3 ms·

Exactly. And I also think looking at money only may not go far enough. At the end of the day what matters is the amount of resources that the society allow a pe

• WalterBright 6y ago
  They're creating the value, not taking it from others.
  • gip 6y ago
    What you are missing is that the resources in the world that matter are bounded. So if a minority is creating most of the value at scale, they will be able to redirect most of the resources to themselves. This drives the increase in inequality. That is why thinking purely in financial terms is misleading. It's not because everyone has more $$$ in the bank that everyone is better off.
    • shuckles 6y ago
      Is it really the case that Jeff Bezos is consuming a million times more finite resources than someone whose net worth is $100k? It seems to me like what you buy with virtually infinite money is status like hanging out or sleeping with celebrities, a seat in important rooms, and assets. There is only so much additional jet fuel and human labor a multi-billionaire can consume.
      • WalterBright 6y ago
        SpaceX, etc. That's what you do with billions to spend.
        • shuckles 6y ago
          I think there’s an interesting and fair argument to make that one negative consequence of billionaires is entire otherwise unproductive economic sectors that exist for no reason other than their vanity (mega yachts, Swiss boarding schools, high fashion, doomsday bunkers). That is a different argument than one about resource hoarding though — a Louis bag doesn’t take much in the way of resources, just a single python in the worst case!
          • bumby 6y ago
            >one negative consequence of billionaires is entire otherwise unproductive economic sectors that exist for no reason other than their vanity This isn't just relegated to billionaires. Depending on how you define "consumption", up to 70% of the U.S. economy is consumer driven. Now I wouldn't call all this "unproductive" but it's probably selectively unfair to claim only the uber-rich are spending money on items they don't need.
      • gip 6y ago
        It is a fair point if the focus is on billionaires (Bezos, Zuck,...). The proportion of resources they consume is well below their wealth. They may even contribute positively to society through charitable causes. The real issue is that tech/startup founders and workers who, while less rich, accumulate more wealth at scale compare to the rest of society. And given their number, I'm afraid this will have a real impact by greatly increasing inequality. That would be ok if the other part of the population would also be able to live better. But I do not think it will be the case. Btw: I am a tech founder.
    • WalterBright 6y ago
      The resources are bounded. The value you can create from those resources is not bounded. Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Netflix, etc., are enormously valued and none of it is based on bounded resources.
      • gip 6y ago
        I respectfully but also totally disagree. Value of money in particular is not intrinsic, it comes directly from the ability to redirect resource today (buy a home) and the future (be able to retire comfortably). People made rich by Google will absolutely be able to redirect more resources to themselves in a world of bounded resources. I think a lot of founders are idealistic about it and refuse to believe that at scale the start up mentality will increase inequalities. That's PG's point acutally, see the last sentence of his essay: it will. But he doesn't care. I do.
  • bumby 6y ago
    While you're not wrong, I think what you're missing is an important qualifier. Sometimes they are creating perceived value that doesn't materialize. Meaning the value is at least part speculation, rather than realized value. E.g., did Broadcast.com really create nearly $6B in value just because that's what it was speculatively valued at when purchased? I'd argue no, unless you think the "greater fool theory" is the correct way to measure value rather than intrinsic worth.
    • WalterBright 6y ago
      If you've got a superpower that enables you to determine the "real" value of something rather than its "perceived" value, you can use it to become the richest man in the world.
      • bumby 6y ago
        Intrinsic value can be measured, albeit imperfectly. Equity, as an example, is measuring real assets as opposed to some pie-in-the-sky assumption of future worth built on a foundation of hopes and dreams. Value investors have in fact gotten rich this way for a long time.
        • WalterBright 6y ago
          > Intrinsic value can be measured No, it can't. It can only be guessed at. Everybody knows that "book" value isn't terribly reliable. > Value investors have in fact gotten rich Here's a simple test for your theory. You're sure you're right. If so, you have invested in "undervalued" stocks and gotten rich. If you haven't invested based on your theory, are you sure you're right? As for me, I invest my money where my mouth is.
          • bumby 6y ago
            I have actually invested a substantial (for me) portion this way. It’s performed better on both an absolute and risk-adjusted basis than either the additional speculative growth or index strategies I’ve employed. I’d also avoid absolute terms like “everybody”, “always”, etc. because they’re easily falsifiable