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

The Ponzi Career

drorpoleg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 310 posts

Re: The Ponzi Career

#151

Post by 0x4d464d48 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #125
0x4d464d48 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We agree that its wealth redistribution by anyother name. Certainly. The difference is that taxing is done in the name of public/government interest whereas profit sharing is done in the name of private/individual interest.

what i am trying to say is that if a government supplied sufficient upfront investment in education (which is basically what's going on here) then no student would have an incentive to add an additional lieu on their future earnings. and governments should see education if their citizens as an investment repayable through future taxes

Functionally, sure. Im totally on board with that and think its both practical and noble.

What Im saying is that although taxation and dividend distribution are both wealth redistribution from an individual/entity with capital they are different in wthe underlying reasons for why they are done and who the intended beneficiaries are.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#152

Post by bradleyjg »

t0mas88 wrote: post #143
bradleyjg wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in the version that existed in early America indentured servitude allowed for coercion and there was no bankruptcy option. Whereas in modern law specific performance for personal service contracts are strictly forbidden and bankruptcy is out there.

But student loans are exempt from bankruptcy, so in a way that particular investment in future earnings is a bit outside the modern protections.

The grandparent’s post “this” referred to the personal equity proposal, not students loans.

That said:

- I agree that student loans ought to be dischargable in bankruptcy (indeed I think the government should have nothing to do or say with them at all)

- I still don’t think they are reasonably referred to as “literally indentured servitude”, though one step closer

Re: The Ponzi Career

#153

Post by SergeAx »

> these [blockchain issued] tokens are not simply "certificates of ownership"; they can be pre-programmed to behave in a certain way (for example, pay a dividend each time a predefined event happens)

For this to happen the blockchain gotta have a way to sync with events in the physical world. Moreover, all active blockchain nodes should have equal access to this data and get equal result at given time. This mechanism cannot be enforced by blockchain itself, so we are back to the issue of trust.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#154

Post by SergeAx »

xur17 wrote: post #127
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #10

It’s just more top signals. There’s too much money floating around if people want to invest in nonsense like this. When equities correct from the current Shiller PE ratio higher than 1929 I think you will find less people want to invest in a career token for someone. https://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe The Bowie Bond part of the post was fascinating by the way. Had never heard that story. He issued them in 1997 which i…

I agree that there's a ton of money floating around / frothiness, but what's inherently wrong or ill-advised about investing in future cashflows of a person. Assuming you diversify across a bunch of people in a bunch of fields, this actually sounds better than some of the stuff people are investing in in the stock market.

Because having a share in an individual sounds very much like slavery?

Re: The Ponzi Career

#155

Post by hug »

ghufran_syed wrote: post #117
cassepipe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not really sure of what it is you call honor though. To me it is a word whose meaning I don't really understand whose main purpose seems to justify leaders in sending people to their death at war and by men to justify murdering women/other men. It is at best anachronic, at worst dangerous. (Of course I am not accusing you of promoting murder but that's a word that has a sad history and I hope we get rid of it in…

I personally like this definition, from one of Lois Mcmaster Bujold’s books: “ Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself.... The friction tends to arise when the two are not the same....There is no more hollow feeling than to stand with your honor shattered at your feet while soaring public reputation wraps you in rewards. That's soul destroying. The other way around is mer…

Say, what is honor? 'T is the finest sense

Of justice which the human mind can frame,

Intent each lurking frailty to disclaim,

And guard the way of life from all offense

Suffered or done.

-

Wordsworth.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#156

Post by awillen »

LB232323 wrote: post #35
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #13

I enjoyed the piece. Personally, I want no part of it, but I think it might work well for people who are not me. I've always been "on my own." My life really is a series of watersheds, where I've been the only person to believe in me, before the event, and a whole bunch of folks seemed to believe in me, after the fact. Not a particularly good setup for selling "Chris-Tokens™." Not a bad thing, in the long run. It hur…

It's not a character flaw or lack of skills in not being able to "sell yourself". It's a sense of dignity and pride as a working person. You are not a commodity, you are a human being. You may look like a commodity to a business owner, but you refuse to allow yourself to become one. Honesty and honor are worth more than money. There is money to be made in making yourself into a sort of corporate dog, but it will leav…

Wow, this is a really mean attack on people who can sell themselves... I think I can do so reasonably well, and I wouldn't say it has anything to do with what you're describing here.

I don't have dignity or pride? That doesn't make any sense... I can sell myself because I really believe in the product. I've done lots of good work in my life and I have genuinely useful skills that can help people or companies.

And I don't have honesty and honor? Seriously? You seem to think that all selling is the type that unethical used car salespeople do. That is wrong. Good salespeople are experts who work with you to understand a problem and provide a solution to it. This is what I'm doing when I sell myself - you need a product manager, and I've worked on many similar projects to the type that you need help with, ergo I think I'd be a great fit. Again, to call that dishonest or dishonorable is simply wrong.

There's nothing wrong with disliking selling yourself, nor do I think it's a character flaw - different people have different communication styles, some of which are not very self-promotional. Nothing wrong with that. But to make such vicious attacks on the ethics of anyone who can sell themselves is just baseless and cruel.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#157

Post by scotty79 »

t0mas88 wrote: post #142
scotty79 wrote: post #135

Lambda school seems like an example of perfectly aligned incentives. I wouldn't mind if private higher and trade education was required to only take in money through such setup. And if people deem less practical education necessary it should be funded from taxes only.

The European system with higher income tax and heavily subsidised universities practically has the same result. Anyone (that is a permanent resident) can go to a top school, but you're paying it back the 40 years after with 50%+ income tax if you get a good job.

Not really, because universities don't care if what the teach is useful in the job market because they get money from tax either way.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#158

Post by dorkwood »

lisper wrote: post #52
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #13

I enjoyed the piece. Personally, I want no part of it, but I think it might work well for people who are not me. I've always been "on my own." My life really is a series of watersheds, where I've been the only person to believe in me, before the event, and a whole bunch of folks seemed to believe in me, after the fact. Not a particularly good setup for selling "Chris-Tokens™." Not a bad thing, in the long run. It hur…

> I don't have the personal skills to "sell" myself Actually you do. You've demonstrated them in this very comment. Maybe you don't realize this, or maybe your self-deprecation is a deliberate part of your strategy. Either way, it worked on me. This comment led me to your profile, which led me to your company web sites, which impressed me. I don't need an iOS app developer at the moment, but if I did you'd be at the…

I agree. I would buy some Chris Tokens.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#159

Post by 0x4d464d48 »

cortesoft wrote: post #131
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are violently agreeing? Profit sharing with your citizens is basically government. I think ...

Taxes and government are mandatory profit sharing, these agreements are voluntary. Whether that is good or bad is up for debate.

The only problem I have with a lot of these duscussions is how often "voluntary" includes things done under duress.

You dont "have" to go to college nor get a job nor even have money to stay alive neither.

You dont "have" to be a top performer if it would mean sacrificing your time and well being but God in heaven help you if youre not.

You dont "have" to take out loans to go to med school but if you werent born into money well... tough titty.

Re: The Ponzi Career

#160

Post by idunno246 »

tjs8rj wrote: post #66
mattzito wrote: post #14

There’s literally nothing in this article that you couldn’t replace “token” or “coin” with “contract” or “membership” and have it work exactly the same. The idea of selling contracts against future income is interesting but putting the blockchain here is yet another solution in search of a problem.

I’m usually in total agreement about blockchain just being stuffed anywhere, but observationally, there must be a good reason why blockchain shows up in these situations so often. There’s definitely the hype factor, but blockchain does have value in that it’s reasonably trusted by average people (perhaps unlike signing a contract everytime you wanted to purchase a piece of a creator - coins gamify it), and it’s easy…

does blockchain solve the trust problem here though? my trust issue would be that the person doesnt report their entire income, or purposely delays deals past the term, which is all out of band of the coin
Post reply on HN