Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

481–490 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#481
post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

There is not strong evidence that these feedback loops actually exist. Wealth is actually strongly mean-reverting along genetically heritable lines.

Re: Billionaires Build

#482
post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people Here's a slightly different take on this idea: The only way to become a billionaire is to use leverage. I think this is a much more defensible argument. You can't become a billionaire by yourself. You have to have some mechanism of leverage to magnify your impact. Hiring employees is a form of leverage. Using a computer is a form of leverage. Putting your…

You are turning a moral judgement ("exploiting") to a more mechanical expression ("using leverage"). For critics of billionaires, the moral judgement is the whole point. Whether the "billionaire problem" belongs in the moral realm or in the dispassionate realm of math or economics is an ideological choice.

For this (me) critic of billionaires (the possibility of being one, not the humans who are), it’s not ideological. It’s based on an analysis of leverage (like GP’s comment), where the levers are necessarily some mix of advantage/privilege (feedback loop as discussed all over) and exploitation (not solely as a moral issue, but that issue is inescapable). It’s impossible to be/become a millionaire without access to, and activating, those levers. I don’t care about the moral character of the humans this analysis addresses. I care about the opportunity and moral failure it imposes on others.

Re: Billionaires Build

#483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys acting like democratic government has not yet been invented. It's not like alternatives to billionaires owning the planet doesn't exist. Just America seems to be fairly resistant to the idea of public good. And the other consideration is how the money of billionaires is actively used to make everyone else's lives worse, either through manipulating markets and commodities, raising our rent, or literally pollu…

> No one yet has responded to me why it's such a great idea for billionaires to exist. I wonder if an argument could even be made that didn't even a personal fantasy/wish fulfillment scenario. K, here's one, whether or not you accept it. I don't think the world would have SpaceX or Tesla were it not for the existence of billionaires. Elon Musk already had a billion before founding/buying these companies. If he had "m…

When you say we would not have Tesla or SpaceX, do you just mean the brand? Or that we would not have reusable rockets and electric cars?

That seems unlikely, considering the USSR produced the space launches, and electric cars existed before Tesla. Without billionaires, you'd also lose the Koch's making it hard to move away from fossil fuels, which I think would make electric cars significantly easier, rather than harder

If you just mean that we won't have those brand names, should I care? It's just a name

Re: Billionaires Build

#484
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a weak straw man. There are people who say this: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/aoc-accuses-...

It's a real argument, depending on where you stand. To become a billionaire, one must be able to amass 10 thousand times more wealth than the median household in the US. To reach the lofty heights of Bill Gates et al. one must amass ~ 1 million times more wealth than the median US household. The reason why some believe that to be a billionaire is exploitative is that they believe this 4-6 order of magnitude disparity…

How would your comment read if you replaced the word “amass wealth” versus “create value”?

Re: Billionaires Build

#485

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?

No, if the kid wants to be a billionaire, they should build

Re: Billionaires Build

#486
More absolute garbage from latter-day Paul Graham which further confirms how profoundly out of touch he is with the current political discourse around wealth and inequality. He demonstrates a baffling level of ignorance concerning the actual criticisms at play.

> The ones who become really rich are the ones who keep working. And what makes them keep working is not just money. What keeps them working is the same thing that keeps anyone else working when they could stop if they wanted to: that there's nothing else they'd rather do.

Here he completely misses the point, which is that exploitation has very little to do with an individual's intention and everything to do with systemic dynamics and incentives in the way these companies operate. It was probably not Travis Kalanick's intention to exploit drivers, but Uber's business model incentivizes the company to pay drivers as little as possible, which they do. A similar dynamic plays out with nearly all capitalist enterprise, which makes the intentions of founders mostly irrelevant.

"Their exploitation usually begins with their own cofounders, which is disastrous, since the cofounders' relationship is the foundation of the company. Then it moves on to the user..."

At no point in this entire post does PG address what "exploitation" really means in the Marxist sense — Marxist economics being at the heart of most of discussions about wealth accumulation — which focuses on the exploitation of labor and the ways in which technology can enable or accelerate capital accumulation to the detriment of regular workers.

What's so startling about PG's posts on these subjects is how unseriously he takes the opposing view. He clearly hasn't done any work to understand people's concerns about income and wealth inequality (which is not just coming from "politicians" as he characterizes it). There are probably better arguments in favor of billionaires, but Graham doesn't know enough about the ideas he's arguing against to imagine them.

If this is the level of intellectual rigor governing Silicon Valley today, it's no wonder we keep seeing boondoggles like WeWork and Theranos propped up by silly investments. Disgraceful.

Re: Billionaires Build

#487
post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

That’s the equivalent of a solider claiming they were just following orders. The Doordash people don’t want to steal tips, but the law doesn’t punish them for doing so, and the people getting exploited are drinking lead water anyway.

Door dash didn't steal tips, they supplemented tips until they were pressured to stop.

Re: Billionaires Build

#488
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I was just responding to the question, whose posing is often used to suggest that the US is the best of all possible resource allocation worlds. I don't want to live under a regime like the CCP, but we did just run this experiment and the U.S. system of resource allocation failed miserably.

I don't think it's the best of all possible worlds, but it is better than some. Only a small percentage of billionaires do incredibly valuable things, but those who do are doing things that I can't imagine the US government of today ever doing. The US government would be having meetings to schedule the meeting to discuss the meeting schedule, or fighting over culture war issues.

Theres not that many billionaires, so I'm not sure how relevant percentages of billionaires is

Re: Billionaires Build

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about the feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty. The most uncomfortable one to talk about is basic social network effects. Two people meet at some prestigious college and get married - are we shocked they have children who are predisposed for success? Besides from having god-given IQ, they are likely some combination of ambitious, punctual, respectful of authority, long-term oriented, hard-…

In your explanation I see the feedback loop that makes it easier for you and your children to stay out of poverty if you're already successful. I don't see a feedback loop that makes it hard to escape poverty. Why did the high school dropouts drop out in the first place, and why does that make their kid more likely to drop out? Ideally their kid should still have access to public school education, with all the tools…

> I don't see a feedback loop that makes it hard to escape poverty

Really?

You’re 16 years old, you’ve a high IQ and a passion for programming.

Your parents are alcoholics. You don’t have nice clothes. You don’t have perfect manners because it’s just not the world you live in.

How do you get to the university admissions interview in the next town? How will you compete against the mannerly, well turned out student with no record of truancy. All you have is a high IQ and a passion. Will that cut it?

> incentives

Actors are sometimes irrational, you can’t rely on incentives.

Post reply on HN