5 ms·

I think that’s unfair unless you give specific examples and clear evidence he’s wrong. I disagree with PG on economics and politics, but much of his writing on

I think that’s unfair unless you give specific examples and clear evidence he’s wrong. I disagree with PG on economics and politics, but much of his writing on that is subjective.

redcobra762 2y ago
“Clear evidence he’s wrong” Good science is dead, isn’t it?
- rhubarbtree 2y ago
  I don't think that's a snark, but I don't understand.
sympil 2y ago
He recently said that evil people can’t survive long as founders of tech companies because they need smart people to work for them and smart people can work anywhere. There are lots of other examples. Especially read his recent tweets/essays that aren’t about his area of expertise.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  I'd argue that subject is one of his core competencies.
- rhubarbtree 2y ago
  Do you have a link to him saying that, please? I want to see the context and whether this was absolute. Was it "few evil founders can be successful?" We might also want to delve into what "evil" means here. Presumably he's talking about evil in the way that they treat their employees? As sibling says, that's his core expertise, so not quite relevant.
  - sympil 2y ago
    Look it up yourself. Paul Graham does not have a core competency regarding what smart people are or are not willing to do. That would be sociology or psychology or economics. https://bsky.app/profile/isilanor.bsky.social/post/3ldx24kvcls2k https://bsky.app/profile/isilanor.bsky.social/post/3ldx24kvc...
    - rhubarbtree 2y ago
      If it wasn’t clear, I tried to look it up myself and couldn’t find it, hence the request.
    - rhubarbtree 2y ago
      Just realised that this is a subtweet of PG's post. So I think what he's saying here, with some brevity, is: startups require lots of smart people to succeed. If the boss isn't nice to them, then those people can easily find work elsewhere. Therefore, the boss will have to be nice to them. Therefore, the boss can't be a horrible person. What would you say is incorrect about this?
      - sympil 2y ago
        Everything.
      - ace_of_spades 2y ago
        /s so horrible people are distinguished by the fact that they are never nice to their in-group?
        rhubarbtree 2y ago
        That isn’t what I said or implied, as you know, and the same for a generous reading of PG.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        2y ago
nindalf 2y ago
Happy to. Here's PG misrepresenting a wealth tax - https://nindalf.com/posts/wealth-tax/ https://nindalf.com/posts/wealth-tax/
- derangedHorse 2y ago
  > No one is proposing a tax that would apply to all your assets Yes they are, that’s literally what a wealth tax is. How were you defining wealth?
  - nindalf 2y ago
    The actual proposals at the time I wrote this was a wealth tax applying to wealth greater than $50 million. That’s substantially different from one that starts at $0.
    - rhubarbtree 2y ago
      Isn’t PG using that as an example and actually says it’s simpler to calculate that way? This doesn’t feel like a generous reading. I’m not against a wealth tax and I’m not aligned with PG, but I do think it’s important to be generous in your interpretation. I think PG is just arguing wealth taxes are unfair on founders. $2m starting point is reasonable btw, that’s a good ballpark for a founders share at pre seed.
      - nindalf 2y ago
        I think it's presented in a way that makes him sound very reasonable, and make a wealth tax sound very stupid. - A small time founder losing 2/3rds of their stock - OH NO, wealth tax is terrible! - A businessman worth $162 of stock ends up being worth billions as their stock appreciates, despite having to pay wealth taxes. Huh, maybe wealth tax is alright.
- rhubarbtree 2y ago
  Returning to this: even if he were somehow "misrepresenting" the idea of wealth tax - and there are many variants - that does not make him wrong. My original point was that when PG is writing outside of his core competencies, it's usually about subjective opinions. Such as, is wealth tax a good or bad thing? That is a subject about which you can have an opinion, but there is no absolute. My concern is that when people say "he doesn't know anything when he talks about, say, economics or politics" what they really mean is "I disagree with him and therefore he is wrong." (I disagree with PG on many such things, but that's like, just my opinion, man) I guess I'm invested in the debate because I want people to be more open-minded and charitable and not less.

I think that’s unfair unless you give specific examples and clear evidence he’s wrong. I disagree with PG on economics and politics, but much of his writing on that is subjective.

redcobra762 2y ago

“Clear evidence he’s wrong” Good science is dead, isn’t it?

rhubarbtree 2y ago
I don't think that's a snark, but I don't understand.

sympil 2y ago

He recently said that evil people can’t survive long as founders of tech companies because they need smart people to work for them and smart people can work anywhere. There are lots of other examples. Especially read his recent tweets/essays that aren’t about his area of expertise.

marcosdumay 2y ago
I'd argue that subject is one of his core competencies.
rhubarbtree 2y ago
Do you have a link to him saying that, please? I want to see the context and whether this was absolute. Was it "few evil founders can be successful?" We might also want to delve into what "evil" means here. Presumably he's talking about evil in the way that they treat their employees? As sibling says, that's his core expertise, so not quite relevant.
- sympil 2y ago
  Look it up yourself. Paul Graham does not have a core competency regarding what smart people are or are not willing to do. That would be sociology or psychology or economics. https://bsky.app/profile/isilanor.bsky.social/post/3ldx24kvcls2k https://bsky.app/profile/isilanor.bsky.social/post/3ldx24kvc...
  - rhubarbtree 2y ago
    If it wasn’t clear, I tried to look it up myself and couldn’t find it, hence the request.
  - rhubarbtree 2y ago
    Just realised that this is a subtweet of PG's post. So I think what he's saying here, with some brevity, is: startups require lots of smart people to succeed. If the boss isn't nice to them, then those people can easily find work elsewhere. Therefore, the boss will have to be nice to them. Therefore, the boss can't be a horrible person. What would you say is incorrect about this?
    - sympil 2y ago
      Everything.
    - ace_of_spades 2y ago
      /s so horrible people are distinguished by the fact that they are never nice to their in-group?
      - rhubarbtree 2y ago
        That isn’t what I said or implied, as you know, and the same for a generous reading of PG.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        2y ago

nindalf 2y ago

Happy to. Here's PG misrepresenting a wealth tax - https://nindalf.com/posts/wealth-tax/ https://nindalf.com/posts/wealth-tax/

derangedHorse 2y ago
> No one is proposing a tax that would apply to all your assets Yes they are, that’s literally what a wealth tax is. How were you defining wealth?
- nindalf 2y ago
  The actual proposals at the time I wrote this was a wealth tax applying to wealth greater than $50 million. That’s substantially different from one that starts at $0.
  - rhubarbtree 2y ago
    Isn’t PG using that as an example and actually says it’s simpler to calculate that way? This doesn’t feel like a generous reading. I’m not against a wealth tax and I’m not aligned with PG, but I do think it’s important to be generous in your interpretation. I think PG is just arguing wealth taxes are unfair on founders. $2m starting point is reasonable btw, that’s a good ballpark for a founders share at pre seed.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      I think it's presented in a way that makes him sound very reasonable, and make a wealth tax sound very stupid. - A small time founder losing 2/3rds of their stock - OH NO, wealth tax is terrible! - A businessman worth $162 of stock ends up being worth billions as their stock appreciates, despite having to pay wealth taxes. Huh, maybe wealth tax is alright.
rhubarbtree 2y ago
Returning to this: even if he were somehow "misrepresenting" the idea of wealth tax - and there are many variants - that does not make him wrong. My original point was that when PG is writing outside of his core competencies, it's usually about subjective opinions. Such as, is wealth tax a good or bad thing? That is a subject about which you can have an opinion, but there is no absolute. My concern is that when people say "he doesn't know anything when he talks about, say, economics or politics" what they really mean is "I disagree with him and therefore he is wrong." (I disagree with PG on many such things, but that's like, just my opinion, man) I guess I'm invested in the debate because I want people to be more open-minded and charitable and not less.