6 ms·

Sometimes I just have to laugh / cringe reading HN. The detailed analysis of how this woman who wants to hold on to a piece of sentimental property is actually

Sometimes I just have to laugh / cringe reading HN. The detailed analysis of how this woman who wants to hold on to a piece of sentimental property is actually mistaken, is destroying the neighborhood, is willfully naive for not exploiting her position to make as much money as possible, etc, etc is predictable but tiring. Fears about about "cash being the sole nexus between human beings" seem pretty realized on HN. It's as if no one - or at the very least the VC crowd - accepts that anyone could be doing anything _other_ than living their life in pursuit of profit. And if they are, they're ignorant, naive - even selfish - for not aligning their intent with a profit motive.

3pt14159 8y ago
I never really cared about making more than $5m until I realized that the profit motive[0] is going to destroy everything because it dumps everything into arms races and as human power goes up, due to increased scientific advancement and the accelerating search space for technological combinations that provide greater economies of attack asymmetry, negative externalities begin to dominate the world. Especially in areas where attribution is impossible, since deterrence isn't possible, or in areas where outcomes are unpredictable, for the same reason. I just wanted to have fun and create a little garden for myself. Now I have to become some ugly combination of Soros, Orwell, and Nader[1] because the people with money right now are all people that cared about money, or—ethically better, but consequentially worse—they're techno-optimists. [0] The feedback function, really. Startups are just organizations in search of a feedback function. [1] Yes. I'm aware of the irony.
- selestify 8y ago
  Why do negative instead of positive externalities have to dominate?
  - chid 8y ago
    because then someone would step in to profit from the positive externalities
kyleblarson 8y ago
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a jet ski, and I've never seen a sad person on a jet ski.
padobson 8y ago
I feel like profits need a re-branding campaign. It's so easy to paint them as a negative, and even the most vocal capitalists will shrug and suggest they're something neutral. Profits are a signal, and a powerful one at that. Outside of rent seeking, which I regard as fairly rare, profits signal that an entrepreneur is delivering value in excess of the costs to produce the value. Spread out over the size of a community, region, or nation, that's like magic! Furthermore, they're not cold and unemotional, as is suggested here. Value almost always has an emotional component. The profitable condos that people want to build aren't going to be inhabited by automatons. They'll be inhabited by people - people who will date, get married, have children, people that will graduate from high school and college, people that will march in parades, protest in political movements, enjoy and create culture. To look at the value that companies want to create in this space like a shameless cash grabs ignores the very humanity that assigns that value in the first place. Profits are not evil. They're a signal of efficient production of value, and value implies a benefit for humanity.
- CptFribble 8y ago
  I feel like sweatshops need a re-branding campaign. It's so easy to paint them as a negative, and even the most vocal capitalists will shrug and suggest they're something neutral. Sweatshops are a tool, and a powerful one at that. As opposed to outright slavery, which I regard as fairly rare, sweatshops are used by entrepreneurs to deliver value in excess of the costs to produce the value. Spread out over the size of a community, region, or nation, that's like magic! Furthermore, they're not cold and unemotional, as is suggested here. Value almost always has an emotional component. The profitable clothes that sweatshops produce aren't going to be worn by automatons. They'll be worn by people - people who will date, get married, have children, people that will graduate from high school and college, people that will march in parades, protest in political movements, enjoy and create culture. To look at the value that companies want to create in sweatshops like a shameless cash grab ignores the very humanity that assigns that value in the first place. Sweatshops are not evil. They're a tool for efficient production of value, and value implies a benefit for humanity.
  - iguy 8y ago
gist 8y ago
Except for one thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned. This is a common ploy on behalf of owners of real estate to get the highest price for the property w/o appearing openly that that is what they are doing. Of course it's always suspected that is what they are doing. But it's really old school. You say you don't want to sell, won't sell, not at any price, reject all offers until one comes along that is so high you finally engage in the transaction. I have actually run into this before many times. Also part of the tell tale sign is that she plans to rent it out. That is another signal that she just plans to wait. Most likely the lease will be written in a way that allows her to terminate it if she wants with some kind of liquidated damages payment. Now I have seen people not want to sell 'at any price' genuinely because they do run a business, don't need the money, and most importantly (and this is key) it gives them something to do. Typically they are older people who want to show up for work every day. This woman doesn't fit that MO though. My bet is it's a selling strategy.
AareyBaba 8y ago
Reminds me of the last cornfield in the middle of Silicon valley. The field is worth millions if sold to a real estate developer but every year without fail there is a new crop of corn planted and harvested. I imagine it belongs to some aging retiree who sits on his/her rocking chair and watches the corn grow while harried tech executives in Teslas navigate rush hour traffic on the Lawrence expressway. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3622129,-121.9960813,3a,75y,263.12h,83.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPRMG_Yb1jelU74xI6btF_X6AWvBbRT-FU59Wdq!2e10!3e11!7i11000!8i5500 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3622129,-121.9960813,3a,75y,...
- m463 8y ago
  The corn palace is owned by two 90-year old brothers who have farmed it forever. I don't know if they're still around. I believe there is a documentary movie someone made about it maybe in the 90's. It used to be bigger but the part furthest from lawrence expressway must have been parceled out because it was developed into homes.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  And every year the corn field presumably becomes even more valuable. Sounds like a smart investment strategy.
- scruple 8y ago
  I live in Irvine, CA. Broadcom just built a multi-billion dollar campus (that's my crude understanding, maybe it's wrong; I work with what I hear). They are juxtaposed on 2 sides by agriculture fields. It's interesting to think about, as I drive by it frequently (it's on the way to my wife's office and the freeway).
dcosson 8y ago
You're making some big leaps in your interpretation vs what's actually being said. I don't see a single comment saying she should sell because money is all that matters. A few comments are saying if she sold it to a housing developer that would create more housing - which is objectively true - and then asserting that more housing would be a good thing given the housing shortage - which is a value judgement you are free to disagree with, but not at all the same as saying profit is all that matters.
- nerdponx 8y ago
  if she sold it to a housing developer that would create more housing Maybe. In that neighborhood, it would likely be very expensive condos, which would likely not be rented by someone already living in New York. I really doubt the extent to which all this new luxury construction is actually easing the housing problem, versus just creating additional demand akin to what happens when you add a lane to a highway.
PostThisTooFast 8y ago
"Destroying the neighborhood?" Get over yourself. She was there first. And there's no doubt that the douchebags who move next door will start complaining about some longstanding aspect of her business. Just like yuppies who moved next to the 100-year-old HQ of the Salvation Army in Chicago and started bitching. Or the douches that move into overpriced shoebox condos next to car-repair shops in L.A. and then whine about the smell of paint.

3pt14159 8y ago

I never really cared about making more than $5m until I realized that the profit motive[0] is going to destroy everything because it dumps everything into arms races and as human power goes up, due to increased scientific advancement and the accelerating search space for technological combinations that provide greater economies of attack asymmetry, negative externalities begin to dominate the world. Especially in areas where attribution is impossible, since deterrence isn't possible, or in areas where outcomes are unpredictable, for the same reason. I just wanted to have fun and create a little garden for myself. Now I have to become some ugly combination of Soros, Orwell, and Nader[1] because the people with money right now are all people that cared about money, or—ethically better, but consequentially worse—they're techno-optimists. [0] The feedback function, really. Startups are just organizations in search of a feedback function. [1] Yes. I'm aware of the irony.

selestify 8y ago
Why do negative instead of positive externalities have to dominate?
- chid 8y ago
  because then someone would step in to profit from the positive externalities

kyleblarson 8y ago

Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a jet ski, and I've never seen a sad person on a jet ski.

padobson 8y ago

I feel like profits need a re-branding campaign. It's so easy to paint them as a negative, and even the most vocal capitalists will shrug and suggest they're something neutral. Profits are a signal, and a powerful one at that. Outside of rent seeking, which I regard as fairly rare, profits signal that an entrepreneur is delivering value in excess of the costs to produce the value. Spread out over the size of a community, region, or nation, that's like magic! Furthermore, they're not cold and unemotional, as is suggested here. Value almost always has an emotional component. The profitable condos that people want to build aren't going to be inhabited by automatons. They'll be inhabited by people - people who will date, get married, have children, people that will graduate from high school and college, people that will march in parades, protest in political movements, enjoy and create culture. To look at the value that companies want to create in this space like a shameless cash grabs ignores the very humanity that assigns that value in the first place. Profits are not evil. They're a signal of efficient production of value, and value implies a benefit for humanity.

CptFribble 8y ago
I feel like sweatshops need a re-branding campaign. It's so easy to paint them as a negative, and even the most vocal capitalists will shrug and suggest they're something neutral. Sweatshops are a tool, and a powerful one at that. As opposed to outright slavery, which I regard as fairly rare, sweatshops are used by entrepreneurs to deliver value in excess of the costs to produce the value. Spread out over the size of a community, region, or nation, that's like magic! Furthermore, they're not cold and unemotional, as is suggested here. Value almost always has an emotional component. The profitable clothes that sweatshops produce aren't going to be worn by automatons. They'll be worn by people - people who will date, get married, have children, people that will graduate from high school and college, people that will march in parades, protest in political movements, enjoy and create culture. To look at the value that companies want to create in sweatshops like a shameless cash grab ignores the very humanity that assigns that value in the first place. Sweatshops are not evil. They're a tool for efficient production of value, and value implies a benefit for humanity.
- iguy 8y ago

gist 8y ago

Except for one thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned. This is a common ploy on behalf of owners of real estate to get the highest price for the property w/o appearing openly that that is what they are doing. Of course it's always suspected that is what they are doing. But it's really old school. You say you don't want to sell, won't sell, not at any price, reject all offers until one comes along that is so high you finally engage in the transaction. I have actually run into this before many times. Also part of the tell tale sign is that she plans to rent it out. That is another signal that she just plans to wait. Most likely the lease will be written in a way that allows her to terminate it if she wants with some kind of liquidated damages payment. Now I have seen people not want to sell 'at any price' genuinely because they do run a business, don't need the money, and most importantly (and this is key) it gives them something to do. Typically they are older people who want to show up for work every day. This woman doesn't fit that MO though. My bet is it's a selling strategy.

AareyBaba 8y ago

Reminds me of the last cornfield in the middle of Silicon valley. The field is worth millions if sold to a real estate developer but every year without fail there is a new crop of corn planted and harvested. I imagine it belongs to some aging retiree who sits on his/her rocking chair and watches the corn grow while harried tech executives in Teslas navigate rush hour traffic on the Lawrence expressway. https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3622129,-121.9960813,3a,75y,263.12h,83.49t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAF1QipPRMG_Yb1jelU74xI6btF_X6AWvBbRT-FU59Wdq!2e10!3e11!7i11000!8i5500 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3622129,-121.9960813,3a,75y,...

m463 8y ago
The corn palace is owned by two 90-year old brothers who have farmed it forever. I don't know if they're still around. I believe there is a documentary movie someone made about it maybe in the 90's. It used to be bigger but the part furthest from lawrence expressway must have been parceled out because it was developed into homes.
BurningFrog 8y ago
And every year the corn field presumably becomes even more valuable. Sounds like a smart investment strategy.
scruple 8y ago
I live in Irvine, CA. Broadcom just built a multi-billion dollar campus (that's my crude understanding, maybe it's wrong; I work with what I hear). They are juxtaposed on 2 sides by agriculture fields. It's interesting to think about, as I drive by it frequently (it's on the way to my wife's office and the freeway).

dcosson 8y ago

You're making some big leaps in your interpretation vs what's actually being said. I don't see a single comment saying she should sell because money is all that matters. A few comments are saying if she sold it to a housing developer that would create more housing - which is objectively true - and then asserting that more housing would be a good thing given the housing shortage - which is a value judgement you are free to disagree with, but not at all the same as saying profit is all that matters.

nerdponx 8y ago
if she sold it to a housing developer that would create more housing Maybe. In that neighborhood, it would likely be very expensive condos, which would likely not be rented by someone already living in New York. I really doubt the extent to which all this new luxury construction is actually easing the housing problem, versus just creating additional demand akin to what happens when you add a lane to a highway.

PostThisTooFast 8y ago

"Destroying the neighborhood?" Get over yourself. She was there first. And there's no doubt that the douchebags who move next door will start complaining about some longstanding aspect of her business. Just like yuppies who moved next to the 100-year-old HQ of the Salvation Army in Chicago and started bitching. Or the douches that move into overpriced shoebox condos next to car-repair shops in L.A. and then whine about the smell of paint.