Think of all the amazing writers across our civilization whose work is linkable, and we're worshipping these decent but not amazing blog posts?
That's the key bit for me. I've found his writing about startups, software, hacker culture, product development, etc. to be mostly great and informative. But whenever I see anything he writes about society as a whole, I tend to find the conclusions he draws to be pretty out of line with reality, or at least (in the cases where I don't have data) counter to my experience and opinion.
You see this with consumer products all the time; for example the audiophile world may turn their nose up at Bose, but in the consumer space Bose is recognized as a known quantity (may be over priced for the quantity of quality you get but is recognized as not being extremely subpar generic).
A few years later, that same guy writes an extensive essay with footnotes and data that must have taken days to compile (going all the way back to 1892). And yet, this one rubs you the wrong way.
I am not defending PG or attacking you, but just consider this explanation as a possibility: when it comes to how to build a startup, you don't really have skin in the game. Whatever he says, it's unlikely to impact your life. But the minute we start talking about the Gini coefficient, the stakes are higher - it's getting political. Suddenly, it's like listening to Rush Limbaugh make an argument - isn't it clear that no Democrat will ever agree with anything that Rush has ever said, no matter how factual or not it is?
I, for one, appreciate PG's ability to tie together global macro movements in a way that I've never heard anyone else summarize. You might agree or not with his take on the Gini coefficient (and especially his lack of acknowledgement or suggestions on how to deal with its consequences), and you might also get frustrated that PG is starting to dabble in politics, which is going to make him very polarized no matter how right or wrong he is. But there's still a ton of useful advice in this essay no matter which side of the political fence you stand on (eg: in 2021, if you're debating between entrepreneurship and finance/VC, choose entrepreneurship).
There is no argument about his footnotes. Quite likely the very richest might not be inheriting it. This has no bearing on the gini coefficient. And his essay on wealth tax is downright stupid. Are his essays as meticulously researched as Pikketys? Why does pg fail to refer to the most famous recent book on the subject in his footnotes? What could be the reason?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...
> his essay on wealth tax is downright stupid
What's everyone's deal with that essay? It literally has no subjective opinion stated anywhere - all it does is calculate how much percent of your wealth you're left with after 60 years of wealth tax [0]. You definitionally cannot push back on anything stated in that article, or otherwise your problem is not with PG's views but with math in general.
I appreciate the thoughtful reference to Thomas Piketty's book, which I think everyone should read. But IMO attacking algebra takes away from your overall argument.
Pg completely ignores the zero effort compounding of wealth and pretends that the investors wealth will be "reduced" by 45% and that too over 60 years!
He forgets to state by how much the zero effort investors assets inflate exponentially in 60 years! If he thought he was making a case against wealth tax, he failed hard!
Also, its really silly of you to assume I don't understand algebra! I thought that pgs article was obviously ridiculous on its face. Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone.
Nope, it wasn't. You do realize that the concept you're so stoked on was actually tested in Mr. Piketty's homeland and failed miserably? Oh, the irony!
From NPR [0]:
> Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.
Capital is like water - it flows in the direction of least resistance. That part should be obvious.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a...
France did quite well in the decades it applied a wealth tax, irrespective of Macron's actions.
You seem to be obsessed with France. Have you considered Switzerland, one of the wealthiest countries with the highest standard of living and super high minimum wage.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/swiss-wea...
Edit: seems like you added some more info to your comment. Ok, I'll bite. Nobody ever uses Switzerland in an apples to apples comparison with Western democracies because Switzerland employs bank secrecy laws that make it a crime to identify owners of bank accounts (which brings into question the legitimacy of much of the capital in those bank accounts). This is straight from Wikipedia [0]:
> Swiss banks have served as safe havens for the wealth of dictators, despots, mobsters, arms dealers, corrupt officials, and tax cheats of all kinds. In 2018, London-based Tax Justice Network ranks Switzerland's banking sector as the "most corrupt" in the world due to a large offshore banking industry and very strict secrecy laws. The ranking attempts to measure how much assistance the country's legal systems provide to money laundering, and to protecting corruptly obtained wealth.
Also, I mentioned elsewhere that a total of 9 countries in Europe implemented and then killed the wealth tax. This has nothing to do with just one politician in one country.
High income inequality causes regulatory capture by a minority elite. Any financial discomfort to this tiny elite through popular movements that impose a very modest wealth tax, faces relentless attack by this tiny elite and their chattel, which includes the politicians they sponsor - ultimately resulting in the overturning of tax policies that benefit society as a whole.
High income inequality leads to regulatory capture by a tiny minority and results in a government primarily focused on the coddling of the idle rich. Hence, all examples of overturned wealth taxes you picked can be dismissed outright. Cherry picking is not a luxury available exclusively to you.
Your bias is obvious from the fact that you were fixated on France while completely ignoring their much more successful neighbor.
PGs attack on the wealth tax is how much a zero effort investor could lose in 60 years. 45% in one case. 40hr per week income tax rates are very often higher than that. PGs paen to the idle rich is absolutely ridiculous. Some one who works hard like Musk will be barely affected by such a tax. It only mildly hurts the idle rich.
You do realize that the wealth tax is on top of the income tax, right?
> It only mildly hurts the idle rich.
And therefore there's no issue! Lol. I shared elsewhere that France tried the wealth tax and then killed it after 42k French millionaires left the country. Why would it work in the US when it didn't work in France and 8 other European countries?
It is not applying taxes on income. There is a separate tax for it - it is called income tax. A tax cut friendly premier repealing tax laws means nothing. France did not implode in the decades it had a wealth tax. Its not like the USA with a rapidly declining middle class is a fine counter example.
And why are you so hurt at the thought of a 20% tax on asset appreciation on the idle rich? No one really gives a shit.
1. Lol
2. You do realize
3. Pretending to be the only person who understands algebra
If so, I thought you must be made of thicker skin; able to take what you dish out. My adoption of your style might not do it for you, but no one really gives a shit.
I feel these are the same reasons for why effective altruism is so popular among technicians. It offers clear cut answers, and avoids uncomfortable questions.
This is not at all unique to PG, you and I and everyone does the same thing, at least to some extent, in choosing what argument/opinion pieces (now the dominant form of textual media?) we are tickled by.
I'm not quite sure how strong the analogy is though.
There are many firms where the owner is never present, but all employees know not to cross them. (E.g. Washington Post & Jeff Bezos).
So the fact that PG pays for it doesn't mean much. If the community decided to no longer be under his care, they could easily find a replacement model or benefactor and they're more than capable to arrange such an uprising/migration.
Inversely, the "skeptics" behave so skeptically towards anything contrary their views that it has the effect of making them hardly skeptical in the first place. I'm not even talking about Stallman's form of skepticism, but what I deem "pop skepticism" that's permeated the mainstream narrative. If one is so skeptical that they are potentially missing out on critical new information, that's not actual skepticism. It's a stroke of the ego for someone too insecure to be wrong about anything. This is especially true when the evidence in front of them is sound and they refuse to consider it.
We are living in an intellectual decline. A true skeptic can't have any sort of controversial opinion without being socially burned at the stake.
We listen to him because he founded the website? Do Facebook users listen to Zuckerberg because he founded Facebook? I doubt that many do.
Or do we listen to PG because the kind of people who find his writings to be interesting have some overlap the kind of people who are attracted to the website that he founded?
George Orwell, Friedrich Hayek, Simone de Beauvoir, John Maynard Keynes, Jean-Paul Sartre
For fiction there are obviously many more whose works have come through to frequent readership: Hemingway, Shirley Jackson, Albert Camus, C.S. Lewis, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Ayn Rand to name a few.
Alexander is a good writer, and I appreciate how he is able to tackle assumptions and challenge mainstream opinions, and does so systematically.
But he's writing 10 pages of what could be summed up in 10 bullet points.
The intellectual collateral is nice, but he's not really breaking new ground, and I'm not sure what he's going to share with the next generation of readers
I have never seen PG quoted anywhere, not even on HN.
It has a single and consistently repeated/implied message without any deviations or uncertainties.
All of that makes it persuasive.
But factually it's mostly wrong.
I'm not going to through it point by point to pick all the inaccuracies about the continuing influence of inherited wealth on success, or the unrealistically rosy implication of small business riches.
I'll just suggest everyone should research for themselves the real survival rates for small businesses, the small business sectors with the best long-term viability, the age group most active in creating new businesses, and the number of tech startups that makes any return at all to investors.
Paul, and to a similar or even larger extent Sam Altman, and others, seem detached from reality, in the sense of the common man.
Perhaps each one of us lives in a bubble of sort. His is immediately apparent to me, despite I kind of belong to the same crowd he preaches to.
I don't think his intent is evil nor bad. I think he genuinely enjoys writing and thinking about deep stuff, and I am grateful that he shares his thoughts with the world.
If you don't hack your mind from a philosophical perspective you wont stop this tribal hard-coded neural trigger of this automatic authority following.
This is the only thing that can save us from being that person in the 30's Germany photos raising their hands and chanting 'Sieg Heil'.
Remember that this is hardwired, but it worked somehow because we used to be packed in small communities where everyone knew each other.
Now the same "wiring" is being used the same way, but now with a virtual global tribe, where we actually don't really know the people that is being granted authority or why we are supposed to follow them, because we simply follow them giving everybody is also doing it.
Just observe yourself more often and question even the things you take for granted before doing it. You will see a lot of these things are actually unreasonable giving their actual context.
He's an important person to our field, and he's contributed quite a lot to it (including, for example, this forum). That does count for something.
However, to me if anything it really just confirms yet again that even great people can become thoroughly warped by wealth and fame.
His wealth tax piece was quintessentially unconvincing and self-serving, and many of his recent tweets and posts have done much more to pat himself and his peers on the back than to contribute convincing or useful analysis.
It's a prosperity gospel for nerds: you are the special chosen ones, therefore you deserve every blessing. Anyone who says otherwise is sinful and blind to the holy truth.
A lot less technically interesting than he used to post. I used to send Startup=Growth to everyone I knew. I think people are used to high-quality content from PG and so the upvotes fly - but honestly, recently, the quality isn't there. And often the content of his posts I now find quite offensive and wrong.
Not very interesting any more. Mostly wealth defenses and fallacies.
Sure being rich is ok. As long as they make mortals better off which is not what is happening now. Rather majority of the people are getting worse for wear in the process.
I’ll take my -4 for hitting close to home. The grayer I get — silencing unpopular ideas by making them grayer was his idea too — the more confident I’m right. We stopped telling you folks you were following someone who only cared about your impact on his RoI because that sort of unwashed heathen isn’t welcome here. Paul Graham, YC, and this creation of his on which we speak now has done more to distort and destroy any foundation of computing remotely paying attention to making the world better than almost anything before it, and while I’m happy to see people finally figuring out that it just might be bullshit, it’s a bit too late.
I mean, you're maybe 10% right. You take that 10% and inflate it to the point that it's almost completely wrong, though.
His own thoughts about are here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/whyyc.html
http://www.paulgraham.com/ycstart.html
Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but back then there was no guarantee it would work. To look with hindsight and say it was just greed is easy for you to hurl, but not at all what it looked like at the beginning.
More generally, I know many many people (maybe literally tons by weight?) who continue to work long after they don't need to, usually because they're just deeply interested in the domain. I've seen this up close with my father, who continues to farm at 70, and with some founders who keep founding despite having more money than they will ever need. So when someone in that situation says they work on a thing because it is interesting to them, I generally believe them.
The war on poverty can be waged with a modest tax on the PGs of the world. The war on inequality is different. Venture capital always seeks to create wealth that will flow to some more than others; a very efficient way to fight inequality is to simply abolish venture capital. Along with anything else that facilitates creation of personal (rather than societal) wealth.
This is a misrepresentation though. There isn't anything inherently wrong with people having or making different amounts of money. The complaint, as I see it usually, is that the degree of inequality is unacceptable. That is, millionares aren't inherently unethical, heck people who make millions annually aren't inherently unethical. But people who make billions a week, might be.
That is, I can comfortably and easily donate enough each year to support a few working families. Bezos could match the Child Poverty Tax Credit to every child in poverty in the US each year and still turn a profit.
(For the math here, its ~$3000 * 11 million children, which comes out to ~35 billion, or half his income this year). And remember: he could do that every year and his wealth would increase.
The key issue is that personal wealth, after a point is wasted. Creation of vast personal wealth doesn't really serve society, so why should society encourage it? That, again, doesn't mean that no one should have any personal wealth, just that the ROI, after a point, should lessen.
How much do you really care after your second billion anyway?
What do you think the billionaires' billions are doing? Sitting in a bank account? I think the majority of their wealth is invested, i.e. it is funding industry, which is a good thing. If we assume for illustration that billionaires will spend $1B on things like private jets and invest the rest, then if we have $1T divided among 10 billionaires, we'll have $10B spent on jets and $990B invested, while if we have $1T divided among 1000 billionaires, we'll have $1T spent on jets and $0 invested. Given that, at least for the concern of "how it's being spent", it's actually best to have the megawealth concentrated among a relative few.
Yes. Maybe not their own savings account, but in some organizations' bank accounts.
Money in the hands of the low to middle class is spent far more efficiently. [1]
[1] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2011/12...
And if we split Jeff Bezos into 1000 individuals, each of which had about $200 million, and each of which spent half of it on mansions and yachts and invested the rest... would that be an improvement?
Invested money is usually in things like the stock market, which doesn't directly support a company (buying a share of AMZN doesn't put money in Amazon's pocket, although it does, amusingly, make Bezos wealthier on paper). Angel investing might actually be better here from a velocity perspective, I don't actually know for sure.
Thanks to $AMZN going up. There's no way he can spend that much per year for prolonged periods of time.
https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2021/3/28/extreme-poverty-i... makes a good case that poverty and inequality are quite related historically, too.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/nerds.html [2] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Can you give some, please? I'm probably one those folks who cannot distinguish decent from amazing blog posts.
If the pg's wealth tax blog was supposed to counter Piketty's work, it is comically pedestrian.