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

Just Be Rich (2021)

keenen.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 320 posts

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#281

Post by mritterhoff »

TechDebtDevin wrote: post #128
seliopou wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe the lack of housing is caused by a labor shortage in construction.

The lack of housing is due to incentives. Investors aren't going to increase supply and in return decrease their margins, they'll just make their money work somewhere else. Free markets work against us here, this sort of thing has to be addressed via price-fixing/subsidies.

The incentives are aligned for builders (who want to build housing for money) and buyers (who want to pay money for housing). What's getting in the way is overly restricted zoning, including single-family-unit only, and minimum parking requirements.

The free market is the solution here, what's holding it back is zoning.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#282

Post by danaris »

FrustratedMonky wrote: post #161
kjksf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe it's an argument for allowing states to try different economic strategies and compete for business based on outcomes of those strategies. If California taxes people and businesses at insane levels, maybe we shouldn't replicate insane level of taxation everywhere else in U.S., on the off chance that it is not, in fact, an optimal level for generating wealth for the people. Maybe Texas and Florida should be al…

I missed it, I don't see anywhere in this thread where people are being taxed on 'exit' from a state. Nothing is being confiscated. What is happening is that a state increases taxes on the current population, and the rich leave to a cheaper states so they don't have to pay the higher tax. So there is freedom of movement. But this does open a loop whole where they can use up resources, then split. To your argument. I…

Is it a valid choice?

It's a choice being made to limit someone else's access to resources and information, after all, including the kind of information that would give them the tools they need to understand how much you're screwing them over.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#283

Post by soared »

throwaway22032 wrote: post #246
soared wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so it’s completely out of your children’s control whether or not you chose those decisions. Therefore, they are lucky you are doing that. They have zero impact on whether or not the actions of their grandparents resulted in generational wealth.

Nonsense. You posted this comment 7 hours ago. Current you has zero impact on whether you posted it. Time flows forwards, not backwards.

What action did you take that caused your grandpa to invest in real estate? If none, it is lucky for you that your grandpa took one action over another, as you had no impact on the event.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#284

Post by danaris »

marcianx wrote: post #206
toomuchtodo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth is unelected power, a bug. It’s reasonable to say there should be limits on wealth, considering most wealthy people were lucky (either by birth or “right place right time”) but attempt to post rationalize it as anything else. Would you want someone who won a lottery ticket to have power over your life at scale? Because that’s what excess wealth is, a power dynamic powered by a suboptimal system masquerading as…

How would you impose these limits on wealth? Where would the extra money go? To the government? If so, would you be okay with the government saying that _all_ future earnings if yours went straight to them because you have too much money already? Would you give anyone that power?

If I already had $2B? Or even $200M?

Yeah, I'd be OK with that. It's not like it would actually affect my life in any way whatsoever. We're not talking about the government taking the food out of anyone's mouth.

It's not actually a benefit to the world that we have individuals walking around with enough wealth to purchase, say, one of the major companies that acts as a backbone for communication and information-spreading worldwide. (Of course, it's also somewhat troubling that a single for-profit company can be such a backbone, but that's a separate conversation.) In fact, there's some pretty solid research indicating that it's destabilizing for entire societies to have that level of inequality.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#285

Post by Justsignedup »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #265
Justsignedup wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the problem is that europe is doing the right thing BUT the US says fuck it do what you want. So it forces europe to have to compete on the same bs market as the US.

Or the US is smarter and realizes it's a failing policy. We can have a debate which country is more prosperous between the US and the entire EU.

That's not a debate I will take, as clearly the US is richer than the EU.

However... richer != better. In a similar way that a billionaire is certainly richer than half the country, but that doesn't mean its the direction we _want_.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#286

Post by throwaway22032 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #274
throwaway22032 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just think this is a basic logical error. 39 year old me built a shed. 40 year old me then has a shed. 40 year old me did not influence or choose 39 year old me. But 40 year old me does not have a shed due to luck. It was causative. Your parents and your past decisions are not luck based. If you want to call that luck, then you need a different word for actual luck such as chance encounters, lottery wins, unexpecte…

Define "luck". That's what this whole disagreement hinges on. You're using a different definition of luck. Sure, I reap the fruits of my past decisions, like the shed. More to the point, I reap the fruits of my parents' decisions. Is that luck? It's not luck from the perspective of actions having consequences, and parents doing things that help their children. It is luck from the perspective of "you didn't pick your…

I agree that the words don't matter.

What it comes down to is that luck cannot be incentivised - a dice will always roll a 2, 1/6th of the time.

But good behaviour can be incentivised, e.g. people choosing their partners well and providing stable environments for their children.

We should incentivise good behaviour whilst also ensuring that luck doesn't result in unassailable leads e.g. a lottery win probably should not result in a 1000 year dynasty but a lottery win combined with intelligent estate planning, good mate selection, diversification etc probably should.

> if you were going to be born to someone random, where and when would you want to be born

I think that this is like asking, if 40 year old you were completely randomly spawned, whose life would you like to continue from. You can't. The lineage from your parents to you is the same as the lineage from you to you. It's a nonsense line of inquiry.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#287

Post by WalterBright »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #235
WalterBright wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right now, there is a guy in a garage founding the next billion dollar company, doing something we all will wish we thought of.

Btw, the point of the original article was that less and less people have access to this garage.

I started my business, and the only investment was buying a computer.

Today you can buy a computer for $300 from the pawn shop.

You also have access to worldwide markets with the internet and fulfilled by Amazon.

It's never been easier to create a startup.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#288

Post by WalterBright »

piva00 wrote: post #243
WalterBright wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the notion that the only value in a business is that of labor, i.e. the labor theory of value. Business needs two other things: 1. capital 2. taking a risk in order to function. To get capital requires a source of capital, which are investors. Investors take a risk in exchange for possible gain. No gain => no investors => no capital => no business Let's say you want to start a business. Where are you going to…

You're just reiterating that capitalism is capitalism. Capital demands a higher possible gain than the labour that is actually creating value to play the game, simply because it is harder to accumulate capital than providing labour, if you have enough capital you can mitigate risks, so why exactly should that risk be compensated more than the actual creation of value provided by labour? Without capital in this system…

Without capital labor has no value.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#289

Post by WalterBright »

Avicebron wrote: post #165
WalterBright wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zillionaire Paul Allen was famous for spending billions in the local economy. He transformed Seattle. He's passed away, and his projects are being sold off and closed down. > the state allows companies to leave If you have to build a wall around your state to keep people from fleeing, you have failed.

No, if you are moving a high levels of capital and can exploit populations that haven't moved as fast as you (Mexico <- causal <- rust belt, etc) you are essentially playing a shell game but have fast hands because you can move more efficiently across larger sections of the globe and local demographics than someone from that population. It's predatory, and ultimately leads to "deserts" where the parasite has booked i…

Building factories in Mexico is not exploitation - it raises the standard of living of the people who decide that working at those factories is better than what they had otherwise.

Re: Just Be Rich (2021)

#290

Post by WalterBright »

shakow wrote: post #230
WalterBright wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arbitrage is a major reason why free market companies prosper. It's taking advantage of the Law of Comparative Advantage. For example, consider Bob and Fred. Bob is good at hunting, but stinks at growing blueberries. Fred grows luscious blueberries, but he's likely to blow his own foot off when hunting. Bob brings home twice the meat he needs, and Fred grows twice the blueberries he needs, and they trade. They are bo…

> It benefits consumers. On the short term and reasonable spatial scale; sure. What's currently happening in the West is that common people are discovering that on the long term and at world scale, it does not really benefits them for a myriad of reasons, among which unevenly applied norms, difference in regimes, different social models, etc.

The world has never been more prosperous on a global scale.
Post reply on HN