Hacker News Reader

I didn't downvote you, because I appreciate the effort you put in to your post. However, I think I have some insight into why your post has received some downvotes.

First, you're using some poorly defined terminology that seems to cater to your implicit biases. What, exactly, do you mean by "smart people" and "dumb people"?

Second, you have some arguments here that seem like non-sequiturs. What does it matter that Elon Musk slept at his office? Does a janitor get bonus points for sleeping in the broom closet instead of at his apartment?

Third, the doubt you're raising about self-made billionaires is off topic. That is an interesting phenomenon in it's own right but isn't something Piketty wrote about because it wasn't the topic of his research.

Fourth, your own personal correspondence with Piketty is irrelevant and a distraction. It signals (to us, I suppose) that you care a lot about this topic. The fact that you care a lot doesn't help make your arguments more persuasive.

Finally, the tone of your post here is filled with appeals to emotion, exasperation, and frustration. You're having trouble making cogent arguments because you seem to be heavily invested in your own feelings about this subject. Those feelings are fine, and natural, but they do not make for a cogent argument. There is no point in attempting to persuade others that you are correct by mentioning that you really care a lot and have a lot of emotional investment in the subject.

Okay, I have a few minutes to expand.

I cleared up one point of confusion by editing my original comment - I did not mean that my comment was bitter (it's not) but rather that the reality it describes is bitter.

I've read through your points and I don't feel it will be a productive use of our time to engage further.

However, I will make one last very brief summary in the most rigorous possible logical terms. If owning a computer gives unequal personal utility to people, then if everyone owns a personal computer, people will have unequal personal utility. The world won't be "fair."

Now if instead of "personal utility" you substitute "creation of wealth" and for the computer you substitute all of the wheels of American capitalism, you will see that if everyone has the same access, but due to differing skills and interests differing results, then the world will be unfair. There is no way to make it fair except by shutting off the wheels of capitalism (in the proxy argument, there is no way to make sure everyone has the same level of utility except by taking away everyone's computer). I'm sorry, this is a fully rigorous argument, not at all emotional, and I'm just not prepared to invest any more time in explaining it. I did my best. Sorry if we disagree.

We disagree because I find a flawed premise in your argument that undermines the entire rest of your conclusions. Capitalism is not equal access. Those who already have lots of capital have access to the tools of capitalism. Those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access.

>Those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access.

explain how the Russian immigrant Sergey Brin had "lots of capital" or how the South African immigrant Elon Musk had "lots of capital".

Yet they are billionaires. So what do we do about this unequal outcome? Turn off people's right to make startups without requiring any capital?

The simple fact is that while Marx wrote in the 19th century when you needed millions to start up a factory, today the cost for starting to create dynastic, millionaire or billionaire wealth is: $0. It has no capital cost. Of any kind. At east, in silicon valley.

what is to keep this from spreading in the future? What is Piketty's response?

In fact there is no such response. There is no way to stop unequal wealth except by taking people's computers away.

You state that you follow my argument but I don't believe you are able to follow it.

Can you agree with this statement please: If owning a purple rock gives people unequal utility (some people get great pleasure out of it while others do not) then if everyone owns a purple rock, people will have unequal purple rock-related utility under this world scenario. Please agree, it's quite specific and formal.

(I realize this is only the proxy argument.)

Now suppose our most important value were equality of outcome. What shall we do? We must measure people's utility, and somehow take from people who get greater utility from purple rocks, enough of their purple rocks, that they end up with the same net utility. So someone who gets huge utility from owning a purple rock might need to be given just a gram, whereas someone who gets almost no utility from it may need to be given a mountain.

Okay, now apply it to money. If someone gets huge capital out of almost capital, do you have to take it all away? If you took away 99.999% of Sergey Brin's capital away when he was founding Google, then today's $50 billion net worth that he has would be $50 billion * 0.001% = $500,000. Unfortunately, that is still too much - it's more than average.

So should he have had 99.9999% taken away, since taking away 99.999% does not lead to an equal outcome?

This is not a theoretical question. It's a practical question you must address. In 2017 there are no capital requirements of any kind that are necessary in order to create billions of dollars, dynastic-level wealth. Zero.

I am afraid you are not following my argument, and that's okay. You are simply wrong that "those who do not already have lots of capital have almost no access." It is similar to saying only a white male can become President. Why would you say that, when it's demonstrably false?

Since you are arguing from false facts, and also don't seem to follow my argument, this is not going to be a productive exchange. Sorry - I tried.

Sergey Brin was enrolled in an advanced PhD candidate program at a super-elite technology university. Brin's parents were highly educated academics. Brin himself was highly educated and was raised in an environment of middle-class affluence. This is not the story of a struggling immigrant who struggled to pay rent. Brin had a priviliged upbringing.

Elon Musk also had a middle class upbringing with highly educated parents who provided him with an affluent middle class childhood. He enrolled at elite universities (UPenn, NYU Wharton, Standford) where he started his career surrounded by wealth and access to capital.

Musk is an interesting case in particular in that luck and timing account for most of his initial capital. He started a website (Zip2.com) in the middle of the dotcom bubble and it was purchased from him $300 million. The site was acquired by Compaq in 1999 and ceased operations in 1999. The dotcom bubble burst less than one year later. The money from that sale positioned Musk as a member of the capitalist class and he leveraged the money and connections from that for all his future businesses. While he did, technically, bootstrap his career, it would be naive and foolish to ignore the element of luck involved here.

I'm having trouble taking you seriously because you choose such bad examples to make your points and ignore the obvious counter-examples. In short, the system just works differently for people of low socio-economic status. Musk and Brin were not of low socio-economic status. They started as very high status and ascended to become ultra-elite status.

You make another assumption that is flawed and unfounded, and makes it seem like you are arguing against a strawman. I do not assume that equality of outcome is desirable. There are some in the social justice left that believe this but I don't, and in fact very few Americans do (as can be seen by election results). I believe that sane policy must acknowledge that inequality of opportunity is an endemic problem in our society and that success in capitalism is based on opportunities, which are not distributed in a fair manner.

oh hey if your definition of capital included education (and the education and professions of one's family), luck, timing, and socioeconomic class then we're in complete agreement.

Let me state it for the record: in 2017 it's impossible to build great wealth without your updated definition of great capital. completely agreed.

as we're in agreement this conversation is over. nice chatting with you.

> Here is a question Piketty didn't ask: what percent of dynastic, billionaire wealth was created in a single generation in America? Not addressed at all. (And I read his book and wrote to him with my criticism, which he didn't reply to.)

Actually he has addressed this, and the answer is relatively little. Most wealth in the world is passed down from one generation to the next, growing at a rate faster than the economy in general. Many of the richest families in the world from centuries ago are still the richest families. Other than in small pockets of the world, like silicon valley, new money is pretty rare.

But I specifically asked about small pockets of the world, like silicon valley. Specifically, I asked about billionaire wealth in the United States.

it isn't at all clear what your point is.

Here's my snarky interpretation. First, this is where a lot of people lose interest or get turned away:

> As a person who is extremely intelligent and eloquent, I am sure this post will be downvoted by my peers who are threatened by my conclusions and wit. In fact, I have a very cohesive argument, which I am about to show you. The argument will relate two things. You will then agree that my argument has merit, because it is very well made.

Then a few sentences hidden in the middle, long after people have written it off as a rambling diatribe:

> Capitalism, like a computer, is a tool, and the most intelligent and capable humans make the best use of tools for the most reward. I've heard of rags-to-riches stories. Therefore capitalism must rewards intelligence and capability, not accumulated capital.

Unfortunately these aren't susceptible to skimming to the end, because they're bookended with:

> This means Picketty is wrong and I've e-mailed him many times because my cause is just and righteous. In fact, the emails I wrote are an even more graceful and devastating critique than the argument I just gave you, with rigorous graphs and charts.

Thanks for the criticism. I've removed most of the bookends and reference to any external resource and left just the "few sentences hidden in the middle" which people can read or ignore. I don't think your summary of it is perfect, but close enough, you read me fine. thanks for the constructive feedback. (not sarcastic.)