5 ms·

"This seems akin to suggesting that skin cancer is not bad per se" is not a fair analogy. What PG is trying to say is that the state of inequality can arise fro

by neosat 11y ago

"This seems akin to suggesting that skin cancer is not bad per se" is not a fair analogy. What PG is trying to say is that the state of inequality can arise from a system (of incentives) that is beneficial to humanity as a whole (you may or may not agree with him). But your biased analogy isn't a fair criticism of his argument.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Is it not? Paul seems to be saying, essentially, that because <things Paul Graham likes> cause economic inequality, it therefore doesn't matter.
- askafriend 11y ago
  Exactly, I think the author of this piece was trying to argue that startups aren't necessarily so clearly "on the whole, good". Who gets to decide that startups are good but small businesses aren't? PG has a vested interest in VC backed startups and has been an insider for so long that he's fallen victim to his own observations (see his essay on being an insider).
- neosat 11y ago
  Not really (at least the way I interpreted it). PG seems to be saying that attacking the "final state" may not be the most productive approach here. Rather the discussion and consequent solutions should be focussed on the obviously bad factors that lead to this state (and his argument is that not all factors that lead to this outcome are bad - again you can disagree with that but the analogy in the article isn't appropriate because it focusses the discussion again on the outcome (the cancer)
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  He's saying that inequality is the wrong thing to optimize against. Rather than attacking inequality writ large, it's best to attack the negative causes of it. The author ignores this, and says that economic inequality is bad, full stop. PG does a much better job than the author of making his point. Consider the case of global warming. It's caused by CO2. But lots of things produce CO2. Some, like people and farm animals, are good. Others, like coal, are less so. Attacking CO2 production as a whole, rather than the CO2 production we can do without, is likely to lead us to make poor decisions about what sorts of CO2 we limit. Creation of wealth is good. Concentration of wealth can result from the creation thereof. That's not a bad thing. Fighting economic inequality by limiting the creation of wealth would be asinine. That's what PG was saying, which the author went out of his way to not acknowledge.
- thegenius2000 11y ago
  I don't think so...Paul's point is that economic inequality is not in itself a bad thing: for example, consider the economic difference between David Beckham and Mark Zuckerberg. Beckham is worth $350 million, while Zuckerberg is woth $36 billion. But no one would suggest that this inequality is an injustice, even though Zuckerberg is worth 100-times Beckham. The fundamental issue isn't economic inequality, it's poverty. Edit: removed 'the' typo.
ebola1717 11y ago
Skin cancer can arise from a system (of biological processes) that are beneficial to the organism/species as a whole. :)
- NhanH 11y ago
  Pushing a bad analogy, it means that you should remove the cancer, not skinning human altogether ...
braythwayt 11y ago
I think the analogy is obviously designed to provoke an emotional response, but it’s not wildly unreasonable. The sun is beneficial for humanity a whole. But one side-effect is that you get skin cancer. Alice argues that overall, we’re better off, so don’t turn the sun off: Learn to live with skin cancer. Bob argues that maybe we can have the benefits of the sun while avoiding, curing, or reducing skin cancer. So don’t turn the sun off: Put your energies into fixing skin cancer, not complaining about the sun’s harmful rays. Those two arguments are certainly parallel to a lot of other arguments about capitalism, poverty, and inequality. Whether they are particularly convincing is another matter. Whether there are other options is another matter. And whether Paul’s essay matches either argument is yet another.
delish 11y ago
I agree. In conversation, people choose their "devil terms." For some, income inequality is one. My devil term (the bad-in-itself beyond argument) is "a situation where poor people can never rise." This might be the result of income inequality, but it isn't the definition of it. Whether it is the result is determined by studies done by experts. I'm sorry for going on a tangent. Skin cancer is a devil term like income inequality. I can't follow the argument because I don't agree with the choice of terms.

by neosat 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Is it not? Paul seems to be saying, essentially, that because <things Paul Graham likes> cause economic inequality, it therefore doesn't matter.

askafriend 11y ago
Exactly, I think the author of this piece was trying to argue that startups aren't necessarily so clearly "on the whole, good". Who gets to decide that startups are good but small businesses aren't? PG has a vested interest in VC backed startups and has been an insider for so long that he's fallen victim to his own observations (see his essay on being an insider).
neosat 11y ago
Not really (at least the way I interpreted it). PG seems to be saying that attacking the "final state" may not be the most productive approach here. Rather the discussion and consequent solutions should be focussed on the obviously bad factors that lead to this state (and his argument is that not all factors that lead to this outcome are bad - again you can disagree with that but the analogy in the article isn't appropriate because it focusses the discussion again on the outcome (the cancer)
redthrowaway 11y ago
He's saying that inequality is the wrong thing to optimize against. Rather than attacking inequality writ large, it's best to attack the negative causes of it. The author ignores this, and says that economic inequality is bad, full stop. PG does a much better job than the author of making his point. Consider the case of global warming. It's caused by CO2. But lots of things produce CO2. Some, like people and farm animals, are good. Others, like coal, are less so. Attacking CO2 production as a whole, rather than the CO2 production we can do without, is likely to lead us to make poor decisions about what sorts of CO2 we limit. Creation of wealth is good. Concentration of wealth can result from the creation thereof. That's not a bad thing. Fighting economic inequality by limiting the creation of wealth would be asinine. That's what PG was saying, which the author went out of his way to not acknowledge.
thegenius2000 11y ago
I don't think so...Paul's point is that economic inequality is not in itself a bad thing: for example, consider the economic difference between David Beckham and Mark Zuckerberg. Beckham is worth $350 million, while Zuckerberg is woth $36 billion. But no one would suggest that this inequality is an injustice, even though Zuckerberg is worth 100-times Beckham. The fundamental issue isn't economic inequality, it's poverty. Edit: removed 'the' typo.

ebola1717 11y ago

Skin cancer can arise from a system (of biological processes) that are beneficial to the organism/species as a whole. :)

NhanH 11y ago
Pushing a bad analogy, it means that you should remove the cancer, not skinning human altogether ...

braythwayt 11y ago

I think the analogy is obviously designed to provoke an emotional response, but it’s not wildly unreasonable. The sun is beneficial for humanity a whole. But one side-effect is that you get skin cancer. Alice argues that overall, we’re better off, so don’t turn the sun off: Learn to live with skin cancer. Bob argues that maybe we can have the benefits of the sun while avoiding, curing, or reducing skin cancer. So don’t turn the sun off: Put your energies into fixing skin cancer, not complaining about the sun’s harmful rays. Those two arguments are certainly parallel to a lot of other arguments about capitalism, poverty, and inequality. Whether they are particularly convincing is another matter. Whether there are other options is another matter. And whether Paul’s essay matches either argument is yet another.

delish 11y ago

I agree. In conversation, people choose their "devil terms." For some, income inequality is one. My devil term (the bad-in-itself beyond argument) is "a situation where poor people can never rise." This might be the result of income inequality, but it isn't the definition of it. Whether it is the result is determined by studies done by experts. I'm sorry for going on a tangent. Skin cancer is a devil term like income inequality. I can't follow the argument because I don't agree with the choice of terms.