Live data from Hacker News

How to earn a billion dollars

paulgraham.com

441–450 of 1001 posts

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#441
post #124

She meant impossible in that one doesn't earn a billion dollars through work alone. The only way to get there is to set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market (usually by building a structure that's more efficient but also generates externalities that are not borne by the person getting the billion dollars). pg's reading of it is so blunt and misrepresentative that I'm nervous about what kind of…

Everything is extractive. Farmer plants seeds, partially sets the environment. The work is done by the seed/sun/soil/water. And so is every profession: labour or not. Most of the business are structured in such a way that someone can exploit them to make even more money. The whole vendors and b2b system is mutual extraction. Looking through wages and trying to find a ceiling(by time/effort) on the value creation by a…

Exactly. Just like the farmer, the billionaire harvests the labor of others, does not create the value themselves. That is AOCs entire point.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#442
post #124

She meant impossible in that one doesn't earn a billion dollars through work alone. The only way to get there is to set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market (usually by building a structure that's more efficient but also generates externalities that are not borne by the person getting the billion dollars). pg's reading of it is so blunt and misrepresentative that I'm nervous about what kind of…

This is what pg said she said: "What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad"

What you said she said: "The only way to get there is to set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market"

Extracting does, in fact, imply "something bad". To extract is to take something for yourself without adding value. That is bad. Your language implies that the people who make that sort of money do not add, which is what pg is trying to refute.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#443
> What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way.

She certainly frames it in a way that you have to personally cheat, or personally create the myth that you've earned it, or at least it can be interpreted that way. But I think it is the system itself that causes unearned[1] money to accumulate. Money begets power begets money, with or without any intention of the actors to exploit this is any bad way.

I don't think we know a better system, but I do think we can point to the level of wealth accumulation and say this is a bad property of this overall very good system, and we should try to do something about it.

[1] Or rather: Money to accumulate disproportionate to the earning. We can say that many billionaires have earned something very significant and ALSO say the accumulation is disproportionate to that, and that there is an opportunity here for improvement.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#444
As a committed market-socialist, the extent that the HN commentariat has turned into a reflexively nihilistic anti-free-enterprise is a fairly astonishing turn. It’s like my belief system turned into the maximally idiotic version of itself.

“Externality” is thrown about as a term almost completely disconnected from any economic grounding of the term. If you make externality mean “anything I find aesthetically displeasing”, then yeah, sure, billionaires create and benefit from externalities, if your aesthetic is egalitarian comity.

But if you mean “legitimate societal goals, legislated and agreed on by a representative body” are being violated left and right by billionaires, gimme a break.

Go ahead and tax capital gains way more. Ending the estate step up in basis sounds great. Break up the “borrow” part of buy-borrow-die, while you’re at it, and treat encumbrance on capital as a taxable event, we could probably make that work, too, although the middle class might foam at the mouth if that was applied broadly.

But, man. The cynicism, confiscatory and controlling instincts on display are enough to make me upgrade Ayn Rand from “hypocritical nut” to “maybe she was on to something when the general population gets tall poppy syndrome.”

Markets work. There are externalities, but we can, and should, legislate fixes for social goals that we actually agree on. But stiflingly heavy regulation is really bad for incentivizing creation of new knowledge and wealth. You can still believe in caring about people, and building (incentive aligned) social safety nets without destroying people’s incentive, and thus, because intellectual capital formation depends heavily on network effects, people’s ability, to create many kinds of value in the world.

Actual socialists recognize that capital is incredibly useful, and incredibly valuable. Leveraging capital is incredibly beneficial to the world. Pretending that the people leveraging that capital are somehow guilty of an original sin just by leveraging capital markets, which is really what these screeds against anyone holding controlling interests in companies they were instrumental in creating, seem to be about, leads down a terrible path.

Demonizing people creating things is petty and unbecoming for a political movement.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#445
post #181
post #124

She meant impossible in that one doesn't earn a billion dollars through work alone. The only way to get there is to set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market (usually by building a structure that's more efficient but also generates externalities that are not borne by the person getting the billion dollars). pg's reading of it is so blunt and misrepresentative that I'm nervous about what kind of…

I think there are many arguments against AOC's comments, but I agree that PG here is misrepresenting her point. I don't think anyone reading PG's blog is clueless about the power of compounding or the difference between salary and wealth through asset growth. Her point is essentially whether the entire capital system is "fair." And to be fair to PG I don't think AOC articulated a particularly strong point either.

This is a transcript to a speech originally made to students at Oxford, not to his blog readers.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#446
post #419

So who was the woman he mentioned growing her company at 93% a month?

Certainly not fictional. You just haven't heard of the company that doubled every month for a year, which obviously they did because why wouldn't you?

Personally I always choose to put the growth lever at 100% - it just makes sense.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the point, PG doesn’t actually engage with it. He just says “compound growth + build something that people love”. But the meat of the point is: if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years? Look, I’m a startup guy, I buy into the premise that it’s an intensely value-creating activity. But I think it’s self-defeating to pretend like the…

Perhaps you realize this, but the way the economy grows 2.5% is through lots of entities growing faster than that. Growth comes from innovation, and innovators get rewarded with faster growth as non-innovators decline.

> Growth comes from innovation...

I suppose it depends on how broadly you define "innovation".

Lots of companies grow because of, among other things: regulatory capture, regulatory arbitrage, questionable use of other people's IP, offshoring, misclassification of employees/contractors, profit shifting and transfer pricing, subsidized predatory below-cost pricing, dark patterns, aggressive collection and monetization of user data, acqui-hires to stifle competition, implementing high-switching costs to create vendor lock-in, round-tripping, channel-stuffing, business models that intentionally externalize costs, outright fraud.

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your phrase “extract” betrays a fundamental disagreement with what Paul is saying. (Externalities does so again) It assumes a zero-sum game where the job is to shift money from one person to another. Value, and thus money/wealth can be created. Literally. You are saying, in different words, that no one can do it “honestly”. He is saying one can.

Yes, and the art of this game is to extract value which you did not create. It may or may not come alongside creating value. Uber creates value in the form of an app marketplace for taxis, but it also pushes taxi wages down below the sustainability line without pushing prices down that far, and pockets the difference for itself. Apple made a cool phone that it sells for a high but fair price, but it also takes 30% of…

The word "create" is too fuzzy here. If the thing that your company is selling wouldn't exist if you hadn't started the company, did you not "create" it?

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the point, PG doesn’t actually engage with it. He just says “compound growth + build something that people love”. But the meat of the point is: if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years? Look, I’m a startup guy, I buy into the premise that it’s an intensely value-creating activity. But I think it’s self-defeating to pretend like the…

There are extremely good arguments for why the act of becoming and remaining a billionaire is immoral and bad alone, without any need for you to have directly wronged someone else. PG just completely misunderstands and hand-waves over this basic concept and makes the excuse that "hey we worked really hard and made an amazing product that people loved, we aren't harming anyone." For one thing, founders and employees d…

[dead]

Re: How to earn a billion dollars

#450

> She was getting richer at a stupendously rapid rate. And yet she hadn't been doing anything bad. The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built. So she could feel from her own experience how wrong that politician was. She wasn't exploiting anyone. I presume it's a company that just has co-founders then? Or everyone is getting an equal % of the share? In which case SHE's not…

Let’s not be silly. If there are 10 people each with 10% and the company grows by 93%, then everybody’s shares, including the founder’s, grows by 93%.
Post reply on HN