Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon-sre-srm | Hacker News Reader

I can't put my finger on it, but it feels like Mark Zuckerberg is doing something similar spending 10's of billions lacking a coherent vision or immediate demand for a specific use. At least Sama has a strategy for maybe big things that could change the world(tm). My concern is spending 10's of billions or trillions without a specific, profitable need is inherently risking large piles of cash that would be more ethically given away rather than wasted.

View on HN

Well, the money doesn't go up in smoke. They end up paying it to their staff, suppliers, and so on. If the project doesn't pan out, it's actually just voluntary redistribution of wealth and the society is better off than if Sam's investors hoarded that money or used it to buy up real estate or make other fairly safe and boring bets.

An argument can be made that there is some specific and deliberate way of giving out $10T that's more equitable - say, spend it on education, public transport, or healthcare. But if we could all agree on what to do, nothing is stopping us from doing it without Sam's (theoretical) money.

>If the project doesn't pan out, it's actually just voluntary redistribution of wealth and the society is better off than if Sam's investors hoarded that money or used it to buy up real estate or make other fairly safe and boring bets.

And yet, still dramatically worse off than if they had decide to "change the world" by funding access to clean water in rural India / Africa, or something along those lines.

Investing in renewables and nuclear should really be where it's going. Should've been done 30 years ago. It is hard to argue with, "but AI will make better panels", maybe it's true, but we need to survive the next 10 years to realize the benefits.

Where I am today it's 15c above average...

Mark has kids so he should know what's at stake.

Your turn-of-phrase highlighted an interesting point, for me: a lot of that money will pay for a lot of electricity and other energy. Much of it literally goes up in smoke!

I still don't intuitively factor in the real, physical, non-renewable materials that go into these things projects, but I really should.

> Much of it literally goes up in smoke!

Smoke and gradient updates

I bet it can realistically only be solar, and maybe a nuclear plan or two.

The solar energy would be wasted anyway unless captured. (Nuclear plants are harder.)

I don’t care who it is, nobody is capable or ethical enough to allocate that kind of capital in a more effective way for societies benefit than it being in the hands of a billion people.

So yes, it would be better for everyone if these billionaires literally allocated 99.9% of their class a stock to millions of employees and customers (+ cash for the gift tax or lobby the usg to waive it)

Shouldn't something big have come out of the stimulus checks if dividing $814B up to every person in America was a productive way to allocate capital?

Yeah it did, most people used it to survive because most people are drowning in debt and have no chance to ever retire.

See that most people spent it on food and debt:

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-9/pdf/receipt-and-use-of...

Getting everyone out of debt would destroy the capital class that lives off the poor though so it is unlikely to happen

I’m trying to figure out how you think that the “capital class” lives off the debt of “the poor” when the bottom 50% of US households account for just 2.6% of total income.

That claim would be extraordinary if true; entirely ordinarily, it turns out to be false.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59757 has information on income breakdown and shows that claim to be wildly incorrect.

You appear to have confused total wealth with total income.

Stolen wages + Inequitable equity distribution

The people doing the actual work in the world (aka the global labor force) are having their value stolen from them because the structure of the modern firm alienates the worker from their capital by assuming it was never theirs and the “proprietor” is assumed to own all simply because they fronted the cash to get it started

They hide behind coded socio-political and economic language to externalize their real needs on others, inflate their buying power, burn more fossil fuels.

The fiat wealth model is politically contrived misdirection. Physics makes no mention of a fundamental currency policy or sacred economic model. It’s 100% socialized propaganda there’s a communal upside to capitalism as we know it, not immutable physics.

Gift tax is already the responsibility of the donor, not the recipient (in the US tax code). The gift tax is essentially a form of estate tax.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

If an employer makes a transfer to an employee specifically because they’re an employee (as opposed to gifting something to every customer, employee or not), that’s overwhelmingly likely to be treated as income (disallowed gift treatment), for fairly obvious reasons.

Great, even easier

I downvote every comment that refers to Sam Altman as sama

This is his user name on hacker news, why it's a problem to use it here ?

In Japanese, "sama" is an honorific used for "individuals of higher rank than oneself", and can carry connotations of admiration or worship [1].

I don't think this makes it a problem to use given the mainly American audience of HN, but could be why some users take it to be inappropriate.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_honorifics#Sama

Yes, but it isn't used on its own like that so it doesn't apply. It's used as part of compounds like 'o-kyaku-sama' (valued customer) or after someone's name.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com