7 ms·

This is a pretty lazy and non-value additive article honestly. All it does it just reference things Naval or Warren buffet has said and then “subscribe to my ne

This is a pretty lazy and non-value additive article honestly. All it does it just reference things Naval or Warren buffet has said and then “subscribe to my newsletter" at the bottom. I feel like you could easily write something like this by doing a scrape(Naval's twitter) + scrape(buffet's wiki page) -> GPT3_summarize(that content) and you'd get this article.

nicksrose7224 4y ago
While i'm on my soapbox, i dont understand this mentality that wealth creation is a positive-sum game. Me buying a property to turn it into an Airbnb that I lease out to generate money directly takes away supply from someone trying to buy a house or a similar asset. I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people [edit] below commenters have some great points, i'm reconsidering my stance on this point
- biscottigelato 4y ago
  Me creating a self-driving car will take away revenue from drivers. However the rest of society will gain much more than the loss that the drivers suffers. On net humanity is better off. This is true when the computer replaced secretaries, when cars replaced the horse, when planes replaced the boats, internet replaced fax and phone calls, etc. Overall the quality of life of everyone improved even if a select few suffered each time progress was made, making even fewer rich, but everyone else better off. You create wealth by providing value to others, value that exceeds the competition you have displaced. That's why wealth creation is a positive sum game.
  - kanyethegreat 4y ago
    I think it'd be more accurate to say "play the value creation game" then. The author specifically references wealth accumulation (ie. the accumulation of assets)
- andsoitis 4y ago
  > I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people Is there more wealth in the world today than 100 years ago? More than 1000 years ago? If so, where did it come from?
  - thefaux 4y ago
    Arguably due to the depletion of natural resources, we actually have far less wealth today than we did 100 years ago.
    - icambron 4y ago
      I don’t think this is arguable. A forest of unchopped trees is only ”wealth” in the sense that all the minerals on the Moon are. It’s really potential wealth — it becomes wealth when we extract the resources. That’s why they’re resources and not just stuff. (Whether we have done a good or bad job managing the Earth’s resources is a separate matter)
      - thefaux 4y ago
        I am going by this definition of wealth https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches. > It’s really potential wealth That's like saying that potential energy doesn't count as energy. If we extract our resources to create "wealth" that prevents us from doing something substantially more valuable in the future, we didn't create wealth. We destroyed it. But collectively we have such a short term mindset that this is hard to see.
        andsoitis 4y ago
        > We destroyed it. I haven't researched it, but isn't a large portion (vast majority) of lumber we use these days to build things from forests that we plant and grow?
- solresol 4y ago
  This being HN, writing a piece of software to do something that hasn't been done before. That increases the total number of goods and services in the world. Variations: synthesising a new chemical, teaching someone a new skill.
- kjksf 4y ago
  When you buy a house, for whatever reason, it opens up the opportunity for a developer to build a new house. House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone. The developer makes money building houses. Furniture maker makes money making furniture. Utilities make money providing power, water and plumbing. You make money renting your AirBnB or using it as a house for your family.
  - diffxx 4y ago
    > House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone. Not so fast. For any given project, what are the associated externalities? You can't build a house without exploiting the earth's resources. You can't build furniture without chopping down trees or digging up oil. You can't harvest energy without disrupting the environment in one way or another. Your renting your house on AirBnB is extracting more money from your guests than the time value of the house. Your guest must then do something exploitative to earn the money to pay you. The chain eventually will make its way back to the extraction of natural resources. It isn't possible to turn a profit without exploitation. Do we really not care that we have burned up an unfathomable amount of precious, irreplaceable fossil fuels to prop up our industrial economy? We should be worshipping fossil fuels, and using them as sparingly as possibly, not frivolously wasting them. Until we have an economy that doesn't rely on unsustainable extraction, it's hard to see any form of wealth creation as positive sum.
    - anthony_d 4y ago
      Nothing is sustainable. The universe eventually goes cold. Are you saying anything more?
      - diffxx 4y ago
        > Nothing is sustainable. The universe eventually goes cold. Are you saying anything more? Our civilization is going to collapse long before the heat death of the universe, and honestly probably within the lifespan of people living today. We could at least try and soften the blow and stop doubling down on the same mindset that created most of the existential crises that face us today.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- defrost 4y ago
  Developing a green hydrogen (not blue) generation industry to expand the current hydrogen generation capacity w/out adding to fossil fuel usage. It will take near term lithium (and other) resources away from others competing for them but will benefit more overall in the long run. Just a local (W.Australia) example.
- nunez 4y ago
  creating content that goes viral is probably a good example yes people pay for it, but they get value from that time and money though long term you capitalizing on a specific set of content takes away revenue from others looking to do the same, almost like a pyramid (i.e. MKBHD and Linus Tech Tips making loads of money for their reviews making it almost impossible to make a successful reviews channel, at least on YouTube. Same with the beauty vloggers like Tati), so I suppose all wealth generation approximates to positive-sum
- tomhoward 4y ago
  A business I'm building makes data monitoring hardware and software to help farmers/growers reduce water/fertiliser usage and prevent externalities like pesticide spray drift and grass fires. If I create "wealth" for myself from this company, it will only be because I've succeeded at helping large numbers of growers achieve the above outcomes. I'm unaware of anyone whose money or opportunity is being reduced through this, perhaps apart from some minor reductions in turnover for fertiliser and pesticide companies.
blibble 4y ago
he's also quoting himself, which is a little odd
- nicksrose7224 4y ago
  he's doing it to pump up his twitter followers, which is why this whole article bugs me. It's a rather transparent attempt to gain followers without adding anything of real value

nicksrose7224 4y ago

While i'm on my soapbox, i dont understand this mentality that wealth creation is a positive-sum game. Me buying a property to turn it into an Airbnb that I lease out to generate money directly takes away supply from someone trying to buy a house or a similar asset. I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people [edit] below commenters have some great points, i'm reconsidering my stance on this point

biscottigelato 4y ago
Me creating a self-driving car will take away revenue from drivers. However the rest of society will gain much more than the loss that the drivers suffers. On net humanity is better off. This is true when the computer replaced secretaries, when cars replaced the horse, when planes replaced the boats, internet replaced fax and phone calls, etc. Overall the quality of life of everyone improved even if a select few suffered each time progress was made, making even fewer rich, but everyone else better off. You create wealth by providing value to others, value that exceeds the competition you have displaced. That's why wealth creation is a positive sum game.
- kanyethegreat 4y ago
  I think it'd be more accurate to say "play the value creation game" then. The author specifically references wealth accumulation (ie. the accumulation of assets)
andsoitis 4y ago
> I would love to hear some examples of wealth generation that do not take away opportunity or money directly or indirectly from other people Is there more wealth in the world today than 100 years ago? More than 1000 years ago? If so, where did it come from?
- thefaux 4y ago
  Arguably due to the depletion of natural resources, we actually have far less wealth today than we did 100 years ago.
  - icambron 4y ago
    I don’t think this is arguable. A forest of unchopped trees is only ”wealth” in the sense that all the minerals on the Moon are. It’s really potential wealth — it becomes wealth when we extract the resources. That’s why they’re resources and not just stuff. (Whether we have done a good or bad job managing the Earth’s resources is a separate matter)
    - thefaux 4y ago
      I am going by this definition of wealth https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wealth: An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches. > It’s really potential wealth That's like saying that potential energy doesn't count as energy. If we extract our resources to create "wealth" that prevents us from doing something substantially more valuable in the future, we didn't create wealth. We destroyed it. But collectively we have such a short term mindset that this is hard to see.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        > We destroyed it. I haven't researched it, but isn't a large portion (vast majority) of lumber we use these days to build things from forests that we plant and grow?
solresol 4y ago
This being HN, writing a piece of software to do something that hasn't been done before. That increases the total number of goods and services in the world. Variations: synthesising a new chemical, teaching someone a new skill.
kjksf 4y ago
When you buy a house, for whatever reason, it opens up the opportunity for a developer to build a new house. House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone. The developer makes money building houses. Furniture maker makes money making furniture. Utilities make money providing power, water and plumbing. You make money renting your AirBnB or using it as a house for your family.
- diffxx 4y ago
  > House building is clearly a positive-sum game that benefits everyone. Not so fast. For any given project, what are the associated externalities? You can't build a house without exploiting the earth's resources. You can't build furniture without chopping down trees or digging up oil. You can't harvest energy without disrupting the environment in one way or another. Your renting your house on AirBnB is extracting more money from your guests than the time value of the house. Your guest must then do something exploitative to earn the money to pay you. The chain eventually will make its way back to the extraction of natural resources. It isn't possible to turn a profit without exploitation. Do we really not care that we have burned up an unfathomable amount of precious, irreplaceable fossil fuels to prop up our industrial economy? We should be worshipping fossil fuels, and using them as sparingly as possibly, not frivolously wasting them. Until we have an economy that doesn't rely on unsustainable extraction, it's hard to see any form of wealth creation as positive sum.
  - anthony_d 4y ago
    Nothing is sustainable. The universe eventually goes cold. Are you saying anything more?
    - diffxx 4y ago
      > Nothing is sustainable. The universe eventually goes cold. Are you saying anything more? Our civilization is going to collapse long before the heat death of the universe, and honestly probably within the lifespan of people living today. We could at least try and soften the blow and stop doubling down on the same mindset that created most of the existential crises that face us today.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
defrost 4y ago
Developing a green hydrogen (not blue) generation industry to expand the current hydrogen generation capacity w/out adding to fossil fuel usage. It will take near term lithium (and other) resources away from others competing for them but will benefit more overall in the long run. Just a local (W.Australia) example.
nunez 4y ago
creating content that goes viral is probably a good example yes people pay for it, but they get value from that time and money though long term you capitalizing on a specific set of content takes away revenue from others looking to do the same, almost like a pyramid (i.e. MKBHD and Linus Tech Tips making loads of money for their reviews making it almost impossible to make a successful reviews channel, at least on YouTube. Same with the beauty vloggers like Tati), so I suppose all wealth generation approximates to positive-sum
tomhoward 4y ago
A business I'm building makes data monitoring hardware and software to help farmers/growers reduce water/fertiliser usage and prevent externalities like pesticide spray drift and grass fires. If I create "wealth" for myself from this company, it will only be because I've succeeded at helping large numbers of growers achieve the above outcomes. I'm unaware of anyone whose money or opportunity is being reduced through this, perhaps apart from some minor reductions in turnover for fertiliser and pesticide companies.

blibble 4y ago

he's also quoting himself, which is a little odd

nicksrose7224 4y ago
he's doing it to pump up his twitter followers, which is why this whole article bugs me. It's a rather transparent attempt to gain followers without adding anything of real value