8 ms·

I think there's an important point here. Bill Gates wouldn't be a billionaire if he didn't build amazing things, but he also exploited at scale the unjust IP ("

by breck 6y ago

I think there's an important point here. Bill Gates wouldn't be a billionaire if he didn't build amazing things, but he also exploited at scale the unjust IP ("ImaginaryProperty") system, which was a critical part of achieving the scale Microsoft achieved. Startups like Airbnb and Lyft likewise have built amazing things, and would easily make their founders 100' millionaires, but there is a point where to reach a certain level you need to leverage some flawed, unjust legal system at scale (stupid regulations around housing/hospitality/and taxis, in these examples). None of these founders created these legal systems, but their rapid success and scale I can't see happening without those dumb legal environments they found when they started. Now, maybe the best method to fix unjust laws is exactly this: when you see a stupid legal system, found a company to exploit it, become a billionaire and then finally society will take notice that the legal system is stupid and will fix it. So I could see an argument that maybe not only should we not penalize billionaires who built their wealth from scratch, but we should thank them, like we thank white-hats, for identifying inequitable laws that they were able to leverage at scale.

nthj 6y ago
You offered up 3 examples of billionaires. Other examples might be: * Tesla * Twilio * Stripe Would you help me see how those 3 leveraged unjust laws? As a software developer, I feel Stripe and Twilio have added a lot of value to me, to small businesses, and the world.
- breck 6y ago
  Sorry, I think my writing was a bit muddled (common occurrence). I love those businesses I mentioned. And the 3 you mentioned too. I 100% agree they have added a lot of value to me and the world. What I was trying to say is that to make billions, you need to 1) create a lot of value and 2) have some broken legal system that you are operating in. Maybe for the latter "exploiting" is the wrong word. But the government needs to have created a situation where you can somehow reap a disproportionate reward. Linus created Linux and Git, which have created unimaginable value, but he didn't do #2 which was to use the unjust IP system to make billions of dollars. In other words. Lyft is a product of hard work and innovation multiplied by corruption and bad government in the taxi industry. The value created by Lyft comes from the former, but the value captured by Lyft is just as dependent on the latter as well. Nothing wrong with that—it's still a big net win for society, but maybe we could do a better job at refactoring our laws so we can get the value without the unnatural inequities. After all, I know a lot of these people and while they are almost all smarter than me, none of them is 10x smarter than me (well maybe pg). In response to your 3 examples: * Tesla Carbons were subsidized and solar/electric better tech. Automotive industry is highly regulated and innovation was sloooow. Elon and company are the best of the best (a shareholder), but still I'm not going to pretend that the business opportunity would be so great if the governments around the world hadn't been creating corruption after corruption (look at the car dealership stuff with the states as a tiny but egregious example). * Twilio Oh man the telecom infra went from magic to just rotten in the past few decades. I don't know enough about government here to comment, but I suspect something bad here. * Stripe The amount of protection the finance and banking industry has (and their symbiotic relationship with the government) made me sick so many times. Finally someone had the stamina and determination to solve that. But Stripe isn't hitting $100B if US Government wasn't letting the finance industry sit on its ass for 3 decades with protective legislation.
  - riggernetard 6y ago
    did you forget you were arguing that billionares are inherently bad? all you argue here is that ... if laws were good, we'd hve had 100m tsla/twilio/stripe 30 years ago
camgunz 6y ago
It's less "your product is exploitative" and "you underpay (exploit) your workers for their labor." Bill Gates didn't write Windows 95. Steve Ballmer didn't write Microsoft Office. But they owned stock in a company that employed people that did (and all the various other labor that goes into building software products). Why did they make so much more money from it than the people who were more directly involved? This dynamic is reducible. If Person A starts a software company, Person B, C and D build the product, and then Person A gets $10,000 while Person B, C and D each get $1, something is off there. The capitalist defense of this is more or less, "B/C/D agreed to those terms", but this ignores the context. If every B/C/D wanted to be As, there would be no B/C/Ds to build things. And it's not always possible to choose to be an A--it usually requires a fair amount of privilege to start a business. But nonetheless, their work is equally important, and even if it isn't, it's certainly not the case that A's work is 100,000x more important. We need to recognize this kind of bonkers concentration of wealth is a huge problem, and fix it with profit sharing and taxation.
- refurb 6y ago
  Didn’t Microsoft create hundreds of millionaires out of it’s initial employees? I mean, the people building the next generation of Microsoft products aren’t going to have trouble entering the upper income brackets of American society.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    I would say a couple things here: - Your argument could be rephrased as "profit-sharing isn't necessary as long as you pay people enough." This may work at mega-successful businesses like Microsoft, but doesn't work so well at something like a restaurant chain (or Amazon), where income inequality is far more pronounced. And those cases are far more common. - Concentrations of wealth and capital have a destabilizing effect on society. It leads to political corruption. Further, even if we have a handful of companies where income inequality is relatively low, that's not the case for most Americans, even at those same companies. In other words, sure software engineers are doing fine, but most people aren't, including many people working for the same companies as those software engineers.
ablekh 6y ago
Be careful with labels / generalizations like "stupid legal system" and "inequitable laws". What you, some people and some companies might see as such, a whole bunch of other people and other companies might see as exactly the opposite. The world is not black and white. And it's all about perspectives ...
- breck 6y ago
  > The world is not black and white. But it is N and N^N
  - ablekh 6y ago
    How is this relevant to the subject? Is this your counterargument to the core of what I wrote above?
    - breck 6y ago
      I would agree with you about the "be careful" part. A wise quote is "If you want to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh or they'll kill you”. I believe in perspective too, and agree that perspective matters. But I also believe their is a common perspective (very hard to get at, that is the journey of scientists), and so at some point when you have enough data you can say "well there really is a black and white here".
      - ablekh 6y ago
        Fair enough. I'm glad that we seem to be largely on the same page on the subject, then. As for the "common perspective", I usually refer to that as consensus and, indeed, it is very hard - in some cases, I would say, excruciatingly hard - to achieve. Unfortunately, such is life ...
        breck 6y ago
        Consensus is a good word. Something for me to chew on. Thanks

by breck 6y ago

nthj 6y ago

You offered up 3 examples of billionaires. Other examples might be: * Tesla * Twilio * Stripe Would you help me see how those 3 leveraged unjust laws? As a software developer, I feel Stripe and Twilio have added a lot of value to me, to small businesses, and the world.

breck 6y ago
Sorry, I think my writing was a bit muddled (common occurrence). I love those businesses I mentioned. And the 3 you mentioned too. I 100% agree they have added a lot of value to me and the world. What I was trying to say is that to make billions, you need to 1) create a lot of value and 2) have some broken legal system that you are operating in. Maybe for the latter "exploiting" is the wrong word. But the government needs to have created a situation where you can somehow reap a disproportionate reward. Linus created Linux and Git, which have created unimaginable value, but he didn't do #2 which was to use the unjust IP system to make billions of dollars. In other words. Lyft is a product of hard work and innovation multiplied by corruption and bad government in the taxi industry. The value created by Lyft comes from the former, but the value captured by Lyft is just as dependent on the latter as well. Nothing wrong with that—it's still a big net win for society, but maybe we could do a better job at refactoring our laws so we can get the value without the unnatural inequities. After all, I know a lot of these people and while they are almost all smarter than me, none of them is 10x smarter than me (well maybe pg). In response to your 3 examples: * Tesla Carbons were subsidized and solar/electric better tech. Automotive industry is highly regulated and innovation was sloooow. Elon and company are the best of the best (a shareholder), but still I'm not going to pretend that the business opportunity would be so great if the governments around the world hadn't been creating corruption after corruption (look at the car dealership stuff with the states as a tiny but egregious example). * Twilio Oh man the telecom infra went from magic to just rotten in the past few decades. I don't know enough about government here to comment, but I suspect something bad here. * Stripe The amount of protection the finance and banking industry has (and their symbiotic relationship with the government) made me sick so many times. Finally someone had the stamina and determination to solve that. But Stripe isn't hitting $100B if US Government wasn't letting the finance industry sit on its ass for 3 decades with protective legislation.
- riggernetard 6y ago
  did you forget you were arguing that billionares are inherently bad? all you argue here is that ... if laws were good, we'd hve had 100m tsla/twilio/stripe 30 years ago

camgunz 6y ago

It's less "your product is exploitative" and "you underpay (exploit) your workers for their labor." Bill Gates didn't write Windows 95. Steve Ballmer didn't write Microsoft Office. But they owned stock in a company that employed people that did (and all the various other labor that goes into building software products). Why did they make so much more money from it than the people who were more directly involved? This dynamic is reducible. If Person A starts a software company, Person B, C and D build the product, and then Person A gets $10,000 while Person B, C and D each get $1, something is off there. The capitalist defense of this is more or less, "B/C/D agreed to those terms", but this ignores the context. If every B/C/D wanted to be As, there would be no B/C/Ds to build things. And it's not always possible to choose to be an A--it usually requires a fair amount of privilege to start a business. But nonetheless, their work is equally important, and even if it isn't, it's certainly not the case that A's work is 100,000x more important. We need to recognize this kind of bonkers concentration of wealth is a huge problem, and fix it with profit sharing and taxation.

refurb 6y ago
Didn’t Microsoft create hundreds of millionaires out of it’s initial employees? I mean, the people building the next generation of Microsoft products aren’t going to have trouble entering the upper income brackets of American society.
- camgunz 6y ago
  I would say a couple things here: - Your argument could be rephrased as "profit-sharing isn't necessary as long as you pay people enough." This may work at mega-successful businesses like Microsoft, but doesn't work so well at something like a restaurant chain (or Amazon), where income inequality is far more pronounced. And those cases are far more common. - Concentrations of wealth and capital have a destabilizing effect on society. It leads to political corruption. Further, even if we have a handful of companies where income inequality is relatively low, that's not the case for most Americans, even at those same companies. In other words, sure software engineers are doing fine, but most people aren't, including many people working for the same companies as those software engineers.

ablekh 6y ago

Be careful with labels / generalizations like "stupid legal system" and "inequitable laws". What you, some people and some companies might see as such, a whole bunch of other people and other companies might see as exactly the opposite. The world is not black and white. And it's all about perspectives ...

breck 6y ago
> The world is not black and white. But it is N and N^N
- ablekh 6y ago
  How is this relevant to the subject? Is this your counterargument to the core of what I wrote above?
  - breck 6y ago
    I would agree with you about the "be careful" part. A wise quote is "If you want to tell people the truth, you'd better make them laugh or they'll kill you”. I believe in perspective too, and agree that perspective matters. But I also believe their is a common perspective (very hard to get at, that is the journey of scientists), and so at some point when you have enough data you can say "well there really is a black and white here".
    - ablekh 6y ago
      Fair enough. I'm glad that we seem to be largely on the same page on the subject, then. As for the "common perspective", I usually refer to that as consensus and, indeed, it is very hard - in some cases, I would say, excruciatingly hard - to achieve. Unfortunately, such is life ...
      - breck 6y ago
        Consensus is a good word. Something for me to chew on. Thanks