4 ms·

pg's written a couple essays defending income inequality: http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.h

pg's written a couple essays defending income inequality: http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

pstuart 14y ago
Income inequality is ok; the problem is the amount of fraud involved.
noahth 14y ago
Gee, I wonder if he has a vested interest in advancing that viewpoint? Not that there's anything wrong with writing smart essays that advance one's interests.
- pdonis 14y ago
  > Gee, I wonder if he has a vested interest in advancing that viewpoint? Of course he does. Does that make what he says wrong?
  - msellout 14y ago
    It doesn't make it wrong, but that knowledge might encourage you to think of counter-arguments.
    - pdonis 14y ago
      So can you think of any?
    - tomjen3 14y ago
      Shouldn't you always tink of counter arguments when you are reading something? Even (or especially) if you agree with it?
- pg 14y ago
  If you mean Y Combinator, both of those essays were written before we started it.
EricDeb 14y ago
In response to PG's article - I think most people would agree that wealth creation is a talent like any other. I think where people have a problem is that the particular talent of business and wealth creation buys so much more influence in society compared with being in the top 1% of teachers, policemen, academic researchers, or even programmers. Furthermore, pg suggests that those who get rich innovate and drive society forward, which I agree with. Unfortunately this seems to be the case for only a minute portion of those who are rich. Most of the best and brightest are doctors, dentists, lawyers, and investment bankers. The smartest pursue these avenues not to push society forward, but to gain the influence that assured wealth provides. Innovators (Peter Thiel's 0-1 innovators, not 1-n) absolutely deserve the highest possible influence in society - fame, status, and wealth - because they push society forward and raise the standard of living for all. On the other hand, the top 1% of doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, and non-innovative businessmen gain a disproportionate amount of wealth without contributing to society and in my opinion should not be valued tremendously more than the top 1% of programmers, teachers, or biologists.
- pg 14y ago
  See the last section of http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html
- pdonis 14y ago
  > Furthermore, pg suggests that those who get rich innovate and drive society forward That's not quite what he said. He said that making money is a skill like any other, and that one way to make lots of money is to innovate and drive society forward. He didn't say that was the only way to make lots of money; of course it isn't, as you go on to note. > I think most people would agree that wealth creation is a talent like any other. Wealth creation is not the same as making money. Or, rather, it's only one way of making money. The talent pg was talking about was a talent at making money by whatever means are available. > I think where people have a problem is that the particular talent of business and wealth creation buys so much more influence in society compared with being in the top 1% of teachers, policemen, academic researchers, or even programmers. I would state this differently: I would say that where people have a problem is that the particular talent of making money buys so much more influence in society, even when it doesn't involve wealth creation. Which basically boils down to: money buys influence, regardless of how you got it.

pg's written a couple essays defending income inequality: http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html

pstuart 14y ago

Income inequality is ok; the problem is the amount of fraud involved.

noahth 14y ago

Gee, I wonder if he has a vested interest in advancing that viewpoint? Not that there's anything wrong with writing smart essays that advance one's interests.

pdonis 14y ago
> Gee, I wonder if he has a vested interest in advancing that viewpoint? Of course he does. Does that make what he says wrong?
- msellout 14y ago
  It doesn't make it wrong, but that knowledge might encourage you to think of counter-arguments.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    So can you think of any?
  - tomjen3 14y ago
    Shouldn't you always tink of counter arguments when you are reading something? Even (or especially) if you agree with it?
pg 14y ago
If you mean Y Combinator, both of those essays were written before we started it.

EricDeb 14y ago

In response to PG's article - I think most people would agree that wealth creation is a talent like any other. I think where people have a problem is that the particular talent of business and wealth creation buys so much more influence in society compared with being in the top 1% of teachers, policemen, academic researchers, or even programmers. Furthermore, pg suggests that those who get rich innovate and drive society forward, which I agree with. Unfortunately this seems to be the case for only a minute portion of those who are rich. Most of the best and brightest are doctors, dentists, lawyers, and investment bankers. The smartest pursue these avenues not to push society forward, but to gain the influence that assured wealth provides. Innovators (Peter Thiel's 0-1 innovators, not 1-n) absolutely deserve the highest possible influence in society - fame, status, and wealth - because they push society forward and raise the standard of living for all. On the other hand, the top 1% of doctors, lawyers, investment bankers, and non-innovative businessmen gain a disproportionate amount of wealth without contributing to society and in my opinion should not be valued tremendously more than the top 1% of programmers, teachers, or biologists.

pg 14y ago
See the last section of http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html http://paulgraham.com/inequality.html
pdonis 14y ago
> Furthermore, pg suggests that those who get rich innovate and drive society forward That's not quite what he said. He said that making money is a skill like any other, and that one way to make lots of money is to innovate and drive society forward. He didn't say that was the only way to make lots of money; of course it isn't, as you go on to note. > I think most people would agree that wealth creation is a talent like any other. Wealth creation is not the same as making money. Or, rather, it's only one way of making money. The talent pg was talking about was a talent at making money by whatever means are available. > I think where people have a problem is that the particular talent of business and wealth creation buys so much more influence in society compared with being in the top 1% of teachers, policemen, academic researchers, or even programmers. I would state this differently: I would say that where people have a problem is that the particular talent of making money buys so much more influence in society, even when it doesn't involve wealth creation. Which basically boils down to: money buys influence, regardless of how you got it.