6 ms·

The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built. He's said the "make something people want" thing before, his argument

by cm11 4mo ago

The reason her startup was growing so fast was simply that users loved what she'd built. He's said the "make something people want" thing before, his argument for billionaires doesn't seem to go much beyond it. It seems rather clear it's not all you need nor is it all it took for these people to get there. You don't just make the thing. The founder didn't become a billionaire simply because users loved her product. You market it and you distribute it and you do all the things normally associated with business. Your ability to do those things "well" has lots of room to cheat. Hasn't Uber and Lyft skirted a bunch of laws? Aren't there still a ton of drivers who feel cheated? Aren't there a bunch of share bikes and scooters lying around cities and landfills? Isn't it fairly standard to throw tons of investor money at your CAC to buy "love" and sabotage competitors? He mentioned Facebook, isn't its origin story connoted with theft? I can see angles where these don't count as cheating for some. I can see slivers where there's only so many degrees of separation you hold the billionaire responsible for what happens downstream. Even if not done intentionally, the accumulated wealth still resulted from some cheating though, no? And there's the stock market. If he means the stock price when he's talking about things people want, then I might agree. You need to manage the thing people love, and by "the thing people love" I mean your product, and by your "product" I mean your stock price. Most of the billionaires became so because of their equity. We're well down normalizing that your product doesn't need to be profitable (where people love it enough to pay more than it costs to make) for the stock price to soar. It doesn't count as engaging with the argument if he doesn't engage with it. I'm almost surprised he bothered to respond. Edit: Interesting downvote situation going on throughout the comments.

wdxs 4mo ago
Yeah this analysis (Not yours - PG's) is pretty poor tbh either he is intentionally glossing over the tactics and strategy necessary for one to acquire such wealth - or - he really lacks the fundamentals that is value (of equity) is a function of free cash flows to equity, growth and risk. And guess what, immense cash flow potential doesn't fall out the sky. It requires doing certain things. Such things can be considered dirty by many people. Anywho, I was really unimpressed with the post.
pazimzadeh 4mo ago
also his argument relies on consumers being in a stable situation. desperate people 'want' a lot of things which makes them easier to exploit
nearbuy 4mo ago
You're not really engaging with PG's argument so much as nitpicking around the edges. Are people becoming billionaires primarily by cheating and stealing, or by making something people want? That's the core argument. Were GitLab, Dropbox and Stripe primarily cheating or offering a service people liked? Rather than cherry-picking one or two examples of what you deem the worst offenses, show that "you can't earn a billion dollars" without cheating or abusing others. PG isn't arguing that startups never do anything bad. He's just arguing that they can sometimes earn a billion dollars without cheating.
- cm11 4mo ago
  My argument was that he wasn't engaging with the topic. I didn't make a particularly heavy case (as you note) for billionaires as cheaters—part of the reason for that is that there are a few low hanging arguments and examples for it and I'd think a counterargument should address them. I think you're reframing his argument as something softer. Not whether they cheat or exploit, but whether they're primarily doing it. Is the cheating low enough or outweighed by the tremendous love for the product? I'm not sure he would agree that's what he's trying to say, but I would count that as cheating. At best, there is cheating, but it's worth it (for them and, I don't know, maybe/hopefully even for society). You're also nudging it towards whether some billionaires are sometimes able to do it without cheating. It's hard to make a strong assertion whether the senator or PG's claims are meant strictly all or nothing. Both have language of this type. I couldn't say which one means it, though I think it's fair to judge hyperbole. I alluded to this in the prior comment, but I think it's fairly easy for CEOs to benefit from cheating happening downstream. Did Dropbox spam users' contact lists to grow? Did their PM or PMMs abuse push notifications for marketing? Again, I can see versions where this doesn't count as cheating for some. Or it does, just low enough level or normalized such that people redefine cheating. I think there's a lot of (often low level) cheating just built into business and it's mostly a matter of whether anyone will take you to task for it.
  - nearbuy 4mo ago
    > I feel like you're also doing something weird—sorta strawmanning and sorta being conveniently inconsistent. You're reframing his argument as something much softer. I'm going to firmly push back on this. A reasonable, straightforward interpretation of AOC's quote is that "you can't earn a billion dollars" without cheating or abusing others. I'm can believe she may have meant that as hyperbole, but even if she did, PG believes "What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way." He's not doing mental gymnastics to get there; it's a straightforward reading of "you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that." That makes PG very much not strawmanning. He's arguing directly against her stated position. He doesn't steelman her argument (create a stronger or more generous version of her argument and argue against that), which could have made his argument stronger. That also means I'm not strawmanning. PG's position is exactly what I said: that it's not impossible to become a billionaire without doing something bad. He is quite clear on that. Nowhere does PG use language implying all billionaires don't cheat. Only AOC does that, if you take her words literally. I think you're basically doing what you accused me of doing here: greatly softening AOC's position. Did Dropbox spam users' contact lists to grow? (They didn't, AFAIK, though they did have a referral program to invite friends.) This is a huge downgrade in accusation of wrongdoing compared to breaking rules and abusing labor laws. If you soften your definition of cheating to this level, it's no longer a billionaire thing. It's an everyone thing. Does my gardener report all his cash income? Has a friend ever streamed a TV show less than legitimately? AOC isn't trying to nitpick the smallest infractions. She's trying to paint becoming a billionaire as substantially corrupt.

by cm11 4mo ago

wdxs 4mo ago

Yeah this analysis (Not yours - PG's) is pretty poor tbh either he is intentionally glossing over the tactics and strategy necessary for one to acquire such wealth - or - he really lacks the fundamentals that is value (of equity) is a function of free cash flows to equity, growth and risk. And guess what, immense cash flow potential doesn't fall out the sky. It requires doing certain things. Such things can be considered dirty by many people. Anywho, I was really unimpressed with the post.

pazimzadeh 4mo ago

also his argument relies on consumers being in a stable situation. desperate people 'want' a lot of things which makes them easier to exploit

nearbuy 4mo ago

You're not really engaging with PG's argument so much as nitpicking around the edges. Are people becoming billionaires primarily by cheating and stealing, or by making something people want? That's the core argument. Were GitLab, Dropbox and Stripe primarily cheating or offering a service people liked? Rather than cherry-picking one or two examples of what you deem the worst offenses, show that "you can't earn a billion dollars" without cheating or abusing others. PG isn't arguing that startups never do anything bad. He's just arguing that they can sometimes earn a billion dollars without cheating.

cm11 4mo ago
My argument was that he wasn't engaging with the topic. I didn't make a particularly heavy case (as you note) for billionaires as cheaters—part of the reason for that is that there are a few low hanging arguments and examples for it and I'd think a counterargument should address them. I think you're reframing his argument as something softer. Not whether they cheat or exploit, but whether they're primarily doing it. Is the cheating low enough or outweighed by the tremendous love for the product? I'm not sure he would agree that's what he's trying to say, but I would count that as cheating. At best, there is cheating, but it's worth it (for them and, I don't know, maybe/hopefully even for society). You're also nudging it towards whether some billionaires are sometimes able to do it without cheating. It's hard to make a strong assertion whether the senator or PG's claims are meant strictly all or nothing. Both have language of this type. I couldn't say which one means it, though I think it's fair to judge hyperbole. I alluded to this in the prior comment, but I think it's fairly easy for CEOs to benefit from cheating happening downstream. Did Dropbox spam users' contact lists to grow? Did their PM or PMMs abuse push notifications for marketing? Again, I can see versions where this doesn't count as cheating for some. Or it does, just low enough level or normalized such that people redefine cheating. I think there's a lot of (often low level) cheating just built into business and it's mostly a matter of whether anyone will take you to task for it.
- nearbuy 4mo ago
  > I feel like you're also doing something weird—sorta strawmanning and sorta being conveniently inconsistent. You're reframing his argument as something much softer. I'm going to firmly push back on this. A reasonable, straightforward interpretation of AOC's quote is that "you can't earn a billion dollars" without cheating or abusing others. I'm can believe she may have meant that as hyperbole, but even if she did, PG believes "What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way." He's not doing mental gymnastics to get there; it's a straightforward reading of "you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than what they’re worth, but you can’t earn that." That makes PG very much not strawmanning. He's arguing directly against her stated position. He doesn't steelman her argument (create a stronger or more generous version of her argument and argue against that), which could have made his argument stronger. That also means I'm not strawmanning. PG's position is exactly what I said: that it's not impossible to become a billionaire without doing something bad. He is quite clear on that. Nowhere does PG use language implying all billionaires don't cheat. Only AOC does that, if you take her words literally. I think you're basically doing what you accused me of doing here: greatly softening AOC's position. Did Dropbox spam users' contact lists to grow? (They didn't, AFAIK, though they did have a referral program to invite friends.) This is a huge downgrade in accusation of wrongdoing compared to breaking rules and abusing labor laws. If you soften your definition of cheating to this level, it's no longer a billionaire thing. It's an everyone thing. Does my gardener report all his cash income? Has a friend ever streamed a TV show less than legitimately? AOC isn't trying to nitpick the smallest infractions. She's trying to paint becoming a billionaire as substantially corrupt.