7 ms·

Here's a nice thread about Jonathan Blow's view on investing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2198255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2198255 you are

Here's a nice thread about Jonathan Blow's view on investing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2198255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2198255 you are better off taking the mental energy you would have expended on "investing" and subsequently worrying about your money, and instead funneling it into your creative endeavors. You will make more money that way, especially when you take a long-term view. ... If creative endeavors are profitable, you can use the resulting money to fuel more creative endeavors, thus making the world a better place. Keeping money in a bank account or publicly-traded stock does not particularly make the world a better place. Once I got approximately into the f-you money level of income, it became crystal clear how fictitious money is in the first place. I wake up one morning, and bam, I am wealthy! Why? Because someone said so and typed a number into a computer. Okay... that's kind of weird. Given that money is so fictitious and somewhat meaningless, it is a shame to give into primal hoarding impulses, just so one can see the number in one's bank account go up like a high score in a video game. It's much better to make like Elon Musk and use your money for what it is: a way to wield influence to make the world more like you would like it to be.

nsxwolf 12y ago
This is good advice for a very narrow segment of creative people and not everyone at large. It's terrible advice for people with children, for example.
- pyrocat 12y ago
  I think reaching "Fuck you" levels of wealth has a very slightly different (3% higher?) definition for people with kids, but otherwise the advise is the same. Once you (or, you and your family, if you have one) are financially safe, don't hoard.
- mesh 12y ago
  Why do you feel it is bad advice for people with children?
  - rifung 12y ago
    I imagine it's because you need to save for your kids to go to school, college, and to generally ensure their well being, and those things have a pretty set timeline. That being the case, taking the risks of pouring all your money into creative endeavors doesn't appear to be a particularly responsible thing to do as a parent. Of course, there's a balance to be had.
    - fulafel 12y ago
      Lots of places have free education and healthcare. Even the US seems to be be slowly approaching the western median safety net level there with the path started by Obamacare and plummeting bang for buck of college education... Increased risk tolerance helps on many fronts.
      - wtbob 12y ago
        Even with free education, food and healthcare, the parents who save more resources for their children will do better for them than those who don't.
      - rifung 12y ago
        I'm from the US so I can only comment on the situation here, but the reality is that despite public education being free till college, it is for the most part terrible. So, if you want your kids to get a proper education you'll either have to pay for a good school or get a house in a nice neighborhood; both things which require one to constantly be paying a substantial amount of money, whether it be for the mortgage, taxes, or tuition.
- anonbanker 12y ago
  Your mindset is exactly why pg refuses to invest in anyone over 35; they've become unable to take risks due to commitments.
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I don't think pg would behave like that, let alone say that. He was 29 when he started Viaweb, which is not far from 35. YC has funded people over 35 as well.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      I love that I'm being downvoted for quoting pg.
      - kbenson 12y ago
        You didn't exactly quote him, you stated his opinion and reasoning, without clarifying if it was your interpretation or his direct statement, and included no reference. That said, I generally agree with the sentiment. People with commitments are less free to play with their resources, at least if they are responsible. An who wants to invest in someone who's not responsible. There are, of course, exceptions, and even times when the opposite holds true; commitments can force a level of responsibility and drive because the stakes may be higher.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - noblethrasher 12y ago
        The closest thing that I can find that pg has said on the matter is that good hackers between about 23 and 38 should start a company. He said 38 was the upper bound because the simple reality is that the affordability of risk declines with age. But, even then he said that there was a lot of play in that number. Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
      - dang 12y ago
- underwater 12y ago
  It's also easier to say when you have a lot of money. Telling someone living in poverty that money is fictitious would be pretty tactless.
  - droopyEyelids 12y ago
    I have to disagree. Someone in poverty already knows money is a proxy for what they actually want. They understand perfectly that barter work or a gift can provide the same things without the control and authority structures around money.
vortizz 12y ago
Sure, money is fictitious and meaningless once you've moved into the f-you echelon. By definition. Perhaps for that segment piping it into creative endeavors is fulfilling and worthwhile. For everyone else for whom money is a meal, rent, or essential good instead of an expletive, who cannot afford to take an ethereally long-term view, this advice is out of touch with reality if not plain dangerous.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  You and I read his advice quite differently. Once you quite your job to pursue your dream you have a finite runway determined by your savings and minimum expenses. He is suggesting you use that runway to build you dream instead of using it to try to get funding for a longer runway.
  - quanticle 12y ago
    But what if your dream isn't profitable?
    - ap3 12y ago
      Then it was just a bad dream
      - themartorana 12y ago
        This is a bad statement. Without your "bad dreams" we wouldn't have the Red Cross, Kiva, Linux (or a majority of *nix releases), GPG (or lots of other OSS projects), One, Doctors Without Borders (or any number of other non-profit organizations), immense amounts of historically important art, music, documentaries, museums... Some of the best, most important dreams in human history weren't profitable.
        baddox 12y ago
        All of those things are profitable in the sense that's relevant to this context. In this context, "profitable" is clearly being used to simply mean financially viable. Nonprofit organizations produce surplus revenue, they just happen to use that surplus to further invest in the official (and legally-approved) goal of the organization.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
In general I agree with that, although having enough money "hoarded" such that you can collect a monthly stipend to cover basic necessities (like food, shelter, and utilities) makes spending all your time on investing your creative energies a lot less stressful :-)
jasonvolpe 12y ago
Though his point is not lost, the use of "primal" in "it is a shame to give into primal hoarding impulses" isn't fully accurate. Would not primal hunter gatherers have spent it while they had it - resources being plentiful for those skilled to find and kill? Didn't hoarding only become necessary when humans transitioned to farming? In fact it _is_ a primal urge to consume what you've earned, spending it on improving yourself/project.
anon4 12y ago
You know why I want money? Why I always demand a lot of money as payment? Because money can replace everything - house, food, happiness, love - you can buy it all with money. Money is extremely important and yet, it is completely replaceable. I hate people who say "I cannot live with this or that". Your life is more important than any possession. All you need is money. -- some guy I used to know
sixQuarks 12y ago
f-you money to me is having $100 million or more. Did this guy get anywhere close to that figure?
TheMagicHorsey 12y ago
This is good advice for smart and creative people who have good taste. I have friends that plowed their savings into their dream projects, but they lacked good taste. Nobody bought their shit. Now they are back working a 9 to 5.

nsxwolf 12y ago

This is good advice for a very narrow segment of creative people and not everyone at large. It's terrible advice for people with children, for example.

pyrocat 12y ago
I think reaching "Fuck you" levels of wealth has a very slightly different (3% higher?) definition for people with kids, but otherwise the advise is the same. Once you (or, you and your family, if you have one) are financially safe, don't hoard.
mesh 12y ago
Why do you feel it is bad advice for people with children?
- rifung 12y ago
  I imagine it's because you need to save for your kids to go to school, college, and to generally ensure their well being, and those things have a pretty set timeline. That being the case, taking the risks of pouring all your money into creative endeavors doesn't appear to be a particularly responsible thing to do as a parent. Of course, there's a balance to be had.
  - fulafel 12y ago
    Lots of places have free education and healthcare. Even the US seems to be be slowly approaching the western median safety net level there with the path started by Obamacare and plummeting bang for buck of college education... Increased risk tolerance helps on many fronts.
    - wtbob 12y ago
      Even with free education, food and healthcare, the parents who save more resources for their children will do better for them than those who don't.
    - rifung 12y ago
      I'm from the US so I can only comment on the situation here, but the reality is that despite public education being free till college, it is for the most part terrible. So, if you want your kids to get a proper education you'll either have to pay for a good school or get a house in a nice neighborhood; both things which require one to constantly be paying a substantial amount of money, whether it be for the mortgage, taxes, or tuition.
anonbanker 12y ago
Your mindset is exactly why pg refuses to invest in anyone over 35; they've become unable to take risks due to commitments.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  I don't think pg would behave like that, let alone say that. He was 29 when he started Viaweb, which is not far from 35. YC has funded people over 35 as well.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    I love that I'm being downvoted for quoting pg.
    - kbenson 12y ago
      You didn't exactly quote him, you stated his opinion and reasoning, without clarifying if it was your interpretation or his direct statement, and included no reference. That said, I generally agree with the sentiment. People with commitments are less free to play with their resources, at least if they are responsible. An who wants to invest in someone who's not responsible. There are, of course, exceptions, and even times when the opposite holds true; commitments can force a level of responsibility and drive because the stakes may be higher.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - noblethrasher 12y ago
      The closest thing that I can find that pg has said on the matter is that good hackers between about 23 and 38 should start a company. He said 38 was the upper bound because the simple reality is that the affordability of risk declines with age. But, even then he said that there was a lot of play in that number. Source: http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html http://www.paulgraham.com/start.html
    - dang 12y ago
underwater 12y ago
It's also easier to say when you have a lot of money. Telling someone living in poverty that money is fictitious would be pretty tactless.
- droopyEyelids 12y ago
  I have to disagree. Someone in poverty already knows money is a proxy for what they actually want. They understand perfectly that barter work or a gift can provide the same things without the control and authority structures around money.

vortizz 12y ago

Sure, money is fictitious and meaningless once you've moved into the f-you echelon. By definition. Perhaps for that segment piping it into creative endeavors is fulfilling and worthwhile. For everyone else for whom money is a meal, rent, or essential good instead of an expletive, who cannot afford to take an ethereally long-term view, this advice is out of touch with reality if not plain dangerous.

seanflyon 12y ago
You and I read his advice quite differently. Once you quite your job to pursue your dream you have a finite runway determined by your savings and minimum expenses. He is suggesting you use that runway to build you dream instead of using it to try to get funding for a longer runway.
- quanticle 12y ago
  But what if your dream isn't profitable?
  - ap3 12y ago
    Then it was just a bad dream
    - themartorana 12y ago
      This is a bad statement. Without your "bad dreams" we wouldn't have the Red Cross, Kiva, Linux (or a majority of *nix releases), GPG (or lots of other OSS projects), One, Doctors Without Borders (or any number of other non-profit organizations), immense amounts of historically important art, music, documentaries, museums... Some of the best, most important dreams in human history weren't profitable.
      - baddox 12y ago
        All of those things are profitable in the sense that's relevant to this context. In this context, "profitable" is clearly being used to simply mean financially viable. Nonprofit organizations produce surplus revenue, they just happen to use that surplus to further invest in the official (and legally-approved) goal of the organization.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

In general I agree with that, although having enough money "hoarded" such that you can collect a monthly stipend to cover basic necessities (like food, shelter, and utilities) makes spending all your time on investing your creative energies a lot less stressful :-)

jasonvolpe 12y ago

Though his point is not lost, the use of "primal" in "it is a shame to give into primal hoarding impulses" isn't fully accurate. Would not primal hunter gatherers have spent it while they had it - resources being plentiful for those skilled to find and kill? Didn't hoarding only become necessary when humans transitioned to farming? In fact it _is_ a primal urge to consume what you've earned, spending it on improving yourself/project.

anon4 12y ago

You know why I want money? Why I always demand a lot of money as payment? Because money can replace everything - house, food, happiness, love - you can buy it all with money. Money is extremely important and yet, it is completely replaceable. I hate people who say "I cannot live with this or that". Your life is more important than any possession. All you need is money. -- some guy I used to know

sixQuarks 12y ago

f-you money to me is having $100 million or more. Did this guy get anywhere close to that figure?

TheMagicHorsey 12y ago

This is good advice for smart and creative people who have good taste. I have friends that plowed their savings into their dream projects, but they lacked good taste. Nobody bought their shit. Now they are back working a 9 to 5.