4 ms·

You liked his idea that for a startup to scale, you should be doing things that don't scale. That article has mostly anecdotal evidence, and yet nobody ever pus

You liked his idea that for a startup to scale, you should be doing things that don't scale. That article has mostly anecdotal evidence, and yet nobody ever pushed back on it. How do we know PG was right back then? (He was.) A few years later, that same guy writes an extensive essay with footnotes and data that must have taken days to compile (going all the way back to 1892). And yet, this one rubs you the wrong way. I am not defending PG or attacking you, but just consider this explanation as a possibility: when it comes to how to build a startup, you don't really have skin in the game. Whatever he says, it's unlikely to impact your life. But the minute we start talking about the Gini coefficient, the stakes are higher - it's getting political. Suddenly, it's like listening to Rush Limbaugh make an argument - isn't it clear that no Democrat will ever agree with anything that Rush has ever said, no matter how factual or not it is? I, for one, appreciate PG's ability to tie together global macro movements in a way that I've never heard anyone else summarize. You might agree or not with his take on the Gini coefficient (and especially his lack of acknowledgement or suggestions on how to deal with its consequences), and you might also get frustrated that PG is starting to dabble in politics, which is going to make him very polarized no matter how right or wrong he is. But there's still a ton of useful advice in this essay no matter which side of the political fence you stand on (eg: in 2021, if you're debating between entrepreneurship and finance/VC, choose entrepreneurship).

random314 6y ago
While pg has extensive foot notes for this essay, there is a vast amount of research with orders of magnitude more citations contradicting him on the gini coefficient. There is no argument about his footnotes. Quite likely the very richest might not be inheriting it. This has no bearing on the gini coefficient. And his essay on wealth tax is downright stupid. Are his essays as meticulously researched as Pikketys? Why does pg fail to refer to the most famous recent book on the subject in his footnotes? What could be the reason? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...
- aerosmile 6y ago
  I appreciate this argument, except for one detail: > his essay on wealth tax is downright stupid What's everyone's deal with that essay? It literally has no subjective opinion stated anywhere - all it does is calculate how much percent of your wealth you're left with after 60 years of wealth tax [0]. You definitionally cannot push back on anything stated in that article, or otherwise your problem is not with PG's views but with math in general. I appreciate the thoughtful reference to Thomas Piketty's book, which I think everyone should read. But IMO attacking algebra takes away from your overall argument. [0] http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html
  - random314 6y ago
    No billionaire is hiding his cash under a mattress. Investment assets typically compound at 4% above inflation with zero effort by the investor. Pg completely ignores the zero effort compounding of wealth and pretends that the investors wealth will be "reduced" by 45% and that too over 60 years! He forgets to state by how much the zero effort investors assets inflate exponentially in 60 years! If he thought he was making a case against wealth tax, he failed hard! Also, its really silly of you to assume I don't understand algebra! I thought that pgs article was obviously ridiculous on its face. Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone.
    - aerosmile 6y ago
      > Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone. Nope, it wasn't. You do realize that the concept you're so stoked on was actually tested in Mr. Piketty's homeland and failed miserably? Oh, the irony! From NPR [0]: > Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it. Capital is like water - it flows in the direction of least resistance. That part should be obvious. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a...

random314 6y ago

While pg has extensive foot notes for this essay, there is a vast amount of research with orders of magnitude more citations contradicting him on the gini coefficient. There is no argument about his footnotes. Quite likely the very richest might not be inheriting it. This has no bearing on the gini coefficient. And his essay on wealth tax is downright stupid. Are his essays as meticulously researched as Pikketys? Why does pg fail to refer to the most famous recent book on the subject in his footnotes? What could be the reason? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_...

aerosmile 6y ago
I appreciate this argument, except for one detail: > his essay on wealth tax is downright stupid What's everyone's deal with that essay? It literally has no subjective opinion stated anywhere - all it does is calculate how much percent of your wealth you're left with after 60 years of wealth tax [0]. You definitionally cannot push back on anything stated in that article, or otherwise your problem is not with PG's views but with math in general. I appreciate the thoughtful reference to Thomas Piketty's book, which I think everyone should read. But IMO attacking algebra takes away from your overall argument. [0] http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html http://paulgraham.com/wtax.html
- random314 6y ago
  No billionaire is hiding his cash under a mattress. Investment assets typically compound at 4% above inflation with zero effort by the investor. Pg completely ignores the zero effort compounding of wealth and pretends that the investors wealth will be "reduced" by 45% and that too over 60 years! He forgets to state by how much the zero effort investors assets inflate exponentially in 60 years! If he thought he was making a case against wealth tax, he failed hard! Also, its really silly of you to assume I don't understand algebra! I thought that pgs article was obviously ridiculous on its face. Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone.
  - aerosmile 6y ago
    > Clearly, it wasn't obvious to everyone. Nope, it wasn't. You do realize that the concept you're so stoked on was actually tested in Mr. Piketty's homeland and failed miserably? Oh, the irony! From NPR [0]: > Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it. Capital is like water - it flows in the direction of least resistance. That part should be obvious. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a...