What Paul Graham Is Missing About Inequality – Tim O'Reilly(medium.com)
medium.com
What Paul Graham Is Missing About Inequality – Tim O'Reilly
https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/what-paul-graham-is-missing-about-inequality-a9f7e1613059#.5nmn0ybn4
12 comments
One thing missing from the 'startups create value' argument is that some startups don't create much new value but simply absorb value from elsewhere by providing a more efficient lower friction way of doing something that was done in a different way before. Before I'm misunderstood, I'm not arguing that it's a negative result in the grand scheme, but it helps to be aware that this can actually lead to greater inequality if many people lose their jobs to a startup that only requires a handful of people to run it, where previously thousands were required.
>> We should ask ourselves, how can this leverage be democratized?
Isn't that a bit tautological? Economic outcomes in the U.S. have depended on one or more groups lacking technology, education and access to capital at all times since the nation's founding. I don't disagree with your question/suggestion but in the unicorn scenario where those with powerful technical and economic assets de-leverage themselves or accept social/political forces demanding a democratization of leverage, it seems that 1) leverage as an economic concept would cease to be a major factor in wealth creation or 2) the pendulum swings in the other direction as previously oppressed peoples refuse to democratize their newfound power.
Isn't that a bit tautological? Economic outcomes in the U.S. have depended on one or more groups lacking technology, education and access to capital at all times since the nation's founding. I don't disagree with your question/suggestion but in the unicorn scenario where those with powerful technical and economic assets de-leverage themselves or accept social/political forces demanding a democratization of leverage, it seems that 1) leverage as an economic concept would cease to be a major factor in wealth creation or 2) the pendulum swings in the other direction as previously oppressed peoples refuse to democratize their newfound power.
I don't mean democratized in the sense of it being equally distributed, I mean more available for those who can make proper use of it -- not restricted to the elite class.
Technology, education, and capital have been increasingly democratized over time and I think this trend will continue. Technology is the primary reason for this because 1) costs become so much lower that it can be provided for virtually free, 2) new business models can be created that were not possible before.
Now with an Internet connection anyone can create a business.
With things like Coursera, Udacity, Khan Academy, etc education has been more accessible and free.
There are also more options for financing, both from traditional banks being more liberal in their lending as well as new routes like Kickstarter style crowd funding and peer-to-peer lending.
That being said, the distribution for people who will be motivated to educate themselves, work hard, build a business, will stay the same because human nature doesn't change as fast as technology. If various kinds of human attributes / behaviors / motivation fall on a Gaussian distribution, then any kind of leverage will make it sharper (more inequality).
So what I think is going to happen is that inequality will get worse but it will be more fair because it won't be the case that that leverage wasn't available to them, it will increasingly be the case that they just didn't take advantage of it despite having access to it.
That being said, it's a generalization and a trend but the opposite has some weight as well. Yes, capital will pool and that creates concentrations of power. But at the same time, disruptive technologies like Internet based education, P2P lending, etc make those concentrations of wealth irrelevant.
In the long run, technology disrupts and democratizes everything. Google for the 6 D's for a longer explanation
http://bobmorris.biz/the-six-ds-of-exponential-development
Technology, education, and capital have been increasingly democratized over time and I think this trend will continue. Technology is the primary reason for this because 1) costs become so much lower that it can be provided for virtually free, 2) new business models can be created that were not possible before.
Now with an Internet connection anyone can create a business.
With things like Coursera, Udacity, Khan Academy, etc education has been more accessible and free.
There are also more options for financing, both from traditional banks being more liberal in their lending as well as new routes like Kickstarter style crowd funding and peer-to-peer lending.
That being said, the distribution for people who will be motivated to educate themselves, work hard, build a business, will stay the same because human nature doesn't change as fast as technology. If various kinds of human attributes / behaviors / motivation fall on a Gaussian distribution, then any kind of leverage will make it sharper (more inequality).
So what I think is going to happen is that inequality will get worse but it will be more fair because it won't be the case that that leverage wasn't available to them, it will increasingly be the case that they just didn't take advantage of it despite having access to it.
That being said, it's a generalization and a trend but the opposite has some weight as well. Yes, capital will pool and that creates concentrations of power. But at the same time, disruptive technologies like Internet based education, P2P lending, etc make those concentrations of wealth irrelevant.
In the long run, technology disrupts and democratizes everything. Google for the 6 D's for a longer explanation
http://bobmorris.biz/the-six-ds-of-exponential-development
Eh. I'm more of the opinion that technology amplifies the existing characteristics of social, political and economic structures (http://geekheresy.org/tag/law-of-amplification/) with the possibility of disrupting and democratizing. But I know I'm on an island in that regard. I understand your point.
It's not an either or.
Debt is a bad amplifier if not used correctly. Racking up huge student loans to get a degree that is not in demand will lead to poverty. The same with excessive credit card debt. Leverage works both ways.
Certain people will always have destructive qualities. The percentage of people digging their own graves hasn't changed much. It's just that instead of a shovel, they now have a bulldozer.
Debt is a bad amplifier if not used correctly. Racking up huge student loans to get a degree that is not in demand will lead to poverty. The same with excessive credit card debt. Leverage works both ways.
Certain people will always have destructive qualities. The percentage of people digging their own graves hasn't changed much. It's just that instead of a shovel, they now have a bulldozer.
I think you might be misreading his argument. Are you are interpreting it as "Startup founders become very rich only if companies don’t create real value in return for that wealth"? If so, I don't think that's what he intends.
I read it as "Technology only creates greater inequality if companies don't create real value". I'm not sure if that's actually true, but that interpretation seems less contentious and more in line with the rest of the piece.
I read it as "Technology only creates greater inequality if companies don't create real value". I'm not sure if that's actually true, but that interpretation seems less contentious and more in line with the rest of the piece.
That would make more sense. That's probably what he meant.
> the statement that lots of wealth can only come from not creating real value seems absurd to me.
I don't think that's what he said. He said that inequality increases when wealth is created for the company's owners/investors while NOT creating value (or even reducing value) for everyone else (customers, the public, employees).
There are lots of examples of huge wealth being created at the expense of others without also creating value - for example: bad mortgages being bundled, obfuscated, and upsold. Tim actually proposes that bad startups are somewhat analogous to these sorts of financial instruments - i.e. there's a sucker at the end holding the bag.
I don't think that's what he said. He said that inequality increases when wealth is created for the company's owners/investors while NOT creating value (or even reducing value) for everyone else (customers, the public, employees).
There are lots of examples of huge wealth being created at the expense of others without also creating value - for example: bad mortgages being bundled, obfuscated, and upsold. Tim actually proposes that bad startups are somewhat analogous to these sorts of financial instruments - i.e. there's a sucker at the end holding the bag.
That would make more sense. Yes, that is definitely a problem.
I think he is ignoring / discounting leverage as a component to wealth creation though.
Even in a world where it is impossible to make wealth without providing value, inequality will still grow in proportion to available leverage. And technology (leverage) grows at an exponential rate.
If we are concerned with inequality, then part of the equation is how do you make that leverage available to those without large pools of wealth or privilege.
I think he is ignoring / discounting leverage as a component to wealth creation though.
Even in a world where it is impossible to make wealth without providing value, inequality will still grow in proportion to available leverage. And technology (leverage) grows at an exponential rate.
If we are concerned with inequality, then part of the equation is how do you make that leverage available to those without large pools of wealth or privilege.
Things that don't create value eventually collapse.
I don't think customers/employees would work with company if they weren't getting at least some value out of it.
I don't think customers/employees would work with company if they weren't getting at least some value out of it.
Sure, but things can appear to provide lots of apparent value for customers and employees (i.e. the borrowers and loan-bundlers in the pre-2007 real estate bubble), until as you say, they collapse.
Also, just because a small group of people (customers, employees) may derive value from a particular startup company doesn't mean that that particular company, or the overall the ecosystem of startup companies, is creating more value than it consumes. The effect on inequality of the overall ecosystem is what's being debated here, and I'm not sure that anyone has a clear, data-backed understanding of which way it skews.
Also, just because a small group of people (customers, employees) may derive value from a particular startup company doesn't mean that that particular company, or the overall the ecosystem of startup companies, is creating more value than it consumes. The effect on inequality of the overall ecosystem is what's being debated here, and I'm not sure that anyone has a clear, data-backed understanding of which way it skews.
What I got from reading article is that "Technology creates greater inequality only if companies don't create proportionate value in return for the wealth founders/executives take away"
But if companies are actually creating value at least as much as the founders/executives take away, it isn't creating inequality.
The author has given examples later in the article. The good case being google's founders taking away only what is proportionate to the value their company has created. And the bad case being a CEO given $120 million in stock option pay when the company profit was just $150 million.
But if companies are actually creating value at least as much as the founders/executives take away, it isn't creating inequality.
The author has given examples later in the article. The good case being google's founders taking away only what is proportionate to the value their company has created. And the bad case being a CEO given $120 million in stock option pay when the company profit was just $150 million.
Very curious to see what people think about O'Reilly's supposition that many, if not most, startups are just another financial instrument that don't actually create wealth:
"When a startup doesn’t have an underlying business model that will eventually produce real revenues and profits, and the only way for its founders to get rich is to sell to another company or to investors, you have to ask yourself whether that startup is really just a financial instrument, not that dissimilar to the CDOs of the 2008 financial crisis — a way of extracting value from the economy without actually creating it."
"When a startup doesn’t have an underlying business model that will eventually produce real revenues and profits, and the only way for its founders to get rich is to sell to another company or to investors, you have to ask yourself whether that startup is really just a financial instrument, not that dissimilar to the CDOs of the 2008 financial crisis — a way of extracting value from the economy without actually creating it."
The acquihire maybe...
If someone buys a start-up, obviously it has value to them.
The 'value' can be as simple as a payout. If I could go back, I'd love to invest in Snapchat. I don't think Snapchat will ever have a strong revenue stream but that doesn't matter to me - what matters to me is the buyout.
Hell, I invest in options often. There's no real value to me... only a potential investment payout.
I think it's the same with most investors of technology.
Hell, I invest in options often. There's no real value to me... only a potential investment payout.
I think it's the same with most investors of technology.
The value comes from the people buying the company then.
Maybe snapchat is going to be a crucial marketing channel for them, which makes it worth it to purchase them. They transfer some of this value, to the original investors of the company who got it off the ground.
There is value, or perceived value at some point in the chain.
Maybe snapchat is going to be a crucial marketing channel for them, which makes it worth it to purchase them. They transfer some of this value, to the original investors of the company who got it off the ground.
There is value, or perceived value at some point in the chain.
The question is if that value is at the right valuation.
I found it to be an interesting claim. We'd have to look at what one buys when they get a startup. Focusing on tech, they typically get the team behind it, the tech itself, the userbase, the patents, and then anything else created. I think the team, users, and I.P. are most valuable components. Then, they tend to fold that into their other offerings or sometimes shelve it if it was for anti-competitive reasons.
So, it seems to me it's not a financial instrument. I mean, my understanding of finance is pretty basic. There could be instruments that represent what I'm describing. What I'm seeing, though, is that they're buying a market (users) w/ cross-selling opportunities, reduced liabilities if patents, and proven tech if they want it. It's more like investing in themselves through a third party they're bringing in for the enhancements they'll provide.
So, it seems to me it's not a financial instrument. I mean, my understanding of finance is pretty basic. There could be instruments that represent what I'm describing. What I'm seeing, though, is that they're buying a market (users) w/ cross-selling opportunities, reduced liabilities if patents, and proven tech if they want it. It's more like investing in themselves through a third party they're bringing in for the enhancements they'll provide.
Something that I haven't seen discussed much is the possibility that when a startup (i.e. Whatsapp) achieves billion-ish scale adoption in a space that overlaps with an incumbent (Facebook), it has already destroyed some value (monetizable user attention-time) in the incumbent, so the incumbent has to obtain the upstart (pun-intended) in order to regain that lost value, and simultaneously grow into the areas that they don't overlap.
In that case, any premium paid that isn't reclaimed by future value created as a result of the acquisition is destroyed wealth. Unfortunately, without a crystal ball, it's hard to say what that premium is, if it exists at all.
In that case, any premium paid that isn't reclaimed by future value created as a result of the acquisition is destroyed wealth. Unfortunately, without a crystal ball, it's hard to say what that premium is, if it exists at all.
> PG: Traditional economists seem strangely averse to studying individual humans.
Because that's not what economics is? Economics is a social science. Or, as far as I can see, psychology for the society. If you study the individuals, you are a psychologist, not an economist.
Because that's not what economics is? Economics is a social science. Or, as far as I can see, psychology for the society. If you study the individuals, you are a psychologist, not an economist.
It would be much more interesting to hear economists, who have expertise in this domain, discuss this issue and hear people who happen to be in our industry talk about what they know (IT).
I'm an economist (sort of), with some IT domain expertise. I've been thinking about the below issues for some time now:
1) As productive capital becomes increasingly digital, it becomes cheaper to acquire or create. If capital is cheaper to acquire or create, it means fewer people are needed to pool money to attain it. In other words, capital ownership becomes more concentrated as a result.
2) Additionally, digital capital often enables production at near 0 marginal cost (e.g. it costs facebook virtually nothing when a person registers a new account). Markets where the marginal cost of production is near 0 are generally 'winner-takes-all' markets (e.g. natural monopolies, network monopolies etc.), due to always increasing economies of scale. So the returns to capital become larger, as monopolists can capture more 'consumer surplus' as profit. In addition, the more a monopolist can price discriminate (i.e. set different prices for different consumers, based on how much those consumers value the product), the more they can convert consumer surplus into profit for themselves.
The net result of the previous two points: significantly more wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands
3) Digital capital is highly mobile. For example, AWS instances can be moved to another country almost instantaneously and without cost. This makes it hard for governments to tax returns to digital capital, barring some global tax agreement, as raising the tax rate on capital returns will simply cause it to relocate to lower taxing jurisdictions (e.g. Ireland). So governments have limited scope to redistribute this increasingly concentrated wealth using taxation.
I think that we badly need to have a global conversation about this: do we consider these good or bad things? are we ok with the resulting society? what should we do (if anything) about this?
1) As productive capital becomes increasingly digital, it becomes cheaper to acquire or create. If capital is cheaper to acquire or create, it means fewer people are needed to pool money to attain it. In other words, capital ownership becomes more concentrated as a result.
2) Additionally, digital capital often enables production at near 0 marginal cost (e.g. it costs facebook virtually nothing when a person registers a new account). Markets where the marginal cost of production is near 0 are generally 'winner-takes-all' markets (e.g. natural monopolies, network monopolies etc.), due to always increasing economies of scale. So the returns to capital become larger, as monopolists can capture more 'consumer surplus' as profit. In addition, the more a monopolist can price discriminate (i.e. set different prices for different consumers, based on how much those consumers value the product), the more they can convert consumer surplus into profit for themselves.
The net result of the previous two points: significantly more wealth becomes concentrated in fewer hands
3) Digital capital is highly mobile. For example, AWS instances can be moved to another country almost instantaneously and without cost. This makes it hard for governments to tax returns to digital capital, barring some global tax agreement, as raising the tax rate on capital returns will simply cause it to relocate to lower taxing jurisdictions (e.g. Ireland). So governments have limited scope to redistribute this increasingly concentrated wealth using taxation.
I think that we badly need to have a global conversation about this: do we consider these good or bad things? are we ok with the resulting society? what should we do (if anything) about this?
> If capital is cheaper to acquire or create, it means fewer people are needed to pool money to attain it. In other words, capital ownership becomes more concentrated as a result.
I see how that would cause ownership of a specific asset (e.g., one program) to become more concentrated, but wouldn't the lower barrier to entry cause ownership to become less concentrated market-wide?
I see how that would cause ownership of a specific asset (e.g., one program) to become more concentrated, but wouldn't the lower barrier to entry cause ownership to become less concentrated market-wide?
I agree. Paul Graham's essays on income inequality expressed my views on income inequality more clearly than even I was thinking them. I appreciate this, but now I need to hear a critique by someone who understands the issue how I understand it and disagrees with me. I've been looking, but I've found ad hominem attacks.
Although I basically agree with PG's essay, the one plausible critique I can think of is this:
1) We don't care about wealth distribution per se. What we actually care about is utility maximisation (in other words, maximising the sum of 'human happiness').
2) Once we get pass some basic wealth level, to meet some set of basic needs like food and shelter, a person's utility is a function of relative wealth rather than an increasing function of absolute wealth.
3) If you accept points 1 and 2, we therefore should care about wealth inequality in and of itself.
There's also probably another argument to be made along the lines of 'decreasing marginal utility with respect to wealth'. Which is a fancy way of saying: a poor person derives greater utility from an additional $1 in wealth than a rich person does. This would mean that the sum of human utility is increased by taking $1 from the richest person and giving it to the poorest person.
1) We don't care about wealth distribution per se. What we actually care about is utility maximisation (in other words, maximising the sum of 'human happiness').
2) Once we get pass some basic wealth level, to meet some set of basic needs like food and shelter, a person's utility is a function of relative wealth rather than an increasing function of absolute wealth.
3) If you accept points 1 and 2, we therefore should care about wealth inequality in and of itself.
There's also probably another argument to be made along the lines of 'decreasing marginal utility with respect to wealth'. Which is a fancy way of saying: a poor person derives greater utility from an additional $1 in wealth than a rich person does. This would mean that the sum of human utility is increased by taking $1 from the richest person and giving it to the poorest person.
[deleted]
@delish: have you seen this? http://praxtime.com/2016/01/12/paul-graham-inequality-cowens...
That was worth my time. Thank you. I wrote down Cowen's laws for future reference.
[deleted]
Does O'Reilly's critique not qualify?
The problem is that for every economist who disagree's, you'll probably find another one who agrees.
Condensed version here: https://medium.com/the-wtf-economy/in-his-essay-on-income-in...
One of the big reason we have an increase in wealth inequality is globalization. Before 2000, you were only competing with another American at the same wage. Now, you need to compete with workers in India, China, and Mexico.
If not in those countries, big companies like Facebook will just bring them over on an H1B visa at a similarly competitive wage.
It's the same phenomenon that happened when technology uprooted the music industry 15 years ago: small, indy labels can now no longer survive because nobody actually buys music anymore and we are left with huge labels.
Adblock will eventually do the same with independent blogs: If you want to make any sort of living, you will need to post your content on a large-corporate owned blog that has enough traffic to make money outside the ad system.
If not in those countries, big companies like Facebook will just bring them over on an H1B visa at a similarly competitive wage.
It's the same phenomenon that happened when technology uprooted the music industry 15 years ago: small, indy labels can now no longer survive because nobody actually buys music anymore and we are left with huge labels.
Adblock will eventually do the same with independent blogs: If you want to make any sort of living, you will need to post your content on a large-corporate owned blog that has enough traffic to make money outside the ad system.
Globalisation has actually decreased inequality on a global scale.
The poor are moving up, the middle class are moving toward the poor (they will meet at some point), and the rich continue to get richer in the process.
So yes, inequality is technically decreasing between the poor and middle class, but the end result will be the middle class being non-existent.
It might be better for someone from a poor country, but not that good for someone from the US.
So yes, inequality is technically decreasing between the poor and middle class, but the end result will be the middle class being non-existent.
It might be better for someone from a poor country, but not that good for someone from the US.
I don't believe that it is the divine right of the middle class of one country to live better lives than other people, simply because of location.
Besides, globalisation will overall increase the total wealth of the poor + middleclass combined.
Besides, globalisation will overall increase the total wealth of the poor + middleclass combined.
"Besides, globalisation will overall increase the total wealth of the poor + middleclass combined."
It won't really increase the overall wealth of the middle class. It will pull wealth away from the middle class to pay the poor at a cheaper rate. This is what's happening right now and why people in the tech industry are so upset by it. It's a form of global wealth redistribution.
I also don't think the middle class has any divine right. They just need to start preparing for job loss and overseas competition.
It won't really increase the overall wealth of the middle class. It will pull wealth away from the middle class to pay the poor at a cheaper rate. This is what's happening right now and why people in the tech industry are so upset by it. It's a form of global wealth redistribution.
I also don't think the middle class has any divine right. They just need to start preparing for job loss and overseas competition.
Trade has ability to create wealth. If we increase global trade, it will also increase the total wealth available to the poor + middle class. Some portion of the surplus value will also go to rich providing the capital.
>Before 2000
...What??? If google was as good as some people claim, we should be able to look up something like U.S. automobile imports from 1950 through 2015. Also, NAFTA became law in 1994, and I'd argue that this is a lagging indicator more than a leading one. The culture at large (or at least the politically influential part) had to accept this first, before it became law.
...What??? If google was as good as some people claim, we should be able to look up something like U.S. automobile imports from 1950 through 2015. Also, NAFTA became law in 1994, and I'd argue that this is a lagging indicator more than a leading one. The culture at large (or at least the politically influential part) had to accept this first, before it became law.
One wonders if pg will respond to this piece.
Paul writes: The most naive version of which is the one based on the pie fallacy: that the rich get rich by taking money from the poor. ... I think because we grow up in a world where the pie fallacy is actually true. To kids, wealth is a fixed pie that’s shared out, and if one person gets more it’s at the expense of another.
Tim amends: But in formerly rich countries, many people who used to be paid well for their work now have to compete for lower-paid jobs, while those who already own meaningful capital take a larger and larger share of the pie. This is the real “pie fallacy” — the idea that as long as the pie is getting bigger, everyone is better off. It’s true that through technology, trade, and the spread of knowledge, we have made a bigger pie. But that doesn’t mean that some people aren’t getting far more of the benefit, while others are losing out.
This is a step forward, but I confess that I'm still not convinced that the simpler version is actually a fallacy. I can't shake the sense that more and more people are consuming shared resources in a finite ecosystem.
Paul continues: It takes a conscious effort to remind oneself that the real world doesn’t work that way. In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others. A woodworker creates wealth. He makes a chair, and you willingly give him money in return for it.
But where does he get the wood? Does he cut down a tree, which is no longer there for others to use? Or if he buys the lumber, how does he get the money to do so? And the person with the lumber, did they cut down a public tree to get it? For that matter, where does the person who buys the chair get his money? Does it matter if he too "created wealth" or it OK if he took it by force?
Can someone who once shared my naiveté explain what convinced them that the "finite resources" view is indeed a fallacy? It might be that I don't distinguish correctly between wealth and value. I understand that people can create something of value, and that they can make themselves wealthy, but I don't think I understand the concept of creating wealth.
Tim amends: But in formerly rich countries, many people who used to be paid well for their work now have to compete for lower-paid jobs, while those who already own meaningful capital take a larger and larger share of the pie. This is the real “pie fallacy” — the idea that as long as the pie is getting bigger, everyone is better off. It’s true that through technology, trade, and the spread of knowledge, we have made a bigger pie. But that doesn’t mean that some people aren’t getting far more of the benefit, while others are losing out.
This is a step forward, but I confess that I'm still not convinced that the simpler version is actually a fallacy. I can't shake the sense that more and more people are consuming shared resources in a finite ecosystem.
Paul continues: It takes a conscious effort to remind oneself that the real world doesn’t work that way. In the real world you can create wealth as well as taking it from others. A woodworker creates wealth. He makes a chair, and you willingly give him money in return for it.
But where does he get the wood? Does he cut down a tree, which is no longer there for others to use? Or if he buys the lumber, how does he get the money to do so? And the person with the lumber, did they cut down a public tree to get it? For that matter, where does the person who buys the chair get his money? Does it matter if he too "created wealth" or it OK if he took it by force?
Can someone who once shared my naiveté explain what convinced them that the "finite resources" view is indeed a fallacy? It might be that I don't distinguish correctly between wealth and value. I understand that people can create something of value, and that they can make themselves wealthy, but I don't think I understand the concept of creating wealth.
What is it that you don't understand.
Somebody owns some land, perhaps it was auctioned off by government. They plant trees(Adds value to the land). Lumber jacks pay to cut down the trees, and prepare the wood for woodwork(adds value to wood). They sell the wood to a woodworker, who crafts it into a chair(adds value to the wood). Who then sells it. The owner of the land may plant more trees and the cycle starts again.
At each step more value has been added(using labour and skill), which people are willing to pay more for.
Money is injected into the economy via banks and government to represent the value of products and services in the economy. If you create too much money, for the amount of value created you get inflation. To little and you get deflation. Obviously this is overly simplified. You also have stuff like velocity of money.
Somebody owns some land, perhaps it was auctioned off by government. They plant trees(Adds value to the land). Lumber jacks pay to cut down the trees, and prepare the wood for woodwork(adds value to wood). They sell the wood to a woodworker, who crafts it into a chair(adds value to the wood). Who then sells it. The owner of the land may plant more trees and the cycle starts again.
At each step more value has been added(using labour and skill), which people are willing to pay more for.
Money is injected into the economy via banks and government to represent the value of products and services in the economy. If you create too much money, for the amount of value created you get inflation. To little and you get deflation. Obviously this is overly simplified. You also have stuff like velocity of money.
A better example than the woodworker is an artist. His or her materials may cost almost nothing, but, if the artist is highly regarded, they can transform the materials into something considered valuable. If you want to call it "wealth", go ahead. Does the artist have to sell their work to realize its value, or to gain personal wealth? In strictly financial terms, yes, but their art could be enriching their own life even if they never sold anything. Both value and wealth are subjective.
Not sure why you are being downvoted here. It's a perfectly reasonable question, asked reasonably. Even anarcho-capitalists admit that externalities exist.
I think his points on executive compensation vs labor-based compensation plus incentives are spot on. It's this way because they can do it this way for their own gain. They also have influence in Washington to pull it off. Quite simple.
Of course, being a scientist, I prefer to judge something by its results. We can say exactly what our system's design is doing by looking at what results from it and where those results show up. Spoiler: it's a plutonomy or an economy that almost exclusively extracts wealth to concentrate in hands of richest few.
Citigroups internal analysis confirming we're a modern plutocracy & that illusion of upward mobility was critical:
http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutono...
Nice profile of the richest firms controlling the most wealth and their interlocking boards:
http://www.projectcensored.org/financial-core-of-the-transna...
That's 161 directors managing $23.91 trillion in funds. Hard to imagine control of wealth distribution or incentives to take a slice getting more concentrated.
EDIT to add: Also relevant is this recent HN post with empirical evidence supporting rule by elite claim. If law and business structure are for elites, then of course they continue and expand economic inequality that benefits elites at the rest's expense.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10965943
Of course, being a scientist, I prefer to judge something by its results. We can say exactly what our system's design is doing by looking at what results from it and where those results show up. Spoiler: it's a plutonomy or an economy that almost exclusively extracts wealth to concentrate in hands of richest few.
Citigroups internal analysis confirming we're a modern plutocracy & that illusion of upward mobility was critical:
http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011/12/citigroup-plutono...
Nice profile of the richest firms controlling the most wealth and their interlocking boards:
http://www.projectcensored.org/financial-core-of-the-transna...
That's 161 directors managing $23.91 trillion in funds. Hard to imagine control of wealth distribution or incentives to take a slice getting more concentrated.
EDIT to add: Also relevant is this recent HN post with empirical evidence supporting rule by elite claim. If law and business structure are for elites, then of course they continue and expand economic inequality that benefits elites at the rest's expense.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10965943
Tim writes:
But in formerly rich countries, many people who used to be paid well for their work now have to compete for lower-paid jobs, while those who already own meaningful capital take a larger and larger share of the pie.
This is the real “pie fallacy” — the idea that as long as the pie is getting bigger, everyone is better off. It’s true that through technology, trade, and the spread of knowledge, we have made a bigger pie. But that doesn’t mean that some people aren’t getting far more of the benefit, while others are losing out.
This highlights probably the biggest flaw in Graham's original article, and if he does reply to Tim's critique I hope at minimum he addresses this point. The reason that the wealthy are claiming an increasing slice of the growing pie is that we've institutionalized, in the form of law and custom, many, many, "rich-get-richer" rules. Tim enumerates a few of them, but there are many such mechanisms woven into the economy, some of them not so obvious. (For example, recently HN featured a Priceonomics article showing how cigarettes effectively transfer wealth from the poor to the rich: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10941671.)
There are only two ways to combat the rising rate of inequality: 1) modify all those rules and customs to make them wealth-neutral (unlikely), or 2) legislate new counter-rules that move wealth the other way. Any other solution is wishful thinking and not mathematically viable.
This is the real “pie fallacy” — the idea that as long as the pie is getting bigger, everyone is better off. It’s true that through technology, trade, and the spread of knowledge, we have made a bigger pie. But that doesn’t mean that some people aren’t getting far more of the benefit, while others are losing out.
This highlights probably the biggest flaw in Graham's original article, and if he does reply to Tim's critique I hope at minimum he addresses this point. The reason that the wealthy are claiming an increasing slice of the growing pie is that we've institutionalized, in the form of law and custom, many, many, "rich-get-richer" rules. Tim enumerates a few of them, but there are many such mechanisms woven into the economy, some of them not so obvious. (For example, recently HN featured a Priceonomics article showing how cigarettes effectively transfer wealth from the poor to the rich: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10941671.)
There are only two ways to combat the rising rate of inequality: 1) modify all those rules and customs to make them wealth-neutral (unlikely), or 2) legislate new counter-rules that move wealth the other way. Any other solution is wishful thinking and not mathematically viable.
We've also somewhat institutionalized the belief that all innovation would cease if those laws were even slightly more re-balanced in favor of more redistribution downward.
PG's essay seemed to hint at that kind of thinking, but I couldn't tell if he was advocating against higher taxes on the very wealthy, or whether he was more vaguely saying "don't mess with the startup machine's incentive system" without being specific as to what that means.
PG's essay seemed to hint at that kind of thinking, but I couldn't tell if he was advocating against higher taxes on the very wealthy, or whether he was more vaguely saying "don't mess with the startup machine's incentive system" without being specific as to what that means.
There are many ways to re-engineer the system to lead to better outcomes. Say you gave everyone twice what we are giving them now. But that extra 50%, you don't give them that as income, but instead as money that can be spent on certain kinds of investment. Not commodities, food, finance, or real-estate. What sort of outcomes would that cause in the system? The standard argument for giving people any sort of wealth is, well that causes inflation. That only causes inflation only because of the way the money is used. If it is used different it can cause innovation and better distribution of wealth.
Those things are all fungible, and thus can be exchanged for cash. This would only introduce friction, not prevent inflation.
I don't see how they are fungible. At the end of the day the people are investors. They invest in a real company that carries out real business. Is that business any of those listed above? If not, then yes you can invest, if not no you can not invest. Obviously the investors would at some point see a return on their income. And you simply don't give them the returns. You put the returns back in the same fund. You can get that money back when you are 65 to pass to your children. You can only get back a certain amount, depending on the number of children, enough to pay for their schooling and a home. That way everyone has an education and a home, and the banksters don't get rich off mortgages and loans. The residual the government can keep for social programs or something as such.
Inequality is a very serious issue. It's unfortunate to look at it in the context of the startup world however. Startups aren't driving the problem.
To quote a great musical legend, The reasons are several, most of 'em Federal.
To quote a great musical legend, The reasons are several, most of 'em Federal.
Well said.
Tim provides no justification or evidence for this argument. This makes no sense to me. While there is certainly a difference between making money from rent-seeking vs rendering real value, the statement that lots of wealth can only come from not creating real value seems absurd to me. If providing some value results in some wealth, why wouldn't providing lots of value result in lots of wealth? It is true that some of the highest money makers are from rent seeking activities (banking and finance sectors especially) but to say that lots of wealth can ONLY come from not providing value is absurd.
Technology, education, and access to capital all create inequality because they all create leverage. Those who use leverage will always get further ahead than those who don't use leverage. Getting rid of leverage is not the answer though because leverage is the basis for creating more physical wealth in the world and for doing it with less resources.
We should ask ourselves, how can this leverage be democratized?