3 ms·

I told myself this would be rage bait and I shouldn’t click. And I clicked. So I got what I deserved. But > Andreessen struck me as interesting because he mad

I told myself this would be rage bait and I shouldn’t click. And I clicked. So I got what I deserved. But > Andreessen struck me as interesting because he made Netscape, the first real usable browser and it really did change things in a fundamental way. Then he ends up—caricaturing, but not too much—flacking Bored Ape NFTs. Obviously not a stupid man, but it’s got to feel like something of a comedown. Krugman trying to take the piss while he literally makes his living off substack, an a16z funded platform designed to give creators very different platforms and thus finances than they had six years ago, and clearly doesn’t even know it is infuriating. Earlier he makes fun of Andreessen making fun of experts, and … it would be hilarious irony if people didn’t so heavily credential him to opine on things like this. okay I stopped there. Perhaps the rest of the interview is super well informed and therefore based on reality enough to draw some useful conclusions.

nabla9 1y ago
> makes his living off an a16z platform That's some record level grandstanding.
- vessenes 1y ago
  No it’s almost certainly true. If you’d like some estimates you should read up on scott Alexander’s pre and post substack revenues. For writers with large followings substack is like a 10-100x monetization boost over other options. Source: my publishing company published three books of Scotts essays during COVID, hit number one two and four on the essay category on Amazon, and generated less than one fiftieth of Scott’s first year of substack revenues based on his public comments.
  - nabla9 1y ago
    Check up what the word grandstanding means.
    - vessenes 1y ago
      Perhaps you missed the point of my story - publishing books is not lucrative. Or the second point - I have direct knowledge of economics for famous authors
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nullocator 1y ago
You seem to be under some misguided notion that someone like Paul Krugman wouldn't be and could not remain relevant without substack. The man is in his 70s and had what most would consider a successful career (that he retired from) and he continues to have significant following of his writing, the idea that substack is somehow a requisite for this is laughable. If Marc Andreessen wants to fund a platform that enables and allows people to call him out on his fascistic bullshit and insane disconnect with humanity, it seems like a trap to say people shouldn't use it to do just that.
- vessenes 1y ago
  Nope. I’m just saying Krugman’s substack is likely by percentage currently his primary revenue source. In fact it’s what makes substack a great platform - unlike medium which came before it and ad networks which came before that - substack gives a large percent of the value directly to content creators. And it’s seen as valuable by people from all over the political spectrum, from Tabibi to Krugman. And I think people should go ahead and take the piss all they want, but crucially, when they are as credentialed as Krugman, if they do it in an uninformed way, it is great to call them on it. Bite the hand that feeds by all means, but some intellectual integrity about whether or not has beens like a16z provide any value to the world should be expected.
neilv 1y ago
> Krugman trying to take the piss while he literally makes his living off substack, an a16z funded platform designed to give creators very different platforms and thus finances than they had six years ago, and clearly doesn’t even know it is infuriating. "How dare this vile journalist criticize a holy god techbro, while using a Web site?!" Incidentally, here we are on HN, the lounge of junior techbros, which still systematically posts a piracy link for every paywalled news story. Krugman came from one of those revenue-starved news organizations that oblivious techbros are kicking while they're down. If some techbros then deign to toss Krugman some peanuts, for providing "content" on the techbro's property, Krugman should be thankful, and not dare bite the hand that feeds him? There are bad people and idiots in this story, and it's not the journalist.
- avmich 1y ago
  Not a piracy link, a link to a library.
- vessenes 1y ago
  I think you’re stuck in some sort of weird culture war head canon here. Building a platform that lets journalists choose their monetization and be independently wealthy enough to write what they want is awesome. Using that platform to denigrate teams that built the same platform is intellectually lazy, terrible for inspiring the next generation of innovators and beneath Krugman.
ThrowawayR2 1y ago
Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008 which comes with a substantial monetary award so it seems doubtful that he needs to live off of Substack revenue.
- vessenes 1y ago
  Needs - who knows? Chooses to? Apparently. That said I wouldnt be surprised if he makes more at substack annually than he did for the prize - about $1mm. As to his own investment returns we don’t know, but early as 2016 he cautioned that apple google and Microsoft might be overvalued. If you imagine that diversification/defensive portfolio construction mindset stuck with him and he therefore underperformed the nasdaq since then we might expect something like 3xing his grant, meaning at 10% annual yield if he converted to using it for income he’d see 250-350k a year in income from the prize. To be clear, I generally like Krugmans writing, I’ve learned a lot reading his essays, and I think he should make as much as he wants to make doing what he wants to do. But I’d like some intellectual rigor from him even when he’s talking about people he dislikes.
  - Karrot_Kream 1y ago
    I wouldn't be commenting on this thread because I knew it would end up like this, but your comments are measured, thanks. Krugman's move to Substack has, unfortunately, turned him into a bit of a culture war fighter. When he analyzes economics on his blog he's (IMO) top notch, which to me is amazing given his age (guess he won the Nobel for a reason.) His articles on the Argentina Swap Line, whether you agree with him or not about how it was done to bail out Bessent's buddies, were very well thought out. But when Krugman opines about politics I find that he largely thinks about it from the culture war lens of today. I directionally agree with him but just sorta take his politics with a grain of salt. IMO that's the best way to treat Krugman's writing. The problem is if you discuss this on HN you'll get assuredly downvoted. Any thread critical of Silicon Valley here brings out all the people with strong culture war beliefs, both pro and anti, and they turn into low thought slogs really quickly. I'm pretty sure Krugman can take whatever criticism you give him, he's a sharp mind. Not sure I can say the same about the folks who opine on these threads here though.
fifilura 1y ago
Krugman is 70+ with a successful career behind him. I don't think he needs Substack to make a living. And what world to we live in if that should stop him from criticising?
- vessenes 1y ago
  It’s sad when such a brilliant credentialed economist starts criticising things he’s either uninformed about or pretending to be. It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.
  - rainsford 1y ago
    > It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. Nah, I think we need health skepticism of disruptors, since by definition "change" can be in either a positive or negative direction. Nobody should reject new ideas out of hand simply because they are new, but neither do shitty ideas get a free pass just because they're new and different. And the reality is that a lot of the push-back "change makers" get is because the change they are trying to make is bad.
    - vessenes 1y ago
      My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making. My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.
_DeadFred_ 1y ago
'You can't protest against the state in the public square, it is the state that gave you the public square'
rainsford 1y ago
It would be helpful to drive an actual discussion if you were explicit about what you find so objectionable about Krugman's argument. Is it that he dares to criticize someone behind Substack using Substack? If so, that seems overly simplistic. One can appreciate the platform and look to benefit from it while thinking other activities of the person behind the platform are worth of criticism. Or is your problem that Krugman criticized Andreessen's foray into monetizing monkey JPGs, despite Krugman presumably lacking appropriate monkey JPG industry credentials? Again, if so, it would be more helpful to outline why you think Krugman is wrong instead of substituting umbrage for argument.

nabla9 1y ago

> makes his living off an a16z platform That's some record level grandstanding.

vessenes 1y ago
No it’s almost certainly true. If you’d like some estimates you should read up on scott Alexander’s pre and post substack revenues. For writers with large followings substack is like a 10-100x monetization boost over other options. Source: my publishing company published three books of Scotts essays during COVID, hit number one two and four on the essay category on Amazon, and generated less than one fiftieth of Scott’s first year of substack revenues based on his public comments.
- nabla9 1y ago
  Check up what the word grandstanding means.
  - vessenes 1y ago
    Perhaps you missed the point of my story - publishing books is not lucrative. Or the second point - I have direct knowledge of economics for famous authors

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nullocator 1y ago

You seem to be under some misguided notion that someone like Paul Krugman wouldn't be and could not remain relevant without substack. The man is in his 70s and had what most would consider a successful career (that he retired from) and he continues to have significant following of his writing, the idea that substack is somehow a requisite for this is laughable. If Marc Andreessen wants to fund a platform that enables and allows people to call him out on his fascistic bullshit and insane disconnect with humanity, it seems like a trap to say people shouldn't use it to do just that.

vessenes 1y ago
Nope. I’m just saying Krugman’s substack is likely by percentage currently his primary revenue source. In fact it’s what makes substack a great platform - unlike medium which came before it and ad networks which came before that - substack gives a large percent of the value directly to content creators. And it’s seen as valuable by people from all over the political spectrum, from Tabibi to Krugman. And I think people should go ahead and take the piss all they want, but crucially, when they are as credentialed as Krugman, if they do it in an uninformed way, it is great to call them on it. Bite the hand that feeds by all means, but some intellectual integrity about whether or not has beens like a16z provide any value to the world should be expected.

neilv 1y ago

> Krugman trying to take the piss while he literally makes his living off substack, an a16z funded platform designed to give creators very different platforms and thus finances than they had six years ago, and clearly doesn’t even know it is infuriating. "How dare this vile journalist criticize a holy god techbro, while using a Web site?!" Incidentally, here we are on HN, the lounge of junior techbros, which still systematically posts a piracy link for every paywalled news story. Krugman came from one of those revenue-starved news organizations that oblivious techbros are kicking while they're down. If some techbros then deign to toss Krugman some peanuts, for providing "content" on the techbro's property, Krugman should be thankful, and not dare bite the hand that feeds him? There are bad people and idiots in this story, and it's not the journalist.

avmich 1y ago
Not a piracy link, a link to a library.
vessenes 1y ago
I think you’re stuck in some sort of weird culture war head canon here. Building a platform that lets journalists choose their monetization and be independently wealthy enough to write what they want is awesome. Using that platform to denigrate teams that built the same platform is intellectually lazy, terrible for inspiring the next generation of innovators and beneath Krugman.

ThrowawayR2 1y ago

Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008 which comes with a substantial monetary award so it seems doubtful that he needs to live off of Substack revenue.

vessenes 1y ago
Needs - who knows? Chooses to? Apparently. That said I wouldnt be surprised if he makes more at substack annually than he did for the prize - about $1mm. As to his own investment returns we don’t know, but early as 2016 he cautioned that apple google and Microsoft might be overvalued. If you imagine that diversification/defensive portfolio construction mindset stuck with him and he therefore underperformed the nasdaq since then we might expect something like 3xing his grant, meaning at 10% annual yield if he converted to using it for income he’d see 250-350k a year in income from the prize. To be clear, I generally like Krugmans writing, I’ve learned a lot reading his essays, and I think he should make as much as he wants to make doing what he wants to do. But I’d like some intellectual rigor from him even when he’s talking about people he dislikes.
- Karrot_Kream 1y ago
  I wouldn't be commenting on this thread because I knew it would end up like this, but your comments are measured, thanks. Krugman's move to Substack has, unfortunately, turned him into a bit of a culture war fighter. When he analyzes economics on his blog he's (IMO) top notch, which to me is amazing given his age (guess he won the Nobel for a reason.) His articles on the Argentina Swap Line, whether you agree with him or not about how it was done to bail out Bessent's buddies, were very well thought out. But when Krugman opines about politics I find that he largely thinks about it from the culture war lens of today. I directionally agree with him but just sorta take his politics with a grain of salt. IMO that's the best way to treat Krugman's writing. The problem is if you discuss this on HN you'll get assuredly downvoted. Any thread critical of Silicon Valley here brings out all the people with strong culture war beliefs, both pro and anti, and they turn into low thought slogs really quickly. I'm pretty sure Krugman can take whatever criticism you give him, he's a sharp mind. Not sure I can say the same about the folks who opine on these threads here though.

fifilura 1y ago

Krugman is 70+ with a successful career behind him. I don't think he needs Substack to make a living. And what world to we live in if that should stop him from criticising?

vessenes 1y ago
It’s sad when such a brilliant credentialed economist starts criticising things he’s either uninformed about or pretending to be. It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. There’s plenty of real things to complain about for almost any given tech titan; this was lazy incorrect journalism and it’s beneath Krugman.
- rainsford 1y ago
  > It matters because there’s a pervasive voice in American media that denigrates change makers; hackers if you will. I think denigration of people like that is toxic at scale for our country as a whole, and lazy to boot when it comes from great thinkers. Nah, I think we need health skepticism of disruptors, since by definition "change" can be in either a positive or negative direction. Nobody should reject new ideas out of hand simply because they are new, but neither do shitty ideas get a free pass just because they're new and different. And the reality is that a lot of the push-back "change makers" get is because the change they are trying to make is bad.
  - vessenes 1y ago
    My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making. My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.

_DeadFred_ 1y ago

'You can't protest against the state in the public square, it is the state that gave you the public square'

rainsford 1y ago

It would be helpful to drive an actual discussion if you were explicit about what you find so objectionable about Krugman's argument. Is it that he dares to criticize someone behind Substack using Substack? If so, that seems overly simplistic. One can appreciate the platform and look to benefit from it while thinking other activities of the person behind the platform are worth of criticism. Or is your problem that Krugman criticized Andreessen's foray into monetizing monkey JPGs, despite Krugman presumably lacking appropriate monkey JPG industry credentials? Again, if so, it would be more helpful to outline why you think Krugman is wrong instead of substituting umbrage for argument.