Earlier quoted context omitted.
His constant defense of high-risk startups also acts as a defense of his own wealth. If you can do it, and deserve wealth for succeeding, I must deserve my wealth for the companies I've founded. I'm not saying one shouldn't be rewarded for founding useful businesses. I'm saying there's a whole lot of mystification, self-mythmaking, and luck involved. For the average person, being born to a somewhat comfortable family…
pg has never cared about the average person. His thesis has always been that average people are bad and nerds should take over the world.
How People Get Rich Now
851–860 of 941 posts
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#852Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just dishonest -- it's gross. Paul needs to spend less time on yachts. Being a mouthpiece to try to find a morality in increasing income inequality, when so many are suffering, more each year, is simply vile.
> You would think, after having been on the side of labor in its fight with capital for almost two centuries, that the far left would be happy that labor has finally prevailed. But none of them seem to be. You can almost hear them saying "No, no, not that way." This line is particularly disgusting. Labor has not prevailed. Labor in fact has been crushed by deregulation, union busting, automation, and most importantly…
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#853Earlier quoted context omitted.
The book's central thesis is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny…
> 40hr per week income tax rates are very often higher than that. You do realize that the wealth tax is on top of the income tax, right? > It only mildly hurts the idle rich. And therefore there's no issue! Lol. I shared elsewhere that France tried the wealth tax and then killed it after 42k French millionaires left the country. Why would it work in the US when it didn't work in France and 8 other European countries?
It is not applying taxes on income. There is a separate tax for it - it is called income tax. A tax cut friendly premier repealing tax laws means nothing. France did not implode in the decades it had a wealth tax. Its not like the USA with a rapidly declining middle class is a fine counter example.
And why are you so hurt at the thought of a 20% tax on asset appreciation on the idle rich? No one really gives a shit.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#854Earlier quoted context omitted.
No billionaire is hiding his cash under a mattress. Investment assets typically compound at 4% above inflation with zero effort by the investor. Pg completely ignores the zero effort compounding of wealth and pretends that the investors wealth will be "reduced" by 45% and that too over 60 years! He forgets to state by how much the zero effort investors assets inflate exponentially in 60 years! If he thought he was ma…
> Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone. Nope, it wasn't. You do realize that the concept you're so stoked on was actually tested in Mr. Piketty's homeland and failed miserably? Oh, the irony! From NPR [0]: > Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an…
France did quite well in the decades it applied a wealth tax, irrespective of Macron's actions.
You seem to be obsessed with France. Have you considered Switzerland, one of the wealthiest countries with the highest standard of living and super high minimum wage.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/swiss-wea...
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#855Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 40hr per week income tax rates are very often higher than that. You do realize that the wealth tax is on top of the income tax, right? > It only mildly hurts the idle rich. And therefore there's no issue! Lol. I shared elsewhere that France tried the wealth tax and then killed it after 42k French millionaires left the country. Why would it work in the US when it didn't work in France and 8 other European countries?
You do realize that a wealth tax of 1% on 5% gain is basically a 20% tax on idle asset appreciation. American middle class pays 1% property tax on their primary asset without flinching. It is not applying taxes on income. There is a separate tax for it - it is called income tax. A tax cut friendly premier repealing tax laws means nothing. France did not implode in the decades it had a wealth tax. Its not like the USA…
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#856Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every time I read one of PG's posts, it seems like he's working from a narrative that he's trying to conform facts to. Indeed. Compare this gem from [1]: You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who wo…
I'm not seeing the issue with the except you posted. In context, it seems clear to me that those are all very back of the envelope estimations. Not everything needs to be backed by multiple citations to double blind trials; approximations can be quite useful. The point (IMO) is to take statements you strongly suspect to be true from personal experience (ex that a pointy-haired middle manager reduces your productivity…
However, VC's make money from a steady stream of disaffected engineers who are convinced that there is a better way - for a while, there is, until the same VCs ask the founders to step-up their administration-game, or they have to raise capital, or manage paperwork.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#857Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone. Nope, it wasn't. You do realize that the concept you're so stoked on was actually tested in Mr. Piketty's homeland and failed miserably? Oh, the irony! From NPR [0]: > Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an…
You do realize that using the phrase "you do realize" does not make your argument any stronger. France did quite well in the decades it applied a wealth tax, irrespective of Macron's actions. You seem to be obsessed with France. Have you considered Switzerland, one of the wealthiest countries with the highest standard of living and super high minimum wage. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/swiss-wea.…
Edit: seems like you added some more info to your comment. Ok, I'll bite. Nobody ever uses Switzerland in an apples to apples comparison with Western democracies because Switzerland employs bank secrecy laws that make it a crime to identify owners of bank accounts (which brings into question the legitimacy of much of the capital in those bank accounts). This is straight from Wikipedia [0]:
> Swiss banks have served as safe havens for the wealth of dictators, despots, mobsters, arms dealers, corrupt officials, and tax cheats of all kinds. In 2018, London-based Tax Justice Network ranks Switzerland's banking sector as the "most corrupt" in the world due to a large offshore banking industry and very strict secrecy laws. The ranking attempts to measure how much assistance the country's legal systems provide to money laundering, and to protecting corruptly obtained wealth.
Also, I mentioned elsewhere that a total of 9 countries in Europe implemented and then killed the wealth tax. This has nothing to do with just one politician in one country.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#858This essay feels really dishonest. It tries to simplify the vastly complex problem of income inequality, on which there is a sea of existing, detailed research, into a simple "it's easier to start companies now" argument. And it doesn't even explore that argument in that much depth. What about bottom incomes? Why have those barely increased in real terms in the last 30 years, while the top 1% of incomes has been shoo…
If I were to read an article " How seaweed is making the entire human race more productive"; one trying to reason why you should consume seaweed if you want to be more productive, penned by someone who actively owns portions of companies involved in growing, packaging, promoting and distributing seaweed, it would feel suspicious and distasteful.
This is in the same league.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#859Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It makes people uncomfortable to think that success is mostly a matter of luck. I constantly hear this sentiment and don't think it makes people uncomfortable at all. If anything it is the opposite, people cling to this idea to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own situation. What makes people far more uncomfortable is the nagging feeling that success isn't mostly a matter of luck. Success is a choice…
Yes, this is my point. You are the people who want to believe that all it takes to be comfortable in life is to “follow some basic rules.” Putting aside that the circumstances of your birth are already a huge matter of luck, I’ll point to the entire US working class and unemployed college graduates as evidence to the contrary. At some point those of us who have grown up in this economy stopped believing in fairy tale…
This is another one of those points that sounds superficially plausible on the surface but makes little sense once you think it through. The circumstances of my birth weren't a matter of luck. My (married) parents decided to have 4 children of which I was one. Before doing this they both finished high school, and stayed away from drugs. They also tried to live healthily etc (but certainly weren't monks). They weren't going to have sex and then a child might pop into existence in Uganda. The only way the whole "your birth was luck" thing makes any sense is if you perceive yourself to be an atomised individual with no deeper ties to the family you came from or the choices that were made by your ancestors who preceded you.
Like I said, people are EXTREMELY comfortable with the handwaving of "it's all luck anyway". They won't even take responsibility for themselves and their own lives, so asking them to also feel responsibility to their children/grandchildren/descendants is even more of a foreign concept.
As for "I'm not looking down on my underemployed peers as inferior beings for their struggles" those are your words, not mine. I certainly don't look down on my struggling friends/family either, but I am also not going to withhold judging them based on the actions they take. Because very often they also KNOW they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but choose to do it anyway.
Weakness corrupts as much as power, and it is wise not to forget that.
Re: How People Get Rich Now
#860Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the comparison, but the FSF can exist without RMS. PG on the other hand solely supports HN, I doubt he would continue to pay for a site that vilified him.
This site is mainly supported by its volunteer moderators. I doubt it cost more than a few thousand a year at most to run. So the fact that PG pays for it doesn't mean much. If the community decided to no longer be under his care, they could easily find a replacement model or benefactor and they're more than capable to arrange such an uprising/migration.