5 ms·

Pg seems to really hate being criticized. I hope he doesn't stop writing about controversial things (or water down his essays) because the silent majority of us

Pg seems to really hate being criticized. I hope he doesn't stop writing about controversial things (or water down his essays) because the silent majority of us really appreciate it.

mikeg8 11y ago
I believe it's less about criticism and more about a hate of being misunderstood. But I agree that there is a majority who really appreciate his insights (I'm definitely one of them).
- x0x0 11y ago
  I don't know in general -- I haven't read most of pg's writing -- but his original economic inequality essay was indistinguishable from fox news uncle. It's a level of understanding of economic history and a well argued theory (see eg Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Brad DeLong, Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, others) you would expect from Glenn Beck. Mixed in with some first principles derivation that lead pg to claim So let's be clear about that. Ending economic inequality would mean ending startups. with a straight face. Ignoring the fact that ending economic inequality in a sort of perfect equality is a goal of essentially (yes, I'm sure you can find one dude on a blog somewhere) nobody. And that startups somehow occurred in periods with much less economic inequality.
  - ThomPete 11y ago
    Exactly. It seems like PG haven't really thought this through and is going for a more superficial understanding of economic inequality. I love his essays on tech and startups but this is an area where his thinking obviously isn't as developed.
  - bobby_9x 11y ago
    "but his original economic inequality essay was indistinguishable from fox news uncle" More like a much wiser Uncle telling his inexperienced nephews why they are making a bad decision. "And that startups somehow occurred in periods with much less economic inequality." Startups did occur in periods with much less economic equality, but there were also much less government regulations. PG is saying that the current solutions for economic equality, which is always an increase in taxes and regulations, will mean the death of startups. He's right. It's a warning for the future generations of startups. Anyone with wealth won't really be effected, because other countries will accept them (and their tax dollars) with open arms. Look at any of the Nordic countries: They all tout income equality, but your only options for work are the government or a big corporation. Startups are nearly impossible to get past the initial stages because regulations and taxes kick in and your lifeblood is cut off before you even get a chance to get anything going. Investors also steer clear of the entire region. This is a great indicator that it is not conducive for any sort of small business. This bottleneck prevents prosperity and creates an environment where citizens are more dependent on big corporations and there is almost no chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. It also means less of a chance of getting a loan from a bank, which is another requirement for someone with no money to start a business. I've never met a group that tries so hard to sabotage their own future success/vote against their own self-interests.
    - hfourm 11y ago
      Google searching reveals that while true there may be a lack of investment in startups in these areas from VC, there are still plenty of companies forming -- so there could be a few other variables at play then just "government regulation". You keep touting the same rhetoric but i'm afraid you are unwilling to challenge your own ideas. Like the idea of the wealth just leaving our country. Where are they going to go? China? Socialist european countries? The answer is NO WHERE. Unless they are wealthy enough to just decide to go retire in a cheaper country, the truth is that majority of business owners will find other efficiencies in their operations in order to retain access to things like their: non-immediate family, US workforce (cultural/communication barrier actually do become very important for many service oriented businesses), and the standard of living here. I find the conservative rhetoric that the rich will just "leave us" as absolutely insane. Even if they did leave in droves, good riddance -- short term losses followed my long term progress, are those really the type of American's we should be pandering too? The ones treating the country like an emotionally abused spouse that they will leave as soon as things don't go their way?
UK-AL 11y ago
I completely agree. I enjoy paul grahams essays. It's also good for people to read well argued arguments, that are the opposite to what they believe. If you only read stuff that you already believe, you haven't really learned anything.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Pg seems to really hate being criticized. I hope he doesn't stop writing about controversial things (or water down his essays) because the silent majority of us really appreciate it.

mikeg8 11y ago

I believe it's less about criticism and more about a hate of being misunderstood. But I agree that there is a majority who really appreciate his insights (I'm definitely one of them).

x0x0 11y ago
I don't know in general -- I haven't read most of pg's writing -- but his original economic inequality essay was indistinguishable from fox news uncle. It's a level of understanding of economic history and a well argued theory (see eg Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Brad DeLong, Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, others) you would expect from Glenn Beck. Mixed in with some first principles derivation that lead pg to claim So let's be clear about that. Ending economic inequality would mean ending startups. with a straight face. Ignoring the fact that ending economic inequality in a sort of perfect equality is a goal of essentially (yes, I'm sure you can find one dude on a blog somewhere) nobody. And that startups somehow occurred in periods with much less economic inequality.
- ThomPete 11y ago
  Exactly. It seems like PG haven't really thought this through and is going for a more superficial understanding of economic inequality. I love his essays on tech and startups but this is an area where his thinking obviously isn't as developed.
- bobby_9x 11y ago
  "but his original economic inequality essay was indistinguishable from fox news uncle" More like a much wiser Uncle telling his inexperienced nephews why they are making a bad decision. "And that startups somehow occurred in periods with much less economic inequality." Startups did occur in periods with much less economic equality, but there were also much less government regulations. PG is saying that the current solutions for economic equality, which is always an increase in taxes and regulations, will mean the death of startups. He's right. It's a warning for the future generations of startups. Anyone with wealth won't really be effected, because other countries will accept them (and their tax dollars) with open arms. Look at any of the Nordic countries: They all tout income equality, but your only options for work are the government or a big corporation. Startups are nearly impossible to get past the initial stages because regulations and taxes kick in and your lifeblood is cut off before you even get a chance to get anything going. Investors also steer clear of the entire region. This is a great indicator that it is not conducive for any sort of small business. This bottleneck prevents prosperity and creates an environment where citizens are more dependent on big corporations and there is almost no chance of moving up the socioeconomic ladder. It also means less of a chance of getting a loan from a bank, which is another requirement for someone with no money to start a business. I've never met a group that tries so hard to sabotage their own future success/vote against their own self-interests.
  - hfourm 11y ago
    Google searching reveals that while true there may be a lack of investment in startups in these areas from VC, there are still plenty of companies forming -- so there could be a few other variables at play then just "government regulation". You keep touting the same rhetoric but i'm afraid you are unwilling to challenge your own ideas. Like the idea of the wealth just leaving our country. Where are they going to go? China? Socialist european countries? The answer is NO WHERE. Unless they are wealthy enough to just decide to go retire in a cheaper country, the truth is that majority of business owners will find other efficiencies in their operations in order to retain access to things like their: non-immediate family, US workforce (cultural/communication barrier actually do become very important for many service oriented businesses), and the standard of living here. I find the conservative rhetoric that the rich will just "leave us" as absolutely insane. Even if they did leave in droves, good riddance -- short term losses followed my long term progress, are those really the type of American's we should be pandering too? The ones treating the country like an emotionally abused spouse that they will leave as soon as things don't go their way?

UK-AL 11y ago

I completely agree. I enjoy paul grahams essays. It's also good for people to read well argued arguments, that are the opposite to what they believe. If you only read stuff that you already believe, you haven't really learned anything.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]