pg’s argument is essentially
1. Build something people want to buy
2. If you do, you can get exponential growth of people buying it
3. This isn’t inherently immoral.
replyThere are many assumptions around this you could argue about, but he’s directly addressing the original statement (which was also simple, and did not explicitly include the assumptions either).
I agree they are talking past each other - a lot of this is more related to marginal cost differences than anything else imho (basically how leveraged the value of my labor could practically be).
1. That exponential is a sigmoid in disguise. Who knows if it'll top out above 1 billion?
reply2. If you don't have an unfair anticompetitive moat, you'll have competitors, driving your profit towards zero as usual.
[flagged]
replyHighest average rankings over decades on nearly every common measure of quality of life going to.. right, the Scandinavian countries who happen to have had the most progressive governments over the same timespan.
replyUniformly disastrous, should very much have followed the leads of politicians like Russia's. A prime example of the polar opposite of progressive.
Is there going to be a no-true-scotsman if I ask about the last time the US had a budget surplus (4 in a row iirc)?
reply