Billionaires Build • Hacker News Board

Re: Billionaires Build

#751

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:34 AM UTC

drewrv wrote: post #235

This essay uses a weak straw-man: the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people I think the "principle of charity" or "steel-man" criticism of billionaires isn't that every single billionaire is directly exploiting people. It would be closer to something like this: The problem is that our society has feedback loops that make it hard to escape poverty, and feedback loops that let the wealthy amass more…

> However he does pay less taxes than his secretary.

No, he absolutely does not. He pays a lower effective tax rate but vastly more in actual money than his secretary. His effective rate is 17 something percent because the capital gains tax rate is 15%, not because he’s rich. https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-w...

We could certainly increase cap gains rate to regular income, but that would fuck a huge portion of the middle class depending on gains in 401ks for retirement.

Re: Billionaires Build

#752

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:39 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #589

eyelidlessness wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For this (me) critic of billionaires (the possibility of being one, not the humans who are), it’s not ideological. It’s based on an analysis of leverage (like GP’s comment), where the levers are necessarily some mix of advantage/privilege (feedback loop as discussed all over) and exploitation (not solely as a moral issue, but that issue is inescapable). It’s impossible to be/become a millionaire without access to, an…

I don't know if you intentionally switched from billionaire to millionaire, but it seems entirely possible (and even somewhat common) to become a mere millionaire by actions and careers that most would consider virtuous combined with sound saving and investing strategies. I don't know if my parents are actually millionaires or not, but if not, they're not far off and they were both public school teachers whose parent…

Your parents used leverage as well in “investing strategies”. By putting your money in the stock market, you’re using the leverage wielded by all of corporate America.

Re: Billionaires Build

#753

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:41 AM UTC

freshhawk wrote: post #616

BurningFrog wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I'll step up and say it: I have no idea what "leverage" means in this text. From context I can tell it's something bad. I understand "leverage" in mechanics. I also understand that in "corporate-talk" it's just a synonym to "use".

"force" or "coerce", but more "civilized", generally more related to using indirect pressure, probably based on manipulating some larger system. Think how a mobster in a movie might use it, "we leveraged the pictures of the cop to get warning of any raids". Same meaning, just about things that are legal.

No, you’re reading it wrong. It’s meant in the mechanical sense of amplifying a small force.

Re: Billionaires Build

#754

Post by pvorb » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:43 AM UTC

Well, you cannot become a billionaire by just working hard. A billionaire might have had an idea at the right time. For YC startups, the money comes from somebody else. Does having an idea justify to earn 100,000x the amount of somebody else who's working 60 hours a week to keep their family from hunger? Comparing extremes here, I know.

I accept the fact that the market and law allow for this to happen, but I don't have to respect billionaires for it.

Re: Billionaires Build

#755

Post by arrosenberg » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:44 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #745

arrosenberg wrote: post #728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was exaggerating to make a point on a different comment you made about "government bad". I forgot I was on the internet for a second and couldn't use rhetoric. Rest assured, if you want to take the money from Bezos and invest it in Medicare for All and expanding fiber internet to rural Appalachia, I am 110% onboard. > You still haven't explained exactly how you would make this happen. Forced stock sales? Government…

> Assume that Congress can edit a database of every citizens' net worth by legislative fiat. Answer the question about how lessening economic inequality is going to negatively impact the average American. > I'm diagnosing the problem, and asking what you think would be the negative impact if we simply took away 73% of the wealth each billionaire holds, which you won't answer, because you know the answer is "nothing b…

> Back in the real world, such a thing doesn't exist. So if you want to talk about real things that could actually impact the net worth of billionaires you have to consider what other secondary effects they might have. Here's one: stock market crashes. Billionaires lost a lot of wealth in 2008. In your opinion, was this a generally positive event for the rest of the country or not? Bezos's net worth could easily drop by 73% on Monday without any government intervention at all, do you think that would help anyone?

By what mechanism would the stock market crash? I mean sure, if Bezos dumped 73% of his stock on one day, yes, temporarily. No one would actually propose that though. What about Jeff's ownership is holding up the economy?

I don't think 2008 was good for the country, because inequality increased. All those distressed homes that average people lost are now owned by private equity funds. Over 12 years, those billionaires have almost all gotten wealthier relative to the rest of us. I've already stated my preference for increased anti-trust regulation to protect against that kind of outcome. What was the point of that question?

> Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, etc

Yeah, you know, those storied 230-year capitalist republics in Weimar Germany and post-colonial Zimbabwe. The US Government printed trillions (!!) of dollars this year and gave the majority of it to the wealthy. We can start by taxing that right back, with no obvious consequence.

> Dude, literally one paragraph ago you're talking about a magic database that can edit anyone's net worth at will.

It was a device to overcome your obstinance, not a literal prescription.

> If you want to theorize about potential policies and what their impacts might be, then cool, I'd love to brainstorm about what things might happen.

I don't, because it took like, 12 messages to get you to acknowledge that simply having the wealthy be less wealthy wasn't the literal apocalypse. It's exhausting.

Your contention that a wealth tax won't work is ridiculous, we already have property taxes in most states and state and federal estate taxes. We already successfully tax wealth, the rest is just about setting the right incentives, and removing the insane raft of tax avoidance loopholes that the barons have paid to place in the tax code.

Re: Billionaires Build

#756

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:47 AM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #330

throwaway09223 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a straw man, it is an extremely common belief and it deserves to be addressed and debunked. My social media is stuffed to the brim with people posting exactly this sentiment. It is true that there are other, more reasonable beliefs.

I think Paul is fundamentally not understanding the argument behind “billionaires exploit workers.” It isn’t that billionaires are fundamentally bad people or that they’ve accumulated their wealth through misdeeds. But what it is is that it’s basically impossible to accumulate that amount of wealth through work. Instead, you have to be able to capture the difference between the value of someone else’s work and what y…

> But what people are saying is that the narrative that billionaires built their wealth themselves is false

But it’s not. I can put shit into boxes in my yard and put them on a truck but that doesn’t mean I’m providing the same value as the Amazon worker. Labor has no value on its own. You have to do work that is useful for someone to generate value and identifying the useful work (i.e. connecting the participants) is a big part of that value.

Re: Billionaires Build

#757

Post by pvorb » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:49 AM UTC

throwaway7281 wrote: post #596

Just sampling: The last billionaire I looked up was a north american mining guy. He owns mines, in Africa. Can you guess which country? Yes exactly, the one that prospers much more than the others. Basically, the "work" has to come from somewhere. The reason FB is rich is because 2+B people choose to work for free. The reason Google is rich is because they do not have to create the content (in fact, "content creators…

> I sometimes think people who write these things are painfully aware of the kind of illusion they create and choose to create it nevertheless. Mundus vult decipi.

Yes. If this is all you need to calm others and your own mind, I would probably do it, too.

Re: Billionaires Build

#758

Post by kortilla » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:54 AM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #668

UK-Al05 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically the labour theory of value and ignores the value of capital and organisation. Some guy delivering stuff in a garage is not going to be nowhere near as productive as an Amazon worker. The crucial bit that people miss is that it is capital, goodwill and organisation allows employees to generate so much money in the first place. Basically the sum is greater than its parts. If you want to know where pro…

Okay, so pg posits that the people he finds and helps to become billionaires get there because they have some special insight into a solution to something people need. He's definitely right that it is valuable to society that people who have such insights are given the opportunity to build their solutions. We all win from being in a society where more of our needs are met. What's perhaps slightly more dubious is the…

> deserves to own a billion times more of a vote in how our society is run than the average person.

The average person has $60k-ish a year. There is nobody out there with 60 trillion.

Regardless, the billionaire has to actually spend the money to get goods and services from the market. While his/her needs will dwarf an individual, they are still just a drop in the bucket compared to the middle class. This is why all of the largest companies/product markets/etc all cater to the middle class.

The only way billionaires can actually get leverage on how society is run is through direct monetary influence of politicians, but that’s going to happen whether the average income is $60k or $200k.

Re: Billionaires Build

#759

Post by pvorb » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:57 AM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #265

willyg123 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most startups fail, though. So do most batters in Major League Baseball.

> So do most batters in Major League Baseball. VC is the batter, though. They're interviewing people to be their balls.

And some balls get hit so hard that they become successful Baseball players themselves?

Re: Billionaires Build

#760

Post by confidantlake » Sat, Dec 05, 2020, 6:59 AM UTC

robswc wrote: post #726

confidantlake wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My view is that "creating" a billion dollar company is a misleading description. I view it more as "capturing" a billion. You mention FB. With network effects, it is inevitable that there will be a few large dominate social media companies. If it wasn't Zuckerberg it would have been someone else. I view these people not as pioneers pushing us forward but as lottery winners. Why should the lucky one on top capture mos…

>Why should the lucky one on top capture most of the value? Because they were first or best to do it. MySpace was already a thing, several other social media sites but today they're mostly dead while FB is not. Luck does have a lot to do with it. I feel trying to quantify luck though will get us no where. Trying to "correct" for it, even more so. >The people like Newton and Einstein who actually had revolutionary ide…

>Because they were first or best to do it. MySpace was already a thing, several other social media sites but today they're mostly dead while FB is not. Luck does have a lot to do with it. I feel trying to quantify luck though will get us no where. Trying to "correct" for it, even more so.

I think this is a fundamental feature a winner take all/most market. FB beat out myspace and happened to win, but if not them it would have been someone else. 5 billion internet connected social animals is the value, not the app that facebook built.

>Do you think they should be? I cannot think of a reason... but I do understand what you mean.

I don't think they should be because I don't think billionaires should exist. But I do think the value they created was much bigger than the value Zuck created. They were better at creating value than capturing it.

>I don't see how the two are related though. There were a lot of things different about back then vs today. I would like to see the focus be on rent and CoL as I see those as way more of a problem than if Jeff Bezos has $50b or $100b. (his wealth has fluctuated like crazy with covid and divorce).

The two are fundamentally related. Gdp per capita is higher now than it was in the 60s, yet the median person is no better off. That can only be explained through how the wealth distribution has changed between now and then. Whether Jeff Bezos is worth 50B or 100B doesn't matter too much. The issue is that the wealthiest are capturing a larger percentage of income now than they did 60 years ago. I don't view our age as being more innovative than a time where we invented the atom bomb and went to the moon and other cool shit. And we paid for it with taxes! Jeff Bezos isn't more innovative than those guys, he is just having his workers piss in bottles to squeeze out every last cent. It is a return to the bad old days of Rockefeller.

>I would consider that beyond a straw man.

Did not realize that Yang supported it, learn something new everyday. Would like to hear his reasoning beyond the short blurb on his website as he has always struck me as deep thinker.