39 ms·

None of this makes any sense to me at all. I'm reading through it but there are logical fallacies abound. In the first few paragraphs.. > Which means by helpi

None of this makes any sense to me at all. I'm reading through it but there are logical fallacies abound. In the first few paragraphs.. > Which means by helping startup founders I've been helping to increase economic inequality. If economic inequality should be decreased, I shouldn't be helping founders. No. Just...no. Founders should be starting companies that reduce inequality. By definition. The idea of a healthy marketplace for both startups and for regular people doing regular things implies a reduction in inequality. Not just a reduction in poverty, but a reduction in inequality. That is easiest done by lifting the poor out of poverty. PG's take is to stop all progress because he is straw-man arguing against something that nobody is even taking the position on that he's arguing against. The logical fallacy count in the first few paragraphs alone make this piece difficult to read. What happened? :( Continuing to read... > But some are good, like Larry Page and Sergey Brin starting the company you use to find things online. No conversation at all about the pitfalls and issues that Google has also caused in the world? This is a carte blanche to Google that 100% of their work has been positive and it's not worthy to discuss anything they might have done that would hurt people in the world? Not everything about Google is "Good". These takes are all so one-sided, close-minded, and wrong. > The most naive version of which is the one based on the pie fallacy: that the rich get rich by taking money from the poor. Wait. What. PG thinks that this is a fallacy? I'm going to have to stop reading to protect my sanity. The rich are definitely getting richer at the expense of the poor. The world did not start on some level playing field. The rich had privilege and status and help that the poor do not. Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor.

raspasov 7y ago
"Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor." "Taking"? When a "poor" person chooses to buy an Android or an iPhone, did Google or Apple "take" his money from him? No, the person "chose" to give money to the company because she thought that it provides some utility for her. Alternatively, you can argue that designing a smartphone is leveling the playing field, which would make more sense. What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago
  > What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves. Agreed, it's possible and these win-wins do happen. Yet there is also plenty of rent-seeking which does enrich the wealthy and often at the expense of those poorer than they.
AlchemistCamp 7y ago
> Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor. J.K. Rowling was already a wealthy person before finishing her Harry Potter series. Each additional book further enriched her, but also enriched me because I got hours of enjoyment from reading another Harry Potter book which was a great trade for the ten USD or so I spent on it.

raspasov 7y ago

"Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor." "Taking"? When a "poor" person chooses to buy an Android or an iPhone, did Google or Apple "take" his money from him? No, the person "chose" to give money to the company because she thought that it provides some utility for her. Alternatively, you can argue that designing a smartphone is leveling the playing field, which would make more sense. What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves.

paulryanrogers 7y ago
> What you seem to get wrong is that BOTH can occur at the same time - leveling the playing field AND enriching themselves. Agreed, it's possible and these win-wins do happen. Yet there is also plenty of rent-seeking which does enrich the wealthy and often at the expense of those poorer than they.

AlchemistCamp 7y ago

> Every action that a rich person takes to enrich themselves rather than trying to level the playing field is by definition taking from the poor. J.K. Rowling was already a wealthy person before finishing her Harry Potter series. Each additional book further enriched her, but also enriched me because I got hours of enjoyment from reading another Harry Potter book which was a great trade for the ten USD or so I spent on it.