A request to HN users: do not upvote based on the article source alone, especially if you have already seen this. This article is 6 years old, and I would be surprised to discover that a significant number of HNers have not yet read the essay (which is excellent by the way, if you really haven't read it yet).
If enough new users found upvote-worthy value from the article being submitted this time, then that's great, and the front page ranking is well-deserved. My concern is that given the age of the article, it will remain on the front page despite most users having already read it years ago, without the community really gaining any new value from it.
I can see real value in re-submitting this if there are a series of submissions or comments that shows this is a current topic of interest but it would be a shame if HN became more like TV with endless repeats.
Having said that I think classic Paul Graham essays such as The Submarine should be re-read at least once per year and perhaps more often than that.
Agreed, i'm not saying that this is true in this particular case, but posting random old pg essay smells just like an attempt to earn some easy karma. Personally, even if i didn't already read a particular essay, seeing the date i would not post it here.
As a side note, the duplicate finder algorithm should not catch these?
I for one hadn't read it yet (or I may have alzeihmer :-) I've read some others essays from PG but not that one. It's interesting and I will upvote it to recommand to others who may also have missed it.
But I agree with you, do not upvote on the source alone. Promoting single thought seems wrong to me.
Brand equity is a powerful and measurable force, and it must be earned. If Apple were to release a new tablet, everyone would listen. The same is not true of the numerous other tablets being released. Apple earned this reputation by delivering a (series of) remarkable product(s).
This is similar to my original point, but not quite the same. pg's essays are great reads, and whenever a new one is submitted I (along with most HNers) will read it, just because of the source. I trust that the essays are worth my time, because that's what my previous experience with pg's essays is. The difference is that I don't see how the HN community is gaining much additional value from recycling content.
I stopped after the first paragraph: If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years.
Come on. Startups are long shots, a gamble, definitely not a reliable bet. Most startups fail ( http://hubpages.com/hub/why-startups-fail ) and very few are massive successes. It's the rock-star model of getting rich - many try, few succeed.
Was a "venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages" a "reliable way to get rich" ? There were pirates, the danger of sinking the ship in storms or on rocks, scurvy, unpredictable conditions at the other end of the voyage etc... basically it's high risk, high reward.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the entire essay before passing judgement. Indeed, you'll find your point is addressed in the very essay you stopped reading.
Do you know of a reliable way to get rich? If so, then what are you doing here? I read it not as saying startups were reliable, just that they were the least unreliable means of a particular end - getting rich.
I just finished reading the all of Hackers and Painters after getting a cheap ebook from O Reilly. I wondered if there is any criticism of some of the economic theory ones? Specifically the one that follows this one in the book, Mind the Gap. (It says essentially that economic disparity isn't necessarily bad for society)
I don't have the background in economics or history to know if his examples are sound or not, but the part of me that tends towards more liberal values finds some of the arguments a bit repellent. Somehow, it seems to me that using the fact that "in ancient Rome the price of slaves varied by a factor of 50 depending on their skills" to help justify CEOs and baseball players high salaries is probably inherently flawed.
While reading it on the subway on my Android phone in epub format, the footnotes were broken, but I had hoped that the footnote attached this tidbit was some qualifying statement about why slavery isn't necessarily the best model to use when thinking about the worth of people today, but I was disappointed to find that the note was just more details on the economics of slavery and a reference, and seems to miss completely how flawed that line of thinking might be.
Is there anyone who is more economically educated who knows of some criticism of these essays? I know this probably sounds like someone who has had their beliefs questioned and wants to re-affirm them, and of course that's part of it. But I also remember reading the blog post "Dabblers and Blowhards" which picked apart PG's ideas about painting based on some (possibly) mistaken ideas about that history... so I'm suspicious.
Ultimately I would like to learn more about economic theory like this, so I'm looking for "criticism" in the sense of thoughtful discussions and response, not necessarily outright disagreement.
It seems like you're looking for ethical criticism of Mind the Gap, not economic criticism. I thought it was clear that the prices were just how much Romans were willing to pay for the services of people of varying levels of ability, and that the detail of who was receiving payment was not really part of the argument, although it apparently distracted from the argument itself in this case.
Thanks, I think you're partly right, re-writing the analogy that way does make it seem more reasonable to me. (I still think it's a bad analogy) But there were other parts of the essay I wondered about... the "Daddy model of wealth", the historical time periods and "whether you could accumulate a fortune by creating wealth has been turned on and off" ... These are ideas (like PG's about oil painting being like Lisp hacking) I just do not feel qualified to judge - they are interesting, for sure, but I can't know if they are accurate or reasonable. So I hoped someone else could point me in the right direction.
The line, "Money is a side effect of specialization" reminded me of one of my favorite Gary Vaynerchuk lines: "Do the single thing that you know best. Bring it to the lowest level. The sweet spot. It doesn't have to be music, doesn't have to be hip-hop, doesn't have to be P. Diddy. It can be P. Diddy's hair."
I'm a new user. I too have just discovered today that quoting pg does seem to make some people here uncomfortable. However even they admit themselves that those are words we quote are of wisdom.
I would be surprised to discover that a significant number of HNers have not yet read the essay
I don't know... it'd be interesting to know how frequently new users sign up, and what the average "age" of the accounts are, who regularly read/post. Personally, I suspect there are quite a few newer users who might not have read that (or any other given) pg article; but I can't prove it. Heck, I've been around for a while now and I doubt I've read all of pg's articles.
You can make wealth, but lets be realistic it is often easier to steal it (not with guns, but with things like patents, lobbyism, etc), so why make it?
I've read it before too - but thanks for the re-submission anyway. I hadn't realized the strength of the title before. 'Making Wealth' is a great phrase to evoke and question the idea of 'Making Money'.
I think he nailed it for the most part. Anytime you hear a person of 'wealth' talk about becoming financially successful, they too define it as 'wealth' and not 'money'.
That's probably where the line is drawn between those who have a lot of 'money' and those who don't.
If enough new users found upvote-worthy value from the article being submitted this time, then that's great, and the front page ranking is well-deserved. My concern is that given the age of the article, it will remain on the front page despite most users having already read it years ago, without the community really gaining any new value from it.