6 ms·

It was an interesting interview, definitely more Howard Stern and less 20/20 as far as the guest and content are concerned. I really didn't need to know when an

It was an interesting interview, definitely more Howard Stern and less 20/20 as far as the guest and content are concerned. I really didn't need to know when and how he lost his virginity. His money management (or lack thereof), business "partnerships" (giving full server access to a kid in another country he never met before) and business ethics (scraping a competitor's site and spamming their users under the guise of direct marketing) painted a picture of a very naive entrepreneur to say the least. I think this interview is a very good example of what NOT to do.

codexon 17y ago
I thought it was fairly stereotypical how it was only after he was making lots of money that he was able to find a girlfriend let alone lose his virginity. Maybe for some people this is part of the allure of being an entrepreneur. About the business ethics though, there's a reason why the saying "behind every great fortune lies a great crime" is often said. Because the currency economy is mostly a zero-sum game in the sense of total money ownership (barring inflation), the people that have less scruples than you will often rake in more money than the more honest counterparts.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  zero sum? but people take raw materials (e.g. glass and aluminum) and make awesome, valuable stuff out of it all the time.
  - codexon 17y ago
    Please read more carefully. I'm talking about possession of currency which is zero-sum except when the Fed prints out more bills. You can make a billion pretty trinkets with glass and aluminum, and it won't get you any dollars if no one with dollars wants to trade you dollars, and the Fed is not printing extra.
    - xenophanes 17y ago
      but moving currency between people, for "trinkets" is called "trade". trade is not a zero sum process. it creates wealth. so, i buy something from you for $20. then you buy something from me for $20. although the currency comes out equal, we're both ahead. there's no scam here, no incentive or advantage for low scruples, no problem at all.
      - codexon 17y ago
        How many times do I have to repeat myself? I never said "wealth" exchange was a zero-sum game. I said currency exchange is a zero-sum game.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        You mean trading currency for currency doesn't go anywhere? Umm, I guess so. What's your point? The guy wasn't in the currency exchange business.
        forensic 17y ago
        You'll have to scroll up to see his point. It was related to how the title of article was aiming at the possession of currency rather than the possession of wealth.
        codexon 17y ago
        Yes it's quite sad how I had to repeat myself 3 times. At least you understand :) What I don't understand is why when anyone here sees the word "zero-sum" they rush in to talk about Paul Graham's explanation of wealth creation regardless of what the subject is. And sadly I've since then lost 5 karma from people who like to jump on this "wealth is not a zero-sum game" bandwagon.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        Is it sad that you assume all capitalist people here are repeating views from PG, rather than explaining their own independent views?
- timwiseman 17y ago
  Because the currency economy is mostly a zero-sum game in the sense of total money ownership (barring inflation), This statement is true in its literal sense but very misleading. Holding currency is close to a zero sum game, holding wealth is nowhere near that. If someone were to, say, sell me a pound of gold for $1, he would win in terms of pure currency. He would have one more dollar, and I would have one less, but I think I would come out ahead. Similarly, if someone sold me a tool I needed to do my job, he would clearly win in terms of money in that transaction, but I could turn around and use that tool to create new things that never existed before and create more value in the world. Paul Graham talks about this in more detail and more eloquently than I can hope to at http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (Edited to add a small comment).
  - codexon 17y ago
    This statement is true in its literal sense but very misleading. Holding currency is close to a zero sum game, holding wealth is nowhere near that. I already understand that "value" can be generated regardless of how much currency is available. Why is everyone here on HN in a rush to ignore that currency exchange is a zero-sum game and keeps trumpting that wealth can be generated? Perhaps it is because Paul Graham wrote that article. Wealth is a different subject from currency. You can generate all the "wealth" in the world, and if there is only $100 circulating in the world, all that "wealth" isn't magically going to expand this $100 except when you convince the government to print more money. This has important limitations on the liquidity of your "wealth". Let's say that you've created $1 quadrillion worth of meat. You want to convert this into alternative forms of wealth such as currency and medical supplies. However, is it at all likely that you will be able to convert all this wealth before it expires? Nope. And this is one of the most important distinctions between wealth and currency. The supply of currency is artificially limited by the government, while the supply of wealth is an arbitrary measure that people decide to assign their work and belongings.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      wealth creation with fixed currency causes deflation. deflation means you can now buy more products and services with the share of the currency you do have. so you're wrong.
- barrkel 17y ago
  Money is just a generally accepted means of transferring wealth from one place to another. Currency is a subset of all money. Lots of things can take the place of money, as long as they have the right attributes (mutual trust, fungible, not easily debased or forged, transportable, etc.) Money is not a "zero-sum game", and in particular, wealth has almost no relationship with money. Money is just the "working capital" in various ongoing wealth exchanges, the water in the pipes, as it were, if the economy was viewed as an interlocking system of flows. And currency, the printed stuff from a central bank, is not the total sum of this money.

codexon 17y ago

I thought it was fairly stereotypical how it was only after he was making lots of money that he was able to find a girlfriend let alone lose his virginity. Maybe for some people this is part of the allure of being an entrepreneur. About the business ethics though, there's a reason why the saying "behind every great fortune lies a great crime" is often said. Because the currency economy is mostly a zero-sum game in the sense of total money ownership (barring inflation), the people that have less scruples than you will often rake in more money than the more honest counterparts.

xenophanes 17y ago
zero sum? but people take raw materials (e.g. glass and aluminum) and make awesome, valuable stuff out of it all the time.
- codexon 17y ago
  Please read more carefully. I'm talking about possession of currency which is zero-sum except when the Fed prints out more bills. You can make a billion pretty trinkets with glass and aluminum, and it won't get you any dollars if no one with dollars wants to trade you dollars, and the Fed is not printing extra.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    but moving currency between people, for "trinkets" is called "trade". trade is not a zero sum process. it creates wealth. so, i buy something from you for $20. then you buy something from me for $20. although the currency comes out equal, we're both ahead. there's no scam here, no incentive or advantage for low scruples, no problem at all.
    - codexon 17y ago
      How many times do I have to repeat myself? I never said "wealth" exchange was a zero-sum game. I said currency exchange is a zero-sum game.
      - xenophanes 17y ago
        You mean trading currency for currency doesn't go anywhere? Umm, I guess so. What's your point? The guy wasn't in the currency exchange business.
        forensic 17y ago
        You'll have to scroll up to see his point. It was related to how the title of article was aiming at the possession of currency rather than the possession of wealth.
        codexon 17y ago
        Yes it's quite sad how I had to repeat myself 3 times. At least you understand :) What I don't understand is why when anyone here sees the word "zero-sum" they rush in to talk about Paul Graham's explanation of wealth creation regardless of what the subject is. And sadly I've since then lost 5 karma from people who like to jump on this "wealth is not a zero-sum game" bandwagon.
        xenophanes 17y ago
        Is it sad that you assume all capitalist people here are repeating views from PG, rather than explaining their own independent views?
timwiseman 17y ago
Because the currency economy is mostly a zero-sum game in the sense of total money ownership (barring inflation), This statement is true in its literal sense but very misleading. Holding currency is close to a zero sum game, holding wealth is nowhere near that. If someone were to, say, sell me a pound of gold for $1, he would win in terms of pure currency. He would have one more dollar, and I would have one less, but I think I would come out ahead. Similarly, if someone sold me a tool I needed to do my job, he would clearly win in terms of money in that transaction, but I could turn around and use that tool to create new things that never existed before and create more value in the world. Paul Graham talks about this in more detail and more eloquently than I can hope to at http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html (Edited to add a small comment).
- codexon 17y ago
  This statement is true in its literal sense but very misleading. Holding currency is close to a zero sum game, holding wealth is nowhere near that. I already understand that "value" can be generated regardless of how much currency is available. Why is everyone here on HN in a rush to ignore that currency exchange is a zero-sum game and keeps trumpting that wealth can be generated? Perhaps it is because Paul Graham wrote that article. Wealth is a different subject from currency. You can generate all the "wealth" in the world, and if there is only $100 circulating in the world, all that "wealth" isn't magically going to expand this $100 except when you convince the government to print more money. This has important limitations on the liquidity of your "wealth". Let's say that you've created $1 quadrillion worth of meat. You want to convert this into alternative forms of wealth such as currency and medical supplies. However, is it at all likely that you will be able to convert all this wealth before it expires? Nope. And this is one of the most important distinctions between wealth and currency. The supply of currency is artificially limited by the government, while the supply of wealth is an arbitrary measure that people decide to assign their work and belongings.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    wealth creation with fixed currency causes deflation. deflation means you can now buy more products and services with the share of the currency you do have. so you're wrong.
barrkel 17y ago
Money is just a generally accepted means of transferring wealth from one place to another. Currency is a subset of all money. Lots of things can take the place of money, as long as they have the right attributes (mutual trust, fungible, not easily debased or forged, transportable, etc.) Money is not a "zero-sum game", and in particular, wealth has almost no relationship with money. Money is just the "working capital" in various ongoing wealth exchanges, the water in the pipes, as it were, if the economy was viewed as an interlocking system of flows. And currency, the printed stuff from a central bank, is not the total sum of this money.