Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The self-made man

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: The self-made man

#61

Post by calinet6 »

hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #52
calinet6 wrote: post #45

Aside from the political discussion bound to happen here, I was surprised and happy to see the story of Hilltop highlighted. I used to buy filet mignon there for $7 a pound back in 2009 when I was living in Chelsea, as a recent migrant from California. I was very sad when it closed, and never knew the story. It highlights a more general point: we, as humans, have a profound attribution bias. It's psychological. We te…

I think you're right, but it's equal parts being prepared to when the opportunity arise and purposefully putting yourself in situations that increase your odds. E.g., nobody ever got laid staying at home, no matter how pretty, nice, rich or lucky.

I'll repeat this again even though I posted it below, because the analogy is so applicable, and I like having thought of it so well:

A wire is connected to the electricity, which powers the bulb. The bulb cannot light without the electricity, and it cannot light without the wire. Is the success of the bulb attributable to the wire, or the outlet?

Re: The self-made man

#62

Post by watwut »

rayiner wrote: post #25
waterlesscloud wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only difference? If you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to survive from scratch, would you rather be with a group of attractive people or a group of smart people?

I'd rather be with a group of backwoods rednecks to be perfectly honest. But I digress. The economy isn't about heros fighting nature to save the day. Its about everyone working together to make an environment where creation is possible. You take Zuckerberg and leave him in the middle of the woods, and what happens? Does he still create wealth? No, he's useless without being plugged into the larger economy. That larg…

"You take Zuckerberg and leave him in the middle of the woods, and what happens? Does he still create wealth?"

I doubt that ability grow the company and be the CEO correlates much with the ability to hunt and kill an animal. Especially if we are talking about hunting in isolation, CEO skill is mainly in dealing with people and making strategy. If you drop someone alone in the middle of woods, he needs to be strong, fast and know a lot about nature. Otherwise said, Zuckenberg would do as good as any other random man.

Re: The self-made man

#63

Post by calinet6 »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #51
calinet6 wrote: post #45

Aside from the political discussion bound to happen here, I was surprised and happy to see the story of Hilltop highlighted. I used to buy filet mignon there for $7 a pound back in 2009 when I was living in Chelsea, as a recent migrant from California. I was very sad when it closed, and never knew the story. It highlights a more general point: we, as humans, have a profound attribution bias. It's psychological. We te…

> We would be a different kind of society were we to match our perception of success and failure with the reality of that success or failure. We don't have to give up our sense of individualism and the respect for personal growth and contribution; we just need to back it up with a recognition of the surrounding factors that are extremely real and highly influential on all our lives. I know we would be a better societ…

I agree, I too have seen signs of respect for externalities more and more. I think it's getting very difficult to ignore in light of the increasingly obvious wealth and opportunity gap in this country.

Re: The self-made man

#64

Post by watwut »

twoodfin wrote: post #18
watwut wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobility is about moving between classes of society. So, the society you just described would be rightfully described as having high social mobility. What it probably does not have is high average wealth.

So, the society you just described would be rightfully described as having high social mobility. But it would just be economic Brownian motion. Social mobility isn't (I hope!) valued because it shows that a society produces random outcomes, but rather that it enables people to achieve to the limit of their talents.

Social mobility is defined somehow and that somehow is not "the absolute total measure of fairness of any society". And speaking about virtually any country in the world, including North Korea, they all have lower class and upper class. Your worry about totally classless society is purely theoretical.

If we would live in classless society, social mobility would be less important measure.

Plus, you define achieving the limit of the talent in purely financial form. If I am genius mathematician, achieving limits of the talent mean doing great (potentially useful) math somewhere at the university. That does not translate to neither "high class" nor "rich".

Re: The self-made man

#65

Post by rayiner »

ancap wrote: post #53
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not agree with it, but its not arbitrary to say that the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do, rather than what you luck into. Its a distinction based on a well-defined criterion. I'm not really interested in discussing outliers like Michael Jordan, or tiny segments of the economy like sports or entertainment. I'm talking about how we distribute the proceeds of our industrial…

> the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do The economy is an inanimate abstract. It does not strive for anything. It is not interested in anyone's perception of what is fair any more than my phone is interested in vulgar language. The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". To try to force some idea of justice, morality,…

> The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y".

No. It consists of that against the background understanding that parties cannot say " well I don't want to pay y, so I will kill you and take x." And in every extant example of a sophisticated economy, that understanding is enforced by a government that has guns. One can imagine scenarios in which that "all-knowing third party" does not exist, but I imagine if it were such a good idea it'd exist somewhere.

Once the people come together to create that third party that has the guns that creates the background understandings that allow economies to exist, then they are entitled to say: "well what else do we want?"

Re: The self-made man

#66

Post by foolrush »

mcelroyian wrote: post #55
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not agree with it, but its not arbitrary to say that the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do, rather than what you luck into. Its a distinction based on a well-defined criterion. I'm not really interested in discussing outliers like Michael Jordan, or tiny segments of the economy like sports or entertainment. I'm talking about how we distribute the proceeds of our industrial…

I choose how wealth is distributed every time I make a purchase. As do you.

Except not quite.

The invisible forces at work here are in the nature of your “choices” and your agency to participate within that value system.

Few here may be able to participate in the distribution of wealth within the high end of the luxury car market via their purchases, and fewer still via their purchasing or selling of energy market entities.

Along this path, we can also be critical of the options available and the hegemonic / power forces at work that birthed them.

All in all, it is a questionable suggestion that buys into (no pun intended) a cascading wall of myth.

Re: The self-made man

#67

Post by hcarvalhoalves »

calinet6 wrote: post #61
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but it's equal parts being prepared to when the opportunity arise and purposefully putting yourself in situations that increase your odds. E.g., nobody ever got laid staying at home, no matter how pretty, nice, rich or lucky.

I'll repeat this again even though I posted it below, because the analogy is so applicable, and I like having thought of it so well: A wire is connected to the electricity, which powers the bulb. The bulb cannot light without the electricity, and it cannot light without the wire. Is the success of the bulb attributable to the wire, or the outlet?

The success is attributed to synergy :)

Re: The self-made man

#68

Post by nateabele »

> "Or is it more like a mass delusion keeping us from confronting the fact that poor Americans tend to remain poor Americans, regardless of how hard they work?"

The language used here is interesting. Wasn't the labor theory of value thrown out a while ago?

Re: The self-made man

#69

Post by ancap »

rayiner wrote: post #65
ancap wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the economy should strive to give people credit for what they choose to do The economy is an inanimate abstract. It does not strive for anything. It is not interested in anyone's perception of what is fair any more than my phone is interested in vulgar language. The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". To try to force some idea of justice, morality,…

> The economy consists of billions of individuals getting together and saying "I have x to offer, I want y". No. It consists of that against the background understanding that parties cannot say " well I don't want to pay y, so I will kill you and take x." And in every extant example of a sophisticated economy, that understanding is enforced by a government that has guns. One can imagine scenarios in which that "all-k…

> the people come together to create that third party that has the guns

Can you cite me one example of this happening?

Re: The self-made man

#70

Post by foolrush »

calinet6 wrote: post #61
hcarvalhoalves wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right, but it's equal parts being prepared to when the opportunity arise and purposefully putting yourself in situations that increase your odds. E.g., nobody ever got laid staying at home, no matter how pretty, nice, rich or lucky.

I'll repeat this again even though I posted it below, because the analogy is so applicable, and I like having thought of it so well: A wire is connected to the electricity, which powers the bulb. The bulb cannot light without the electricity, and it cannot light without the wire. Is the success of the bulb attributable to the wire, or the outlet?

A pleasant side effect of this analogy is that it calls into question the notion of “success”.

Framed ideology.

Post reply on HN