xandar11
Joined 9 years ago
Karma
25
Submissions
17
Member since
Dec 19
Recent submissions
Comment · 8 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
There is one article where he writes how people/hackers get rich by creating wealth [1]. This is not the case with Travis and Uber, which the article I've linked to shows.
It's also mentioned in his article on economic inequality where he asserts that people get rich because they are more productive than others [2].
Comment · 8 years ago
This is an example of someone getting rich without increasing economic welfare. It goes against what Paul Graham writes about wealth creation and confirms Tim O’Reilly's view [2] that many people get rich by selling shares to suckers.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2933177
[2] https://wtfeconomy.com/what-paul-graham-is-missing-about-ine...
Comment · 8 years ago
Uber's business model is a total failure. Hubert Horan has done an amazing job exposing it [1] and you can also listen to his interview [2].
Comment · 8 years ago
"Yeah the Bay Area is expensive but the tech salaries make up for it."
This could be good for people who send some money back home (e.g. Indians). If you have a high number is absolute terms, then you can send more money to family.
Comment · 8 years ago
Why are people obsessed with this topic lately?
Do you think fame inequality is a problem? There are people who have 100s of millions of followers/fans and then there are people who are not famous (vast majority).
Why is that not considered a problem?
Fame inequality:
1. Undermines democracy. If you have a tiny group of famous people who have a massive cultural influence, their ideas and opinions matter almost infinitely more than ideas of those who are not famous. This by definition undermines the idea that everyone's opinion/vote should have equal weight.
2. Damages people's health. When people see someone famous it can make them depressed because they are constantly being compared to cultural icons. This can have serious impact on psychological health.
3. Perpetuates itself. People can become famous and get a leg up in life just because their parents are famous. Is that fair to all talented people who don't have famous parents?
Comment · 8 years ago
There is a great analysis of Uber's failed business model by Hubert Horan [1]
Comment · 8 years ago
When will people stop with that Henry Ford myth? You don't have to pay employees a high wage so they can afford to buy things that are produced.
You hear it when automation is mentioned: "Businesses are constantly automating production, so who is going to buy the output?". The answer is that other robot owners can buy it or the producer himself can consume it. The type of goods produced changes. Instead of cheap cars or pillows, you have more yachts, boats and other luxury items.
Comment · 8 years ago
Top 500 YouTubers see their subscribers_count increase by 100 million this year. Meanwhile, I got 0 increase in subscribers. It's not fair!
Just imagine how much influence these popular YouTubers have compared to regular folks, the impact they have on cultural and political life. Should we allow a tiny group of YouTubers to have such a massive subscribers_count and influence?
I say NO! Behind every popular YouTube channel lies a great crime.
Comment · 8 years ago
I'm skeptical about all this.
Hubert Horan [1] has done a great job exposing Uber's failed business model in 11 part series on NakedCapitalism ("Can Uber Ever Deliver?"). Same goes for Lyft.
When it comes to self driving cars, why should Uber or Lyft have any massive advantage over other players and what makes us think it won't turn into something like an airline industry which has been unprofitable for most of their history?
I've listened somewhere that he also opened a restaurant some time ago and it failed, which is why he's so negative on restaurants.