3 ms·

> It's just so very noticeable that the observation is made by a person who has greatly benefited from its effects You'll likely notice the same about most of

by gknoy 3y ago

> It's just so very noticeable that the observation is made by a person who has greatly benefited from its effects You'll likely notice the same about most of PG's essays. Of course he's biased -- but most of the readers here already know this, and are not surprised to see a startup-favoring lens being used in much of his writings. His essays still get a lot of traction here, specifically because this started as a discussion board for his startup incubator, and because his essays about How To Startup / What Is a Startup are fairly commonly read in this space (or were what we read when we first discovered this space?).

AlchemistCamp 3y ago
This understates the case. PG’s essays predated the creation of YC and this “space” (as in this forum called HN) was first coded and moderated by PG. Obviously many others played crucial roles, but literally none of this would be here without PG’s ideas. The fact that it is and we’re discussing how his ideas may describe effects he’s benefited from only makes them more compelling, IMO.
jay_kyburz 3y ago
I don't think you need to read between the lines. I agree with this statement "superlinear returns for performance are a feature of the world, not an artifact of rules we've invented", but I disagree its not a problem with capitalism. Its _THE_ problem with capitalism. The good part of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their effort, the bad part is that those rewards tend to coalesce into a very small subset of people. Winning compounds. We impose some rules to claw back some money so we can build a safe, stable society. (tax) The problem is, if you are already winning, you are not incentivized to change the system. (pay more tax). Whats more, winners have a lot of power to control how people think and act. We have some other rules to try and limit the power of winners, but those rules are under constant attack.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > The good part of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their effort Well. They're rewarded for value provided, not effort invested. I don't care if you worked really hard on it, I'm not buying your $50 fizzy drink. I want the one that took less effort (and thus cost less) but still was a good product. > the bad part is that those rewards tend to coalesce into a very small subset of people. Winning compounds. This isn't exactly true. Rewards work in different ways. If people want steady, mostly-guaranteed income, they (e.g. me) get a day job with a salary. If they want a shot at doing really well, they do a risky thing and, often, it doesn't work. For the few people it does for, you still wouldn't call most of them highly rewarded. A restaurant owner might well still do worse than a salaried Silicon Valley developer. But still, for the industry, you take a risk to get big payoffs. Also, "reward" is a poor lens to look at this through, as it's slightly infantilising. It's not a pat on the head for a job well done. It's an exchange of value between adults. Steve Jobs did very well financially with the release of the iPhone. But the only reason he did so is because millions of people got value added to their lives through owning an iPhone. They got value far above what they had before, for a price they would pay. The problem is with looking at only the successful people as examples of the overall system. The system rewards value. If you happen, through hard work, connections, innate abilities, and a bit of luck, to provide value to other people, you do well. If what you do scales to provide value to millions of people, you do really well. > Whats more, winners have a lot of power to control how people think and act. I don't think that's true. No one is controlling thoughts and actions. You might say that people who own news outlets have this power, although ownership conveys less control than you might think, but this is a very specific industry. And people who control vast investment sums get to set criteria for companies to fall in line with. But both of those are under fire for this reason: money shouldn't translate into power over people's thoughts or actions. However, in the normal success case, e.g. if I own a restaurant chain, I do really well, but I don't really control anything.

by gknoy 3y ago

AlchemistCamp 3y ago

This understates the case. PG’s essays predated the creation of YC and this “space” (as in this forum called HN) was first coded and moderated by PG. Obviously many others played crucial roles, but literally none of this would be here without PG’s ideas. The fact that it is and we’re discussing how his ideas may describe effects he’s benefited from only makes them more compelling, IMO.

jay_kyburz 3y ago

I don't think you need to read between the lines. I agree with this statement "superlinear returns for performance are a feature of the world, not an artifact of rules we've invented", but I disagree its not a problem with capitalism. Its _THE_ problem with capitalism. The good part of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their effort, the bad part is that those rewards tend to coalesce into a very small subset of people. Winning compounds. We impose some rules to claw back some money so we can build a safe, stable society. (tax) The problem is, if you are already winning, you are not incentivized to change the system. (pay more tax). Whats more, winners have a lot of power to control how people think and act. We have some other rules to try and limit the power of winners, but those rules are under constant attack.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> The good part of capitalism is that people are rewarded for their effort Well. They're rewarded for value provided, not effort invested. I don't care if you worked really hard on it, I'm not buying your $50 fizzy drink. I want the one that took less effort (and thus cost less) but still was a good product. > the bad part is that those rewards tend to coalesce into a very small subset of people. Winning compounds. This isn't exactly true. Rewards work in different ways. If people want steady, mostly-guaranteed income, they (e.g. me) get a day job with a salary. If they want a shot at doing really well, they do a risky thing and, often, it doesn't work. For the few people it does for, you still wouldn't call most of them highly rewarded. A restaurant owner might well still do worse than a salaried Silicon Valley developer. But still, for the industry, you take a risk to get big payoffs. Also, "reward" is a poor lens to look at this through, as it's slightly infantilising. It's not a pat on the head for a job well done. It's an exchange of value between adults. Steve Jobs did very well financially with the release of the iPhone. But the only reason he did so is because millions of people got value added to their lives through owning an iPhone. They got value far above what they had before, for a price they would pay. The problem is with looking at only the successful people as examples of the overall system. The system rewards value. If you happen, through hard work, connections, innate abilities, and a bit of luck, to provide value to other people, you do well. If what you do scales to provide value to millions of people, you do really well. > Whats more, winners have a lot of power to control how people think and act. I don't think that's true. No one is controlling thoughts and actions. You might say that people who own news outlets have this power, although ownership conveys less control than you might think, but this is a very specific industry. And people who control vast investment sums get to set criteria for companies to fall in line with. But both of those are under fire for this reason: money shouldn't translate into power over people's thoughts or actions. However, in the normal success case, e.g. if I own a restaurant chain, I do really well, but I don't really control anything.