support more center-left policies (like Keynesian economics and the welfare state, without advocating for socially democratic programs) are called "liberals," not leftists, despite the fact that they are left-leaning (in the US's sense of left-leaning).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/12/stop-calli...

> Moving left doesn’t necessarily make one “more liberal.” At a certain point, the traveler leaves the province of liberalism for one that is more correctly identified as socialism, radicalism or leftism.

https://theconversation.com/the-difference-between-left-and-...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/6xlxpa/whats_...

> Leftist: They believe the free market system is inherently flawed to favor the rich and powerful and believe that the government should either work within the framework of the market system but heavily regulate it and pay for more social services and welfare through higher taxation on the rich and corporations (social democracy) or abandon the free market all together in favor of socialism.

> Liberals are socially liberal and typically believe in democratic capitalism and the welfare state.

> Leftists typically believe in socialism and are against the ideas of capitalism.

Re: Billionaires Build

#248

Post by IanCal »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #228
chillwaves wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In good idle games they shift the goal once you hit more boring levels.

Stealing partly from someone else I can't find a reference for:

Ownership capped at 1 billion, you get a sticker saying "I won capitalism" and all further growth and income goes to the government for social programs. You get a new ticker that estimates lives saved and people homes/fed/educated - that becomes your new boasting figure.

Not entirely serious but extreme wealth should be considered a bug. Perhaps it's true that the best system overall always results in this but it's worth considering that it might not be.

Re: Billionaires Build

#249

Post by Siira »

Meekro wrote: post #85

Some of the most successful YC companies are: Stripe, Airbnb, Cruise, DoorDash, Coinbase, Instacart, Dropbox, Gusto, Reddit, and Gitlab. I guess DoorDash and Instacart are accused of participating in the exploitative gig economy. Airbnb is accused of circumventing hotel laws (is that exploitation?) The other 7 on my list are pretty okay though, right?

Most of the people I know here (in Iran, no AirBnB clone yet) rent personal houses when they travel. Some people (including myself) have enough money (and an aversion to risk) that we prefer hotels, but the vast majority don’t need what extra hotels offer and don’t want to pay for them. The extra expenses (here at least) are not explained by taxes (similar hotel offerings are around 5x the price).

Re: Billionaires Build

#250

Post by oblio »

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…

Yes. 1-2-3 generations, ok. 50? Definitely immoral. They'd be as remote to you as a random fisherman in Kamchatka. They should also make their own contributions to society.
Post reply on HN