Live data from Hacker News

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

901–910 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#901
post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese government is a horrible, authoritarian nightmare, but still somehow does better at managing the country's resources than the American ruling class. The pandemic, now over in China, while our nurses tape garbage bags to themselves as thousands die daily, has proven that definitively.

Australia and NZ are dont have an authoritarian govt but still managed to get the pandemic under control.

> Australia and NZ are dont have an authoritarian govt

a lot of people would disagree here, see the (correct, based) coup of the aus govt over the judiciary allowing them to at will deport migrants, or the controls on going outside in australia

Re: Billionaires Build

#902

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, just because someone squanders an advantage doesn't mean that one didn't have an advantage to begin with. And that's the fundamental difference between the child of a musician v. the child of a billionaire. In order for the musicians' child to be a prodigy like one's parent, there's still considerable training and practice required. In order for the billionaire's child to be a billionaire like one's parent, t…

> That is: the passing down of musical aptitude through multiple generations requires each generation to put in approximately the same labor as the previous. Let’s think on that a bit. Consider, if a parent is a musical prodigy, it’s akin to having a fantastic coach at an early age. They can teach you hard-earned insights, help you make the right choices, introduce you to the right people. This makes achievement cons…

> if a parent is a musical prodigy, it’s akin to having a fantastic coach at an early age.

...not really. Take it from a musician: performance ability and teaching ability are not as interconnected as you're implying.

And on top of that, even a fantastic coach can't really do much if the one being "coached" has no interest in learning something, or in practicing what one learned.

> As long we live in a free-market society

We don't, and arguably never have. A free market is pretty difficult to achieve when you have existing players motivated to hold onto that wealth and prevent competitors from unseating it.

> social mobility in and out of the upper class is extremely difficult there.

You think it's significantly easier here? Especially with wages tanking relative to cost of living for all but the upper class, I don't see this fixing itself any time soon without one heck of a course correction. We ain't that far off from a European-style regulated society (and indeed, political discourse in the US seems to be pushing for it).

Re: Billionaires Build

#903
post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investing well is a worse strategy that investing long. Doing a real low percent gain for 500 years is going to be more predictable than investing well over 5 years

My meaning "investing well", was similar to your meaning of "investing long". I don't meant investing well in the short term. Even a low percent gain over the long term is very, very difficult. You can tell this by noting how much endowment managers get paid.

> Even a low percent gain over the long term is very, very difficult.

In the words of those Screen Rants pitch meeting skits: "It'll be easy, barely an inconvenience!"

The easiest and most surefire form of investment out there is in land. There's a finite amount of it, so while on local scales values will fluctuate, on an aggregate scale the value of one's total land holdings will increase indefinitely as demand increases (which it will, both from a growing global population and a growing global economy). Land ain't especially liquid, but on long-term scales that ain't really a problem.

Until we as a society pull some moves out of the Georgist playbook and tax land value, the rich will always be motivated to consolidate that wealth into land control, and will be able to hold onto that wealth at the expense of everyone else.

Re: Billionaires Build

#904

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

> Bill Gates is giving away the vast majority of his wealth

That's a tax-avoidance scheme. Here's a recent (and certainly not the first) article laying it out:

https://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/bill-gates-promised-to-gi...

> You don't know what Elon Musk will do with his wealth

I think we both know that whatever it is, first and foremost it'll be good for Elon Musk.

Re: Billionaires Build

#905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fitting slavery into "A mechanism by which a small input can result in a larger output" feels like a stretch. But I agree that there is moral and amoral leverage. I of course only love the moral kind.

The problem with this definition is that slave owners didn't think that there was anything morally wrong with owning slaves. If they objected to slavery then why would they keep their slaves?

>why would they keep their slaves?

Same reason they might get them to start out?

Wall Street originally was built to trade shares in corporate plantations.

Many plantations did not get going with ethnicity-based slave labor, it was voluntary indenturement as a result of extreme inequality relative to the royal shareholders of these non-free-enterprise corporations, i.e. economic slavery as a foundation for the lowest-class labor force to begin with.

It's a slippery slope from there, keeping them down on the farm.

Don't forget the American colonies were founded by (royal) multinational corporations for the benefit of multinational corporations.

But B.Franklin and those guys came along and wanted independent non-royal corporations, and the next thing you know, it's the USA on the Eastern Seaboard with its well-developed ports and united plantations.

And they were trading shares right there in Manhattan, on that previously underutilized street with the characteristic old wall.

Otherwise not much had changed from how they did it in London, or it would have been an even more difficult transition.

Imagine what it was like under bondage when a downturn or business model failure pressured a worker to tend 5 acres instead of 2. When 2 was already quite tiring and not very rewarding.

And with the shareholders up on Wall Street having financial control, when the market comes back nicely the shareholders recover even more nicely if little or none of the prosperity is intentionally returned to the now much-more-productive & hard-working laborers.

Simply because the system is made to extract from bonded laborers, and they are the lowest-hanging fruit when shareholder returns need to be maintained during a downturn.

Wall Street volatility gives some of them the chance to rinse and repeat each time before their big wigs get repowdering.

For real major upsets or windfalls the banks can go further and adjust the terms on their notes to most strongly leverage the situation.

The mint can change the value of its legal tender notes in response too, so far only periodic devaluation for the dollar, no two-for-one splits in your favor or anything like that for you wage-earners even in the best of times.

If every citizen were generously issued two new dollars for every old dollar you had in liquid cash at the time, you can expect to continue working for the same dollar pay as before and have the same debt payments to minimize upset, but who would benefit most anyway?

Don't even think about a reverse split which is severely in your disfavor by comparison.

Better get accustommed to what a dollar won't buy any more now, a change in value either way and you'll be worse off.

Turns out dilution of certificates is the most effective if not expedient way to overcome liberty & justice for all.

If you're going to be a billionaire anyway, build something with real value added that's more than worth it for as many people as possible, with enough success to completely commit to avoiding significant negative consequences.

That's what billionaires are supposed to be there for.

None of that fake stuff.

Gag me with a silver spoon if you can't build anything real of widespread benefit, plus avoid negative outcomes with all that money.

Something that would help would be more benevolent billionaires willing to pay whatever it takes to bypass our current crooked political parties. There simply still exists the same need to admit only the most ethical to Washington (or preferably a new capitol) before Wall Street can be expected to deviate from the plantation model these parties sustain.

Looks to me like pg has built YC to be more worthwhile than not, even if every company has not created value itself.

One measure of success is the increased number of opportunites for upcoming entrepreneurs to have an open-ended upside if they are ambitious and can build a scalable system.

Often this can be leveraged to exponential growth by wise application of capital, without the need for involvement of destructive greed of any kind.

Depending on where in the food chain the food for growth comes from, some businesspeople are bound to make better billionaires than others, especially if they can avoid harmful wealth extraction from the most vulnerable workers and populations, and substitute responsible value creation with resulting widespread prosperity instead.

Works best when you build something people really want and always give them more than their money's worth.

Re: Billionaires Build

#907
post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were familiar with the data, you wouldn't make statements like that, because heritability of intelligence is largely the same across all population studied so far, and universally high. There are exceptions, e.g. Scarr-Rowe effect is most likely real, but it only seems to work on very low end of SES range, which is virtually unseen in today's America, even at the lowest end of what counts as poverty.

Via what mechanism are we testing? Did we send some kids through a good upbringing and some to a bad one in a randomized controlled way, or did we just take a survey and assume intelligence was passed down through genealogy instead of upbringing?

Through foster children, and measuring whether their IQs are ultimately more correlated with their foster family or genetic family.

Re: Billionaires Build

#908

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a straw man, it is an extremely common belief and it deserves to be addressed and debunked. My social media is stuffed to the brim with people posting exactly this sentiment. It is true that there are other, more reasonable beliefs.

I think Paul is fundamentally not understanding the argument behind “billionaires exploit workers.” It isn’t that billionaires are fundamentally bad people or that they’ve accumulated their wealth through misdeeds. But what it is is that it’s basically impossible to accumulate that amount of wealth through work. Instead, you have to be able to capture the difference between the value of someone else’s work and what y…

Say an engineer is working on Google’s ad platform. In an alternate universe, he is working at Bing, producing code of identical quality. The economic outcome of this identical unit of labor output is dramatically different.

That difference is attributed to the company, not the laborer. Now whether that is because of “monopolistic forces” or because the company is truly “better managed” is up for debate.

So just because your labor is worth $X to your employer doesn’t mean all of it can be attributed to you. It would be inaccurate to believe that they owe you exactly $X, and anything less would be exploitation.

Re: Billionaires Build

#909

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a weird concept of "thievery". If someone's prices are too high, don't hire them. If somebody doesn't pay enough, don't work for them. If you think they are skimming money, then there has to be a way to offer the same services cheaper (without the skimming). So instead of complaining, do it. What's your excuse?

>If you think they are skimming money, then there has to be a way to offer the same services cheaper (without the skimming). So instead of complaining, do it. What's your excuse? What if they are skimming money precisely because they made it difficult to offer the same services cheaper?

How would "they" make it difficult to offer the same services cheaper?

The only institution that can do that is government via regulations (like who can practice law or become a dentist). I agree that there are some (many?) fishy regulations like that. But that is on the government, that is, socialism. Only free markets can guarantee fair prices.

Re: Billionaires Build

#910
post #151

It’s so strange the YC comments and some Twitter comments are so focused on the billionaire part. The real part is to deeply understand your users, no? And the focus on YC interviews is reminiscent of media is the massage—-the hubbub places YC as a thing to pass but if you understand your users deeply, you won’t even need YC. In a way all the YC interview prep stuff is written for the wrong people (for YC, and this i…

I felt the same way but pg has since changed the title from "What You Can Learn from How to Ace a YC Interview" to "Billionaires Build" so he obviously wants to emphasize that aspect.

I feel obliged to contextualize "Billionaires Build" on behalf of the unaware.

Marc Andreesen published an essay "It's Time to Build" [0]. He claims that ostensibly, COVID-19 inflicted acute trauma on the U.S. economy. But it merely excaberated the symptoms of a deeper dysfuntion. The root problem is the cultural decay of "a will to build". The solution is to rekindle this norm.

Several have published their own takes [1]. pg must have figured "What you can Learn from How to Ace a YC Interview" conveniently dovetails into the larger debate. Had he written the essay in a vacuum, I suspect he'd have emphasized "sell users what they want". Rather than the grand narrative "civilization is built by founders" which might increase exposure but possibly dilute the original intent.

[0] https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/

[1] https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2020/06/on-cultures-that...

Post reply on HN