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

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: The self-made man

#71

Post by DamnYuppie »

radisb wrote: post #42
waterlesscloud wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You take Zuckerberg and leave him in the middle of the woods, and what happens? Does he still create wealth? If I were to bet on it, I'd bet very heavily on him creating wealth under those circumstances. As measured by creating a system for survival. Obviously not as well as someone trained in such things (as implied by your dodge), but better than someone who lacked his intelligence, and more importantly, his drive…

IMHO, it has nothing to do with importance or impact of the work one does. It has to do with the supply and demand: Even if we assume the irrational that e.g. a cleaner's work is 100x more important than Zuckerberg's work, the fact that for every Zuckerberg we can find much more than 100 cleaners means that a Zuckerberg is much more important than a cleaner, not that cleaning is more important or less important that…

I don't think there is a true scarcity of Zuckerberg's as every day I walk down the street and am amazed at the overwhelming mass of self important d-bags walking around....

All trolling and snark aside your comment is the antithesis of the point that many factors outside of the individual contribute to their success. If you believe that then the number of those individuals capable of similar success rises dramatically. Also those who clean and do "ordinary" jobs are people who are similarly shaped by many factors they don't control.

Also I am very certain that people would get by better without Facebook then they would with the lowly legions of those toiling away to keep the world merely "clean".

Re: The self-made man

#72

Post by mattchew »

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…

That understanding doesn't come from the people with guns. Else the US would not need to spend $billions on guns to fight the drug trade.

I don't say the folks with guns can't do constructive things to improve trade. They can. But they don't create that understanding you're talking about.

Re: The self-made man

#73

Post by rayiner »

mattchew wrote: post #72
rayiner wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That understanding doesn't come from the people with guns. Else the US would not need to spend $billions on guns to fight the drug trade. I don't say the folks with guns can't do constructive things to improve trade. They can. But they don't create that understanding you're talking about.

It absolutely does. Just look anywhere in the world where there isn't a government (or "dominant gang" if you want to call it that). Trade totally breaks down. In a world where there is no entity with guns to punish use of violence, its the game theoretic advantageous behavior. Not everyone will engage in it, and most won't, but enough will to cause the framework of trade to break down.

Re: The self-made man

#74

Post by ghostwriter »

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 of the bulb is the result of (and to the extend of) its internal design. Change the bulb to a cork and you'll never see the light, whatever wires and outlets you have for it.

Re: The self-made man

#75

Post by ancap »

rayiner wrote: post #73
mattchew wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That understanding doesn't come from the people with guns. Else the US would not need to spend $billions on guns to fight the drug trade. I don't say the folks with guns can't do constructive things to improve trade. They can. But they don't create that understanding you're talking about.

It absolutely does. Just look anywhere in the world where there isn't a government (or "dominant gang" if you want to call it that). Trade totally breaks down. In a world where there is no entity with guns to punish use of violence, its the game theoretic advantageous behavior. Not everyone will engage in it, and most won't, but enough will to cause the framework of trade to break down.

Underground black markets such as the Silk Road prove otherwise.

Re: The self-made man

#76

Post by rayiner »

ancap wrote: post #75
rayiner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely does. Just look anywhere in the world where there isn't a government (or "dominant gang" if you want to call it that). Trade totally breaks down. In a world where there is no entity with guns to punish use of violence, its the game theoretic advantageous behavior. Not everyone will engage in it, and most won't, but enough will to cause the framework of trade to break down.

Underground black markets such as the Silk Road prove otherwise.

You mean that network where the operator tried to call in an hit on people? Look at how many Bitcoin networks have been hacked (the digital equivalent of using violence). And in real world black markets, (think mafia), violence is rife (even in areas where the underlying transactions aren't illegal).

Re: The self-made man

#77

Post by ancap »

rayiner wrote: post #76
ancap wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Underground black markets such as the Silk Road prove otherwise.

You mean that network where the operator tried to call in an hit on people? Look at how many Bitcoin networks have been hacked (the digital equivalent of using violence). And in real world black markets, (think mafia), violence is rife (even in areas where the underlying transactions aren't illegal).

That's beside the point. You stated without government the "framework of trade [will] break down". On the contrary, even after scandals and shutdown markets, new markets pop up and, incredibly, people continue to use them.

As for Bitcoin networks being hacked that is a red herring as we often hear of non-black market sites being hacked--even with the all mighty government protection.

Re: The self-made man

#78

Post by mattchew »

rayiner wrote: post #73
mattchew wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That understanding doesn't come from the people with guns. Else the US would not need to spend $billions on guns to fight the drug trade. I don't say the folks with guns can't do constructive things to improve trade. They can. But they don't create that understanding you're talking about.

It absolutely does. Just look anywhere in the world where there isn't a government (or "dominant gang" if you want to call it that). Trade totally breaks down. In a world where there is no entity with guns to punish use of violence, its the game theoretic advantageous behavior. Not everyone will engage in it, and most won't, but enough will to cause the framework of trade to break down.

I've traded with people who I barely shared a language with. I could probably go buy weed today if I wanted to. I've watched thousands of dollars of business transacted in situations where enforcement of the deal was in practice impossible (offshore developers). Primitive societies without governments still understand and desire trade.

Again, the understanding you're talking about doesn't come from the sovereign.

Re: The self-made man

#79

Post by twoodfin »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #22
twoodfin wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile average mobility in the US continues to be worse than mobility in other countries. What's the best study you can find that demonstrates this? I haven't seen any that don't appear to succumb to the flaws I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, such as measuring relative mobility instead of absolute mobility.

We should probably define terms first. Which definitions of absolute and relative are you using? (There are a few, and they're not identical.)

I would define absolute income mobility in terms of some globally comparable good. Dollars, PPP adjusted or not, for example.

Relative mobility to me means mobility within some particular income distribution: Moving from, say, an average household income in the first quintile to an average household income in the fifth quintile.

I prefer absolute mobility as a measure of economic mobility for the same reason that any rational actor would prefer to win a lottery for the difference between the income of an average bottom 20% household and an average top 20% household in the U.S.[1] vs. Sweden[2]. According to OECD, that's $75K vs. $37K.

[1] http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/united-states/

[2] http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/sweden/

Re: The self-made man

#80

Post by justintocci »

yeah but I'm always struck by how many successful people started out through some criminal act. Andrew Carnegie apparently committed fraud to get his start. That was a new one to me.
Post reply on HN