7 ms·
Graham will always defend founders "deserving" their wealth, as if it is some technical argument rather than a political one. It's an entirely subjective point
by fleddr 4y ago
Graham will always defend founders "deserving" their wealth, as if it is some technical argument rather than a political one.
It's an entirely subjective point. If a solo founder with some very powerful machinery (cloud, AI) produces a lot of economical value, it's quite questionable to attribute that value solely to the human being pushing the button.
Even more so when that human has exclusive access to the key input for the machine: capital. Somehow all investment capital has ended up in the hands of about 100 people, which is then gatekept and redistributed to founders "advancing society" with unfortunate side effect it producing even more money for the people that can't seem to get rid of it.
Surely that starting point, that capital concentration, is justified based on pure merit and brilliance, these people being a 100.000 times smarter than the average person? Or was it because they were insiders of the financial system, riding the bust and booms of our perverted stock market whilst producing zero tangible value?
As for the point of labor, you operate machinery largely based on open source. For which you will not pay a cent whilst said open source maintainers can barely make ends meet and instead of praise, gets lemons. As for your fancy AI model, you trained it on other people's labor, and again refuse to compensate. And yet still you dare to claim that all this value produced is yours to keep.
As for "advancing society", we can take a clue from China. They concluded that whilst SV for sure pumps around a lot of money, it's frankly a joke. Tech that produces addiction and ads, undermines employees (Uber, food delivery), externalizing all negatives to society as "people that add value" tend to do. So China killed most of the sector and refocuses on serious tech. Tech focusing on actual human needs. Supply chain, health, mobility, infrastructure. I know, weird concept.
Bottom line, if I were a filthy rich founder, I'd totally shut up about it and hope nobody notices.
- threeseed 4y agoGraham only seems to defend the successful founders. He doesn’t seem to care very much about employees who have their own side projects or aspiring founders.
- fleddr 4y agoOf course he doesn't, he's a billionaire venture capitalist. No billionaire cares about fair value contributed because that idea is incompatible with the idea of being a billionaire.
- dctoedt 4y agoGraham falls into the same trap said to have been experienced by Milton Friedman, who "celebrated drivers and took roads [and cars and gasoline and ...] for granted," according to NY Times economics correspondent Binyamin Appelbaum in his book, The Economists' Hour. http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2019.09.01/2253.html http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2019.09.01/2253.htm...