You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Viliam comments on Open Thread, January 4-10, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: polymathwannabe 04 January 2016 01:06PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (430)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 January 2016 05:07:18PM 1 point [-]

If instead they would be spending most of their time among African warlords, or Russian oligarchs, or whatever is their more civilized equivalent in USA, maybe they would have very different models of how wealth works.

If you look at the Forbes list there aren't many African warlords on it.

There are probably more people who got rich selling homeopathics, than who got rich founding startups.

Which people do you think became billionaire's mainly by selling homeopathics? Homeopathics is a competive market where there no protection from competitors that allows to charge high sums of money in the way startups like Google produce a Thielean monopoly.

Comment author: Viliam 12 January 2016 08:46:29AM 0 points [-]

Money has more or less logarithmic utility. So selling homeopathics could still bring higher average utility (although less average money) than startups. For every successful Google there are thousands of homeopaths.

Comment author: ChristianKl 12 January 2016 11:48:40AM 0 points [-]

Money has more or less logarithmic utility.

That depends on your goals. If you want to create social or political impact with money it's not true. Large fortunes get largely made in tech, resources and finance.