[deleted]
How to earn a billion dollars
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
His entire essay is just based on a purposeful misreading of the opposing point. It's a straw man. And if you look at his history it's obviously intentional and part of his usual style of argument. The actual opposing argument is that it's impossible to create a billion dollar enterprise without a group effort, and for one person to end up with a billion dollars necessarily means that they made decisions within that…
Of course it's arguable. You make it sound like founders perform some jedi mind-trick to take money from others. Here's what actually happens. Investors put in initial money because it's a win-win (they get an expected return, founders get starting capital). Employees join because it's a win-win (they get a salary, health, equity, other perks; founders get a workforce). Customers pay cash because it's a win-win (they…
I am making a meta-argument, and I do think that it’s inarguable.
My argument is this: the core disagreement here is about the allocation of resources between labor and capital.
I’m right. It is.
That doesn’t mean I have settled the argument about what those allocations should be which nobody has, it’s a core organizational element of politics.
But I think his argument is bullshit. It’s a purposeful misdirection because it refuses to recognize the terms of the discussion at all.
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#243She 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…
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.
But he seems wildly oblivious to the fact that there even is an argument to be had here, which there emphatically is.
Reasonable people can disagree as to the nature/extent -- or even the existence of -- exploitation, but this guy absolutely has impermissibly strong blinders on, rendering most of this article a waste.
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#244Earlier 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.
There is a finite amount of land on earth, and a finite amount of most natural resources. We currently have no indication we will EVER develop faster than light technology. Any discussion not grounded in those facts is a dishonest discussion. It is a zero sum game until those externalities change because ultimately our species is built upon extraction resources to produce wealth. It IS a zero sum game until you or so…
On a trillion year time frame, sure.
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
His entire essay is just based on a purposeful misreading of the opposing point. It's a straw man. And if you look at his history it's obviously intentional and part of his usual style of argument. The actual opposing argument is that it's impossible to create a billion dollar enterprise without a group effort, and for one person to end up with a billion dollars necessarily means that they made decisions within that…
> it's impossible to create a billion dollar enterprise without a group effort George Lucas made a movie with a (small) group effort. But what made a billion dollars is his Star Wars universe which is almost entirely his creation. It literally creates wealth for other people. If my toy sells $10,000 without Star Wars and $100,000 with it, did I participate in making George’s billion, or am I benefiting from it? > mea…
> George Lucas made a movie with a (small) group effort. But what made a billion dollars is his Star Wars universe which is almost entirely his creation.
If that were actually true, how come we can't predict what the next Star Wars universe will be?
Same for pop songs etc. If it were actually about objective qualities of the creation, and not just luck, the next winners of the lottery would be apparent even before they hit the theaters.
There is null inherent quality in the Star Wars universe causing the billion dollar revenue. If George Lucas wouldn't have been there at the right spot at the right time, the dominant IP would simply have been something different.
If you have kids, you can directly observer what actually happens: The IP owners dump huge amounts of money into merch and product placements everywhere, resulting in them getting in contact with the franchise before they are out of their diapers. My kids came home from daycare roleplaying lightsaber fights without any previous contact with the franchise at our home. The trick is implanting the meme (in the original meaning of the word) into kids' brains before another meme can nest in there.
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#246How many businesses are there that are worth at least $1 billion and employ no-one but the founders? When people say that it's not possible to earn a billion dollars, they're talking about the discrepancy between the wealth gained by those employed by the company versus the shareholders of the company. For example, when WhatsApp was sold to Meta for $19 billion, how many of WhatsApp's 55 employees walked away with hu…
Your post implies that every employee of a successful company is entitled to a share of whatever wealth that company generates. As a career programmer, I worked for several companies. Each time I took a job, I negotiated what I thought was a fair salary for my wages. Some companies also gave me stock options and one gave me founder's stock. When a company had a good year, they often gave generous bonuses. Only when I…
That's not quite what I'm saying. You may very well have been paid fairly for each job you've taken, assuming that the value you generated for the business was not substantially higher than your salary.
But hiring people who are compensated fairly does not make someone a billionaire. If you generate $300,000 of value per year and I pay you $200,000, then I'm only making $100,000 profit off your work. I could hire more employees, but value does not scale linearly indefinitely. Doubling my number of employees does not guarantee I double my profits.
No, if I want to become a billionaire within my lifetime, I need an asset that generates far more money than it costs to buy and maintain it. In other words, I need employees who will generate millions for every thousand I pay them.
Now you might well argue that I'm taking a risk. How do I know if an asset or an employee or a team of employees is undervalued? Not every bet is going to pay dividends. However, while this is true, I don't think this makes it ethical. If I'm a venture capitalist looking to make it rich (or richer), the fact that I'm taking a risk doesn't change the fact that ultimately I'm looking for people who I can pay far less than they're worth.
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#247"You not only don't have to cheat to make this happen, it will happen automatically if you just keep making customers happy."
Call me cynical but ...
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#248I think the distinction the politician tried to make, was that you don't "earn" a billion dollars the same way the vast majority of people make their money. You become a billionaire by company ownership, not getting cold hard cash. The hierarchy of wage looks something like: 1. hourly pay (how many hours you can work sets the maximum possible salary) 2. base pay + cash bonus (the cash bonus starts to increase your ea…
You say "stuck at (1)" as if most people actually desire this kind of wealth and are trying to become entrepreneurs. The simple truth is that many people don't want to step into that kind of intensity and uncertainty, or lack the skills to succeed in a cutthroat industry. The idea that founders are somehow "cheating" is hilarious to me. Anyone in the developed world can easily become a founder, why don't you try it?
Also: Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes is well on his way to being a billionaire, assuming he’s not already there. He has natural talent, to be sure, but so do successful startup founders or successful bankers or successful lawyers. He didn’t “earn it”?
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#249Impressed at the commentary here, which correctly points out Paul dodges the entire issue at hand. Three things can be true: 1. Growing at a rapid rate over long periods of time is hard , doable and rewarding 2. Incentivizing the discovery of these things is good for society. 3. Nonethless there is and should be a limit to wealth acquisition, given moral hazard. To make a similarly glib counterargument to Paul G: If…
SBF is only in jail because the people he targeted for scamming were the rich.
Nobody who illegally make the rich richer goes to jail, they get a promotion usually
Re: How to earn a billion dollars
#250Woof. This article is pretty impressively tone deaf and seemingly missing the point (on purpose?)
> (on purpose?)
As Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
That quote is just the tip of the iceberg of Sinclair's work, though. He wrote about how when a person's livelihood, reputation, or financial well-being relies on a specific status quo, they often find it impossible to see the logic or ethics in changing it. It can be very difficult for them to confront such issues objectively.
He also wrote about the question of cynics vs. true believers in this situation. For the true believers, he pointed out that the only way for them to resolve their cognitive dissonance (while maintaining their lifestyle) is to block out the truth entirely. They stop trying to understand because actually understanding would be too painful.