While I don't completely disagree with the sentiment here, I agree more with the GP suggesting that YC started with great intentions (let's give makers a little money and support and minimal bullshit and see what they make) and that HN as a community has improved many peoples lives (mine included). But yes, it evolved into something different.

My question is what solution are you advocating? Abolish YC? Outlaw starting businesses? I don't see your solution.

Look, im general I’m quite sympathetic to the argument that wealth inequity is both morally/ethically bad (which I think you’re saying) and bad economically for growth and prosperity (which I don’t read you as saying). I also think that many societies have problems with wealth inequity overall, and few have successfully cultivated innovation in the last decade or two as successfully has the US (partially driven, yes, by YC).

To me the solution to the problem isn’t the front-end, that is attacking YC and startups and entrepreneurship. Rather, I would generally support deep and effective estate taxes, wealth taxes if they could be found to be effective, attacks on tax avoidance behavior, etc. (e.g. I don’t have solutions, but I’m disgusted by the behaviors and advantages reported on by ProPublica recently here https://www.propublica.org/article/the-great-inheritors-how-... but I also think there are great fortunes in the UK, France, Germany, the Nordics, so not sure anyone has quite figured it out).

At the same time, I think that economic growth is the central and defining anti-poverty tool in history. Other countries envy our ability to grow the pie even as we have challenges in fairly distributing that pie. I’d rather find solutions to the problems of distribution without attacking growth.

On OpenSea, I’m not following the argument exactly. I assume you think all art, particularly mass market art is a sort of mass delusional petite bourgeoisie / opioid of the masses pursuit foisted on them by a conspiratorial monied class? Or, more likely, it’s just all a big, experimental community of purists and artists and hucksters and beyond alike that are trying something new and interesting and potentially quite generative and innovative. I have no idea if in five years OpenSea will be huge or dead or somewhere in-between but I’d admire that they have built, created, strove.

On Airbnb, I have quite a bit more ambivalence but overall my vision of the world has a lot more density and urbanism. It’s good for people, it’s good for the environment, etc. If I had a magic wand in, say, San Francisco, the city would have housing for 3-4 times as many people, a much much more robust public transit system, etc, and the problems of gentrification would be addressed primarily through a massive uptick in housing stock and density not by the relatively limited effects of (the practically banned in SF) Airbnb.

AirBnB is an interesting case. On its face it seems socially rational, given that many rooms are unused or heavily under-used, to match them with people who want rooms in that location. The problem is, of course, that it increases rental profiteering, and that it caters to rich international tourists, not residents.

Is there a way to enjoy the benefits of AirBnB without those pathologies? Governments, either locally or nationally, could issue AirBnB rental licenses, limit the supply to prevent gross gentrification, and tax the income and use it to subsidise housing costs elsewhere in the affected locations.

> The problem is, of course, that it increases rental profiteering, and that it caters to rich international tourists, not residents.

If I have a property, I can choose to let someone stay at my property for money. AirBnB facilitates this. This makes my property valuable as a result. The homeowners benefit as do people who need a place to stay. This is progress and occurs any time anyone creates a product or technology that creates value. What pathologies? Homes rightly appreciating in value due to a new revenue stream opened up for homeowners?

You seem to believe that all market transactions are socially beneficial, whereas I do not. A market transaction might benefit the rational utility of transacting parties despite incurring yet greater harms on third parties. I, like most people, am not a value monist who believes rational utility is the only good, and if we take this yet larger perspective then a very wide range of market transactions create net social harms.

'Renting' in its essence does not involve doing anything: it does not mine resources, manufacture use objects, or provide a service. Rich people buy up scarce assets and then charge a fee for their use. The return has no correlate in any socially useful activity - it is 'profiteering'. AirBnb means it is often more profitable to buy properties and rent them to rich international tourists rather than to locals. This creates the further, perverse effect of pricing out residents from their own cities. Given than I am a democrat and think societies should be run by and for the people, I think this is obviously remiss.

>'Renting' in its essence does not involve doing anything: it does not mine resources, manufacture use objects, or provide a service. Rich people buy up scarce assets and then charge a fee for their use.

So if someone doesn't have enough accumulated capital or credit to buy a property to live in, tough luck. You can't legally rent from someone. I guess rely on charity or sleep on the streets? Seems unreasonable.

What a strange way of conversing with people. I never suggested that and you must know that I don't think it, so why say it? It shows bad faith.

I think that ceteris paribus the lower housing rents are the better. How to help bring that about is an interesting policy question. I suspect that socialisation is the best option, but increasing the stock and rent controls could work.

If we return to the specific case of AirBnb and my original suggestion, the aim would be twofold:

1. Limit AirBnb rentals to reorientate the housing stock away from rich international tourists to locals.

2. Tax AirBnb rentals to subsidise local housing.

I would point out that Barcelona has already done (1).