Right, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the point, PG doesn’t actually engage with it. He just says “compound growth + build something that people love”.

But the meat of the point is: if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years?

Look, I’m a startup guy, I buy into the premise that it’s an intensely value-creating activity. But I think it’s self-defeating to pretend like the monopoly and regulatory arbitrage problems don’t exist.

I get that PG and his customers need to be able to cash out, but also, the monopoly rentiers make it more difficult for startups to compete by buying up competitors early and offering crazy salaries that make startups uncompetitive.

All that said, the subtext here is that PG is providing politicians with stories they can tell, nobody in this conversation is trying to describe reality in the most precise or honest way.

I think there are many arguments against AOC's comments, but I agree that PG here is misrepresenting her point.

I don't think anyone reading PG's blog is clueless about the power of compounding or the difference between salary and wealth through asset growth.

Her point is essentially whether the entire capital system is "fair." And to be fair to PG I don't think AOC articulated a particularly strong point either.

PG is clearly confusing "capturing" a billion dollars for "earning" a billion dollars. Becoming a billionare is working the system so that the wealth generated by something people love (Amazon) is mostly captured by a select group of people (Jeff Bezos) and not the workers who are actually earning the company the value (fulfilling and delivering the packages).

Your phrase “extract” betrays a fundamental disagreement with what Paul is saying. (Externalities does so again) It assumes a zero-sum game where the job is to shift money from one person to another. Value, and thus money/wealth can be created. Literally. You are saying, in different words, that no one can do it “honestly”. He is saying one can.

PG's net worth is between 2.5 and 10 billion... so, I wouldn't take him seriously. Normal people (like the majority ones around here) won't ever have the opportunities/skills/luck all combined at a given point in time to generate billions. So any advice from his side regarding money is simply misleading.

pg is or was the owner of a very influential venture capital fund, that created projects such as Uber and AirBNB. He knows all about setting up structures to extract value, and he also knows which framing makes people more sympathetic instead of angry.

> pg's reading of it is so blunt and misrepresentative that I'm nervous about what kind of content he's consuming.

Does this mean you haven't been following his twitter the past several years?

I wonder what she would say about professional athletes. Some of the top stars have made near a billion dollars in lifetime wages, as unionized employees. Hard for me to see who the sports stars are exploiting to get their wealth.

Why does building a successful business necessitate generating economic externalities? Many do, and that should be prevented, but many also don’t. And to say that those externalities are responsible for a majority of the business’s growth in all cases is just false.

Everything is extractive. Farmer plants seeds, partially sets the environment. The work is done by the seed/sun/soil/water. And so is every profession: labour or not. Most of the business are structured in such a way that someone can exploit them to make even more money. The whole vendors and b2b system is mutual extraction.

Looking through wages and trying to find a ceiling(by time/effort) on the value creation by a human is one dimensional at best.

You can’t realistically make any money through work alone. Being paid for that work and being able to hold the value of that medium of exchange fully depends on the rest of us keeping an orderly society around you.

> She meant impossible in that one doesn't earn a billion dollars through work alone

She meant it was unethical to do so. It wasn't about working alone or not.

I know we like AOC but the way people bend over backward for her is off-putting.

I think this is super interesting (because the answer is not at all obvious to me): What do you mean by "through work alone"? Can it only be work if I can map a human hour cleanly onto someone paying an invoice for that hour?

This is what pg said she said: "What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad"

What you said she said: "The only way to get there is to set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market"

Extracting does, in fact, imply "something bad". To extract is to take something for yourself without adding value. That is bad. Your language implies that the people who make that sort of money do not add, which is what pg is trying to refute.

Your phraseology of “extract” suffers from the same problem as AOC’s. You’re conflating value creation with value extraction.

The problem with AOC’s argument is she’s recycling a 2008 talking point into a context where it doesn’t make sense. Financial entities making trillions moving money around raises questions about whether value is really being created. When I get three Amazon packages delivered to my house every day, there’s no question about value creation.

You could also interpret this statement in a way that has nothing to do with exploitation. A lottery winner doesn’t exploit anyone, but they don’t “earn” their money either. I’ve always thought of the founder path to a billion as a bit like a lotto game where you can shift the odds through hard work and natural ability. I don’t think this process necessarily involves exploitation (although it certainly could). You’d have to believe in the labor theory of value for that. And I’m not convinced that even Marx would, were he alive today. It was supposed to have a scientific basis, after all, and that evaporated a long time ago.

Here is one oft-repeated quote: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/05/12/aoc-.... Her statement is properly interpreted by pg.

I never understood why Joel Spolsky stopped blogging. His reason was basically (paraphrasing) that his business grew too big and mature for him to keep writing. It sounded nonsense to me by the time.

And now comparing PG's writing today and what he wrote 10~15 years ago, I finally get what Joel means.

His entire essay is just based on a purposeful misreading of the opposing point. It's a straw man. And if you look at his history it's obviously intentional and part of his usual style of argument.

The actual opposing argument is that it's impossible to create a billion dollar enterprise without a group effort, and for one person to end up with a billion dollars necessarily means that they made decisions within that enterprise that resulted in a lopsided allocation of resources at the end.

Period. That's it, and it's inarguable.

Every single aspect of the system is arbitrary and is a policy decision made by society. The basic building block, the limited liability joint stock company as a legal concept with some form of independent rights and entity status is arbitrary. Every lever, every part of the system, is created by people making decisions about how society is organized.

The people he is arguing with are basically saying "we want the system structured differently because this one is producing too much concentrated wealth." That's a political choice and an eminently reasonable one.

So if it's that simple, why would he feel a need to straw man instead of just addressing the actual argument? Well because he'd lose. The reality is is most people agree with this assessment of society and want it to change.

And by the way the question of how resources get split between labor and capital is the oldest and most central political problem in human history. To adopt a condescending tone while pretending to be ignorant of stuff you learn in the first couple weeks of any real study of politics or history, betrays the deception inherent in his essay.

Agreed, what a disappointment of an essay, encouraging a growth at all costs mindset and pretending that this growth doesn't involve/encourage bad side effects.

And a lot of these structures either involves a percentage cut or a security of some kind. And it's not new, it's copied.

I presume when it comes to filing taxes, PG is not confused and declares it as capital gains and not earned income.

He also glosses over the fact that the founder started with $2 million.

I understood the phrase as emphasizing the "deserving" implication of the word earn. As in, it is not possible for a human to take actions such that the fair reward is a billion. Or in other words, if you got a billion you got more than it's fair. To emphasize: this does not necessarily mean that the way one became a billionaire is nefarious or evil. It just implies unfairness.

I'm not defending that interpretation, mind you, just saying it's a possible read of the phrase.

what kind of content he's consuming?

like other "entrepreneurs" its most likely self-affirming bullshit, cranked up to religious levels (cue any modern ayn rand equivalent)

Yes, I agree. You need to create a brand or to be a brand.

Paul Graham was at his best when he gave clear, experience-driven, action-oriented advice. But even then, his advice was flawed... advising people to do things like to discriminate against women and parents.

As he got a little older, he cut back on that pro-discrimination advice... that typical thing where he was able to recognize the problems with his bigotry only after he would have been on the other side of it.

As he has become ludicrously wealthy he has, unfortunately, lost all track of reality. He no longer engages with the practical or the real... instead he deliberately misreads a quote so that he can wrote a pathetic and defensive response to it that engages in bad faith. And because he is ludicrously wealthy, he is surrounded by a mix of yes-men, and other hyper-wealthy sociopaths. So none of them give him critical feedback.

Paul Graham has become useless to society. He is, fundamentally, just a mindless pile of cash.

> so blunt and misrepresentative

You should read that as a self-preservation technique. The eager use of a strawman tells us PG heard AOC's words as an attack against him personally, his business, and his friends.

So the essay is not a reasoned retort but more an emotional self-defense to soothe a bruised ego. It's to assure himself that no -- in fact he did earn his wealth fair and square, and to imply otherwise shows a lack of understanding of how this all works. But I do love this essay because it does show just how emotional and irrational billionaires can be when their wealth and egos are threatened.

She said you can’t earn it.

Everyday, people grind their own flour.

Then I build a mill, and allow them to use it in exchange for a part of their flour.

Is my wealth not earned?

> She meant impossible in that one doesn't earn a billion dollars through work alone. The only way to get there is to set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market

Is "building structures" not work?

That’s a charitable read. Remember she also thought that New York would “lose millions” if Amazon put their hq2 there. Just because she’s in congress you can’t assume she understands how building a business works.

Taking your interpretation at face value I would add that yes we call it “capitalism” not “laborism”.

From the article:

> She wasn't saying, of course, that it's impossible to become a billionaire. Obviously that's possible. Nor was she talking about the distinction between income and capital gains. She wasn't making a point about accounting. What she meant was that it's impossible to get that rich without doing something bad — without cheating in some way.

IMO, that's a pretty fair interpretation, given Warren's rhetorical history.

> ...one doesn't earn a billion dollars through work alone > set up a structure that extracts a billion dollars from a market

If we accept that interpretation (which I don't), in what way is the latter not "work"?

Why does it usually imply extraction and externalities? What are those for Taylor Swift and Michael Jordan? The actual "usual" things in common between these and e.g. Amazon are massive value creation for consumers, economies of scale.

Focusing on completely optional and often imagined "externalities" just reveals a certain mindset (one could find some for cases like Amazon, but bezos became a billionaire in 1998 so whatever Amazon does after that doesn't directly apply, unless the goalposts are moved).

An example I love is hollowing out of this or that. The fact that people wanted to shop at Amazon (especially in 1998) and not a local bookstore, like the fact that people want to go to a Taylor Swift concert and not your indie band's is not an externality, it's a skill issue.

If I vibe code an app, and make $1m, and people willingly paid me for it, who am I exploiting? How did I "extract" $1m from a market. Who did I take that away from?

I didn't even exploit my workers and make a margin on their labor. Please can someone who believes billionaires are evil explain this to me.

> pg's reading of it is so blunt and misrepresentative that I'm nervous about what kind of content he's consuming.

Guy wrote an essay criticizing “woke” on the eve of Trump’s inauguration and is now running interference for billionaires causing an affordability crisis.

If someone is out of tune enough they are probably just playing a different song.

[dead]

So what does you practical utopia look like in real terms. What's the master plan beyond I don't like people making money from what people want? What does that utopia look like in practice.