Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#571

Post by slumpt_ » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

postingpals wrote: post #479

dang wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post snarky dismissals to HN. If you know more than others, the best way to respond is to share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. If you don't want to do that or don't have time, that's fine, but in that case please don't post. Letting the internet be wrong about everything is the primary survival skill we all have to work on anyhow. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=t…

Sorry, as you know it's a contentious issue and we get tired of repeating the same information. Then again, I'm sure you get tired of repeating yourself too.

Sometimes snarky dismissals are appropriate. Trying to hold everything to some academic standard of discourse is implausible when we have deliberate bad actors pushing disingenuous arguments that - by this standard - must be repetitively exhaustively deconstructed time and time again.

Expecting that is how you convince a large subset of folks to never bother with said deconstruction, and ultimately let bad ideas roam free and otherwise get adopted by impressionable / gullible minds.

Snark is there to suggest the reader go do their own research.

Re: Billionaires Build

#572

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #268

hh3k0 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Con…

> people like Jeff Bezos would have everything to their name seized by the state. ...everything? Also what does "people like Jeff Bezos" mean? Bald ones?

They're coming for the billionaires, and also for the bald.

Re: Billionaires Build

#573

Post by UK-Al05 » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #536

UK-Al05 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Because value and market price are separate things in marginalism. Using the rational model somebody will only purchase something when it's price is below how much the person values the object. It's related to consumer surplus. To make it measurable we use money as an approximate judge to work out much somebody values it. But the market price and how much somebody values something are different things in marg…

It may depend on who you talk to, but Isee much equivocation between concets of price and value, in both micra ('wealth creation" / 'wealth creator") and macro (GDP) domains. But yes, costs, price, and value are three distinct, though connected, concepts.

You have to understand most writing is aimed towards the layman, so they use market price as a proxy.

I hate the term wealth creator as well. But it certainly is possible to create to wealth. If you take things that people don't value that much, use them in a way to provide something that people do value. You have created wealth.

Re: Billionaires Build

#574

Post by mightybyte » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

somethoughts wrote: post #442

mightybyte wrote: post #385

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…

Yes - perhaps PG should have added qualifiers along the lines of "YC originated billionaires" versus attempting to cover all billionaires that have ever existed. It seems somewhat naive to say that every person with a billion in their bank account has built something and always is the best allocator of capital. Oil and Gas billionaires leverage the fact that society hasn't figured out how to factor in negative enviro…

> In general, leveraging technology capabilities seems less exploitive than leveraging human/environmental resources.

I see what you're getting at here, but I don't know that I completely buy it. Case in point: privacy. I guess it depends on how one defines exploitive.

Re: Billionaires Build

#575

Post by rufus_foreman » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:09 AM UTC

aerosmile wrote: post #558

quietbritishjim wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> However he does pay less taxes than his secretary > No, he does not. He claims he paid $1,850,000 in federal taxes in 2015, do you think his secretary earned that much, let alone paid that much in taxes? I think it was clear that they meant as a fraction of income, not as an absolute value.

The whole Buffett vs his secretary tax thing is just as misunderstood as the 1992 hot coffee lawsuit against McDonald's, which at the time was considered to be frivolous and a sign that the legal system in the US is broken. I recommend reading the actual facts behind this case [1] - it will make you appreciate our legal system. Similarly, the Buffett story can be traced back to an interview he gave in 2007 where he s…

>> the average tax rate of the employees in his office was 32.9%

In 2007, 33% didn't kick in until around $200K (married filing jointly) so not bad pay for Omaha.

>> But in reality he's just deflecting from other potential sources of taxes, such as taxing people on wealth vs on income (which someone in his wealth bracket can easily live without).

Given that he has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth either while he is still alive or when he dies, why do you think he is doing that?

Re: Billionaires Build

#576

Post by rrivers » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:10 AM UTC

Article also misses the additional aspect is that being a billionaire isn't just about the digits representing your fiat energy. It gives very small groups of individuals large swaths of control in entire verticals of society. A small group of unelected kings directing the energy, housing, food supplies, distribution, town square (etc.), needs of the rest.

It's a poor way of organizing a functioning and well integrated society. One that is only maintained by the continued purchasing of political power. It's an anti-democratic system where the primary distribution of power is determined by birth lottery.

We're in an era of our species and collective intelligence where we can imagine much better ways than this, but for many with that power their primary objective is keeping it.

Re: Billionaires Build

#577

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

mightybyte wrote: post #385

drewrv wrote: 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…

> 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…

OK, I'll step up and say it:

I have no idea what "leverage" means in this text. From context I can tell it's something bad.

I understand "leverage" in mechanics. I also understand that in "corporate-talk" it's just a synonym to "use".

Re: Billionaires Build

#578

Post by pdonis » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:13 AM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #472

imgabe wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That, however, is a strawman. Nobody suggests that at all. People who support more progressive taxation point to things like the New Deal and the strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure and education that propelled the United States forward. You're making that exact argument in fancier words. "strong progressive taxation coupled with public investment in infrastructure" implies…

Maybe the government has enough money, maybe it doesn't. It's the structural disparity that Jeff Bezos' wealth represents that is the problem. His wealth also gives him disproportionate power to shape the incentives of the government, the economy, and the media narrative. Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power. We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws.

> Taxation is the proper remedy for breaking this power.

No, it's one possible remedy, and historically it doesn't appear to have worked very well. The fundamental problem with taxation is that governments are even worse than individual billionaires like Jeff Bezos at choosing what to do with large amounts of money.

Another possible remedy is to reduce the power of governments, so there is less value to be captured by influencing them. IIRC pg recommended this fix in one of his (fairly early) essays.

> We won't know what's possible until we stop letting barons write the laws.

If you think taxation stops this from happening, I have some sad news for you.

Re: Billionaires Build

#579

Post by mightybyte » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:14 AM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #577

mightybyte wrote: post #385

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…

OK, I'll step up and say it: I have no idea what "leverage" means in this text. From context I can tell it's something bad. I understand "leverage" in mechanics. I also understand that in "corporate-talk" it's just a synonym to "use".

I'm using a generalization of the mechanics definition of "leverage" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever). A mechanism by which a small input can result in a larger output.

Re: Billionaires Build

#580

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 1:18 AM UTC

mightybyte wrote: post #579

BurningFrog wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll step up and say it: I have no idea what "leverage" means in this text. From context I can tell it's something bad. I understand "leverage" in mechanics. I also understand that in "corporate-talk" it's just a synonym to "use".

I'm using a generalization of the mechanics definition of "leverage" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever ). A mechanism by which a small input can result in a larger output.

OK. By that definition leverage is a wonderful thing everyone should use!