patrick.net

Peter P says

Capitalism rewards strength, as it should.

Empirically false: Codd and Berners-Lee

New Renter says

Peter P says

Capitalism rewards strength, as it should.

Almost all significant monuments in the world were created for, or by, the exceptional individuals.

Productivity itself is overrated. Without an artistic goal we just go in circles faster.

Ayn Rand, is that you?

No, that's the kind of stupid ass shit that ass-monkey Steve Jobs would say.

thunderlips11 says

I find the idea that Jobs is superior to Wozniak because he was a "strong" "hero" (aka more of a sneaky asshole than productive) bizarre.

Precisely. While Wozniak did actual work, not great work, but good work, Jobs was busy trying to stab people in the back.

Peter P says

Almost all significant monuments in the world were created for, or by, the exceptional individuals.

Examples of what Peter means...

When you define strong as hurting others and getting away with it then it is no compliment to be strong. To me, these people are weak-minded apes with meaningless lives that have failed to achieve the cosmic perspective. Go back in time and kill all of them and history would not be fundamentally different. Any Cesar can be replaced by a multitudes of other would-be Cesars. They are no different than CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sPsbv3fnY

Peter P says

Intelligence is a measure invented by sell-proclaimed "intelligent" people to make themselves feel better.

Peter P says

Education is overrated. Most people with a computer science degree cannot even write code.

I forgot the cult of stupidity and ignorance.
After all, the two greatest force shaping the world.

Peter P says

I am a huge fan of Larry Ellison. He is a contemporary example of significant individuals.

You're a fan of megalomania.

Good old deGrasse-Tyson. Mentored as a nobody kid from the Bronx by Carl Sagan, who invited him to his home, a real hero.

Nice list Dan. Without going back and mentioning other absolutist assholes like the Pharaohs, Babylonian Kings, French Absolutist Monarchs, Chinese Emperors, etc., I ask this:

Who wrote the following?

I would stand in front of the opera or admire the Parliament
Building; the entire Ringstrasse affected me like a fairy tale
out of the Arabian Nights.

And now I was in this beautiful city for the second time,
burning with impatience; I waited with pride and confi-
dence to learn the result of my entrance examination. I was
so convinced of my success that the announcement of my
failure came like a bolt from the blue. And yet it was true.
When I had obtained an interview with the director and
asked him to explain why I had not been admitted to the
general painting school at the Akademie, he assured me that
the drawings I had submitted clearly showed my lack of
painting ability, but that my talents obviously lay in the
field of architecture; it was the school of architecture and
not the school of painting where I belonged. They could
not understand why I had not attended a school for archi-
tecture or why I had not been given any instruction in this art.

Hint: His whole life was marked by a love of imposing architecture rooted in myth and legend, hatred of modernity, etc.

debyne says

Luck has nothing to do with it.

There are probably millions of entrepreneurs who had good ideas, worked their tails off, did everything right, and went nowhere because of circumstances beyond their controls that they couldn't predict.

It's too easy to say success is only due to luck since it's not sufficient, but yeah, success like Ellison is in fact due to luck.

Capital and labor need each other in order to bring supply and demand sides into harmony. The most efficient way to achieve this is via unionization to even out the bargaining capabilities of both sides.

As far as major isms are concerned, capitalism outperformed communism and theocracies as far as standard of living for average people is concerned so despite its shortcomings, I would pick this system over others in a heartbeat.

Depending on the field that one works in, yes in some of them it is definitely an advantage to be a ruthless individual.

thunderlips11 says

What I had been told about my ability was like

a bright flash of lightning which seemed to illuminate a dis-

sonance from which I had long suffered, but as yet I had not

been able to give myself a clear account of its wherefore and

whyfore.

If only they had admitted him!

thunderlips11 says

Who wrote the following?

Too easy. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.

Now one for you. Who wrote
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang walla walla, bing bang

dublin hillz says

Capital and labor need each other

The problem is largely that we divide people into capital (a small, non-productive parasitic group) and labor (worthless bums to be exploited). We should adopt an entirely different paradigm.

The media wants to portray the poor as hard working with a bad break, and the rich as lazy and all from silver spoons and luck. It has been my personal experience that the opposite is true. Many wealthy people work very hard and have created their own "luck", and many poor people are very lazy and keep making bad choices "luck".

thunderlips11 says

Nice list Dan

I was going for contemporary examples, but I forgot the poster boy for what Peter P considers to be a strong, exceptional man. Our hero,

Truly magnificent statues indeed.

Example of Wealth hard work.

I know a "trust fund" kid that inherited 200k from his parents. He bought a house at the height of the market, 2008. His house went down in value and he was stuck managing renters.

His parents then bought him out at the original price he paid.

In 2011 he bought a condo at a prime location for 300k. He made a killing since his condo now rents for 3k a month.

Is this guy hard working or smarter than anyone else? No! Having money just allows you to take more chances and make more mistakes. Eventually you'll hit something that will produce dividends. People without money do not have those chances. Take the guy that invented GoPro. He's the son of a venture capitalist. His first venture was a complete failure losing 4 million dollars to outside investors. But since this guy was rich he could have another go at it.

Ofcourse...this is all under the assumption that you are not an idiot. But even then... money can help.

I think we've all thoroughly debunked the thesis of the original post.

Peter P says

Poverty

I have a hard time dealing with it because of personal experience.

For example, if a man does have drive and energy, and expends capital to form a business and it fails, and he ends up with money owed (by definition, poor) is he at fault? Stupid? Lazy?

In some cases, we bail out failed businesses and give the person more money for trying, to keep people employed, and so on.

Dan8267 says

I think we've all thoroughly debunked the thesis of the original post.

"I know people who inherited sizeable sums of money and never had to work a day in their life. Therefore, let's assume all people with money didn't have to work harder than the next guy, so let's rob from the rich and give to the poor."

You haven't debunked anything...all you put up are straw man arguments.

John Bailo says

For example, if a man does have drive and energy, and expends capital to form a business and it fails, and he ends up with money owed (by definition, poor) is he at fault? Stupid? Lazy?

Fault is really irrelevant. Economics ought to be morally neutral, but that is another story.

My take is that one should pursue opportunities with limited downside and unlimited upside. For example, leveraging other people's money to expand but with limited liability.

Paradoxically, surviving failures is more important than riding successes. You just don't know when you'll get lucky. The ability to keep trying is of essence.

The saying, failing is not an option, harmed numerous people. One should fail smart, and fail up.

Don't fix sinking ships either. Jump ship real fast. He who panics first panics best.

Portal says

His parents then bought him out at the original price he paid.

He cannot be bailed out forever. At some point, money will leave the weak hands.

Peter,
We do not live forever. The more money you have the more mistakes you can make. That is a fact. Eventually we all die and money leaves our hands. Not sure what your point is?

Peter P says

Portal says

His parents then bought him out at the original price he paid.

He cannot be bailed out forever. At some point, money will leave the weak hands.

debyne says

Dan8267 says

I think we've all thoroughly debunked the thesis of the original post.

"I know people who inherited sizeable sums of money and never had to work a day in their life. Therefore, let's assume all people with money didn't have to work harder than the next guy, so let's rob from the rich and give to the poor."

You haven't debunked anything...all you put up are straw man arguments.

What's more curious is that I live in a city where there are a lot of obscenely wealthy people. And I spent years playing poker semi professionally. At a level where I was not at the top, but circulating enough money to make most of the posters here puke, and high enough to have access to the people who played the highest. And a lot Of those people had obscene levels of money. Yet not once did I meet someone who simply inherited it and never had to work for it.

Not saying those people don't exist...most certainly the do us has Paris Hilton, the Walton heirs, etc. Still I question those claiming to know multiples of people who simply inherited and did nothing to get there. It's a lifestyle I'm entirely unfamiliar with, and simple numbers make it unlikely one would encounter multiple such individuals throughout life.

Portal says

We do not live forever. The more money you have the more mistakes you can make. That is a fact. Eventually we all die and money leaves our hands. Not sure what your point is?

Yes, it would be tragic to become a slave of money. Business should be driven by the passion to dominate. Success is the triumph of the will. Money is just a tool in the capitalist context.

Unlike the other oracle, Larry Ellison does not hoard money as if it is the greatest good. He enjoys life building and acquiring beautiful things.

Really - Most of the people i know that have money inherited it in some form or another. Over 50% of the bloomberg billionaire list inherited their money on way or another.
dodgerfanjohn says

Yet not once did I meet someone who simply inherited it and never had to work for it.

dodgerfanjohn says

Yet not once did I meet someone who simply inherited it and never had to work for it.

They exist, and it is sad. You know why? They are aiming too low. They should want more and work towards it.

On the other hand, some rich kids are doing something meaningful with their trust funds. For example, the Ellison kids are producing film projects.

Portal says

Over 50% of the bloomberg billionaire list inherited their money on way or another.

Most people will end up inherit something, even just a modest life insurance policy.

The real test is the number of digits they have added to the starting sum.

Portal says

Really - Most of the people i know that have money inherited it in some form or another. Over 50% of the bloomberg billionaire list inherited their money on way or another.

Fine, so tax the super rich at a higher tax rate. The only people I know of that "got lucky" are famous or in the news or mostly anecdotes from people on this board.

Now let's talk about the 99.99% which is the rest of us. Someone who is a doctor or a lawyer or a corporate executive most likely had to work their ass off to get to where they are...I'm one of those people and I'm surrounded by those types of people at my work. I worked my ass off to graduate top of my class, get a scholarship, work while in school, and get both an undergraduate and graduate degree at a good university. I then worked really hard to get a job at a Big 4 consulting firm, put my dues in there, and now I sit at a management level position at a very large corporation. Why should ANYONE have the right to be propped up at the expense of all my hard work and good decision-making? Was it luck or did I make my own luck? I earned that shit.

debyne says

Fine, so tax the super rich at a higher tax rate. The only people I know of that "got lucky" are famous or in the news or mostly anecdotes from people on this board.

Who is to decide what is rich or super rich? To foster an entrepreneurial society, not even the sky should be the limit. Extreme success is the best incentive for innovation and risk-taking.

We must not put an actual or even philosophical cap to potential payouts.

Peter P says

debyne says

Fine, so tax the super rich at a higher tax rate. The only people I know of that "got lucky" are famous or in the news or mostly anecdotes from people on this board.

Who is to decide what is rich or super rich? To foster an entrepreneurial society, not even the sky should be the limit. Extreme success is the best incentive for innovation and risk-taking.

We must not put an actual or even philosophical cap to potential payouts.

Believe me, I'd assume no income tax at all and just make everything consumption-tax-based. But to live in a world of reality where gov't is way too big and we have to pay our ridiculous bills somehow, I'd be ok with taxing people more that earn over $5M per year or something.

debyne says

Believe me, I'd assume no income tax at all and just make everything consumption-tax-based. But to live in a world of reality where gov't is way too big and we have to pay our ridiculous bills somehow, I'd be ok with taxing people more that earn over $5M per year or something.

And believe me, once that $5M arbitrary level is there, it will be lowered until it seems "fair" to the *average* person.

I am more open to consumption-based taxation and even taxation through inflation. I do not have much sympathy towards savers anyway. They should be out there trading/investing/consuming.

It seems all the growing countries (USA, China, etc) have a long and fat tail on the right side of the income distribution curve. Countries with less skew/kurtosis are not faring that well (Japan, Euro Zone, etc).

debyne says

Dan8267 says

I think we've all thoroughly debunked the thesis of the original post.

"I know people who inherited sizeable sums of money and never had to work a day in their life. Therefore, let's assume all people with money didn't have to work harder than the next guy, so let's rob from the rich and give to the poor."

You haven't debunked anything...all you put up are straw man arguments.

None of my arguments even mention inheritance. It is you who is putting up straw man arguments.

debyne says

You haven't debunked anything

Tell that to Edgar Codd.

Peter P says

Economics ought to be morally neutral, but that is another story.

Morality isn't about religion. Morality is a system of rules and guidelines that enable cooperation. Without cooperation, there can be no economy. So, yes, morality is an important aspect of economics.

The world is better off when everyone isn't trying to fuck over everyone else. More cooperation means more wealth for everyone. Zero sum games destroy cooperation, productivity, and therefore destroy wealth.

Dan8267 says

debyne says

You haven't debunked anything

Tell that to Edgar Codd.

Inventors are not nearly as important as the salesmen. Ideas are a dime a dozen but getting them accepted by the public is the key.

Genghis Khan probably did not invent paper money but he circulated it widely.

Nicholas Tesla is the biggest loser of all.

Peter P says

Ideas are a dime a dozen but getting them accepted by the public is the key.

No, implementing them is the real value. Here's an example. I have an idea: let's cure cancer. Yeah, the public is all for it. I've done my part, now why don't you go and implement that idea already you lazy ass employee.

Peter P says

Nicholas Tesla is the biggest loser of all.

And that comment is why the opinions of people like you on any subject matter is worthless.

Dan8267 says

The world is better off when everyone isn't trying to fuck over everyone else. More cooperation means more wealth for everyone. Zero sum games destroy cooperation, productivity, and therefore destroy wealth.

There needs to be integrity. Fraud must not be permitted. However, competition is the driver of progress. Cooperation will still occur as a form of temporary alliance.

A game may be zero-sum, but playing it can bring real value. Otherwise, why play chess?

Peter P says

A game may be zero-sum, but playing it can bring real value.

By definition of zero-sum, no. And we're talking economics, not leisure.

Dan8267 says

No, implementing them is the real value. Here's an example. I have an idea: let's cure cancer. Yeah, the public is all for it. I've done my part, now why don't you go and implement that idea already you lazy ass employee.

Curing cancer will always be a passion for some, and progress will be made. However, this is meaningful only at the individual level. Individuals and companies are more than capable of delivering innovations.

Dan8267 says

By definition of zero-sum, no. And we're talking economics, not leisure.

It is the same thing. Life is a game. It would be sad if we do not have fun.