3 ms·

Paul Graham, who started this website, wrote: "Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups. And that doesn't seem a wise move." How w

Paul Graham, who started this website, wrote: "Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups. And that doesn't seem a wise move." How would you respond to that?

leereeves 7y ago
Why should that be the case? Venture capital from a few extremely wealthy people isn't the only way to fund a startup. Didn't Paul Graham himself start a startup without VC money?
- cousin_it 7y ago
  His point wasn't about VC, it was about the fact that introducing new goods and services usually fails, so if we remove the big reward for success, people will stop taking that risk.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    Lots of people start startups that they know will never make them billionaires, and even the founders of Google never expected the huge rewards they've reaped. And there are ways of reducing the risk by not growing too quickly, building a company with actual revenues instead of burning VC cash. The only thing reduced inequality would kill is the Silicon Valley variety of startup, which would be a good thing for everyone outside Silicon Valley. It would give sustainable businesses a chance to grow without having to compete with companies who burn billions of dollars to buy the market.
jacquesm 7y ago
I would respond that that quote is taken severely out of context if applied to such entities as cities and towns. Besides that I think PG has a bit of a vested interest there; you rarely see a rich person argue for more equality in wealth. That said PG did more to lift up people to riches than the bulk of the paper penning econometrists. So, start-ups are fine, but making it harder for people from smaller towns or rural areas to get proper medical care, legal representation, education and so on because of perceived economic benefits of letting them rot in favor of improving the lives of those in the cities is missing the wood for the trees and will do a large amount of harm.
- cousin_it 7y ago
  nabla9 said: "Inequality is best addressed by free healthcare, education and direct money transfers". To which you replied "Nonsense" and demanded more drastic measures, otherwise healthcare and education won't help. But now you say healthcare and education are what matters. I'm confused.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    It was nabla9 missing the point the article advocates for reallocating resources to where they have the most economic effect: the big agglomerations. Providing free (but crappy) healthcare and education will not close the divide thus created. So these things are not going to be solved without capable people in places that are behind already. You need good healthcare and good education at the same cost as in the big cities to make it make sense. If the price is free then so much the better but first and foremost this is a discussion about quality. For example: in a certain third world country healthcare may be free. But all the good doctors have left for the United States because that's where they get paid the most. So now the locals have 'free healthcare' but it doesn't really help them. They probably would like access to better and affordable healthcare.

Paul Graham, who started this website, wrote: "Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups. And that doesn't seem a wise move." How would you respond to that?

leereeves 7y ago

Why should that be the case? Venture capital from a few extremely wealthy people isn't the only way to fund a startup. Didn't Paul Graham himself start a startup without VC money?

cousin_it 7y ago
His point wasn't about VC, it was about the fact that introducing new goods and services usually fails, so if we remove the big reward for success, people will stop taking that risk.
- leereeves 7y ago
  Lots of people start startups that they know will never make them billionaires, and even the founders of Google never expected the huge rewards they've reaped. And there are ways of reducing the risk by not growing too quickly, building a company with actual revenues instead of burning VC cash. The only thing reduced inequality would kill is the Silicon Valley variety of startup, which would be a good thing for everyone outside Silicon Valley. It would give sustainable businesses a chance to grow without having to compete with companies who burn billions of dollars to buy the market.

jacquesm 7y ago

I would respond that that quote is taken severely out of context if applied to such entities as cities and towns. Besides that I think PG has a bit of a vested interest there; you rarely see a rich person argue for more equality in wealth. That said PG did more to lift up people to riches than the bulk of the paper penning econometrists. So, start-ups are fine, but making it harder for people from smaller towns or rural areas to get proper medical care, legal representation, education and so on because of perceived economic benefits of letting them rot in favor of improving the lives of those in the cities is missing the wood for the trees and will do a large amount of harm.

cousin_it 7y ago
nabla9 said: "Inequality is best addressed by free healthcare, education and direct money transfers". To which you replied "Nonsense" and demanded more drastic measures, otherwise healthcare and education won't help. But now you say healthcare and education are what matters. I'm confused.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  It was nabla9 missing the point the article advocates for reallocating resources to where they have the most economic effect: the big agglomerations. Providing free (but crappy) healthcare and education will not close the divide thus created. So these things are not going to be solved without capable people in places that are behind already. You need good healthcare and good education at the same cost as in the big cities to make it make sense. If the price is free then so much the better but first and foremost this is a discussion about quality. For example: in a certain third world country healthcare may be free. But all the good doctors have left for the United States because that's where they get paid the most. So now the locals have 'free healthcare' but it doesn't really help them. They probably would like access to better and affordable healthcare.