digislave

Why not? Suppose you have to choose between two dog walkers for hire, one who is will to write essays about Russian history and one who is not. You happen to be very interested in Russian history. Why wouldn't you prefer the dog walker who is willing to write about it?

You are totally in your rights to fire your dog walker if they refuse to write you an essay about Russian political history.

Germany

Vancouver is famous all over the world as an attractive city (for example I live in Berlin, Germany, and many people I know would like to visit Vancouver). I've never been there, but I have heard it is next to the sea AND next to the mountains, and it lies in a first world country with a solid economy and good health care. Maybe the prices just reflect demand?

But isn't that also a factor of what people prepared to pay? Like if some people are prepared to pay 50% or more of their income to live in an attractive location, prices will rise so that to live in that location, most people will have to pay almost all of their income for it?

I am not sure there should be regulation to prevent people from doing that, as it represents personal choice and preferences.

In my country, there are cheap houses in the countryside, and housing in attractive locations is very expensive. Perhaps the factor of demand is underrated in the discussion of housing prices.

People can only ask for as much money for houses as people are prepared to pay. It isn't true that speculators can simply drive the price up as high as they want.

If investing in housing is a good way to make money, it is an incentive to build more housing.

Even foreign money could be good. If foreigners pour lots of money into your housing market, you could build lots of cheap houses and sell it to them for lots of money, for example. (not saying you should, just saying foreign investment in housing is not automatically a net loss).

Why not? It seems obvious that cheap credit would drive up prices. For example people could just be bidding up to what they can pay off in about 30 years. If they simply do that, cheaper credit would rise house prices.

Instead of fretting about people who became successful, we should think about how we can help more people become successful. Which incidentally seems to be a huge part of what PG does.

Even poor people today live better than kings in the past. The things we can afford, microwave dinners, washing machines, were only available to kings with lots of servants in the past. When you consider medicine, it becomes even more obvious that we are better off now than rich people in the past.

Climate always changes, the question then is, is it extraordinary change because of CO2. I don't think merely counting record events is a good way to determine that 40 years is also not a very long time span..

Also it seems likely that more measurements are being taken (at more locations). And cities are expanding, changing local weather.

Local records are normal. There is variation in weather, and there are many "local" spots on earth. There are also coldness records every year, but there is less reporting on it.

Well the most important factor of economic mobility has historically been women marrying up. So you might be on to something - it seems doubtful that wives who were able to marry up work that much harder than other wives.

You have just become lucky because you stumbled upon the article and can act on it. So it is not necessary to mention luck, because the readership of the article is already selected for luck.

The article also mentions the necessity of talent.

It also doesn't say everybody can become a billionaire by simply working hard.

Also even if you are born in Africa with no access to schools (or in some US ghetto were everything is sooo horrible), you can probably set yourself apart from your peers.

Yeah because their parents are better educated and pass on their values to their kids. So what?

I am frankly tired of this modern idea that is is somehow unfair if parents pass on their advantages to their kids. That is what nature has always been about. It even starts before people have kids - they seek out partners that maximize the potential for their kids. So if a woman chooses an intelligent (or even just rich) man as a father for her kids, it is somehow unfair because it gives the kids an advantage. Even trying to become attractive (for example to become rich) to make you a good choice for parent is somehow unfair? It should be obvious that all that is some Marxist bullshit, where individuals are not allowed to operate for their personal advantage anymore, and their bodies are being utilized (women are not allowed to choose attractive partners anymore, or have children for their own enjoyment. Everybody has to be dedicated to the benefit of society or "fairness").

Stephen Curry's father was a professional basketball player, and now Curry is one of the best Basketball players. Is that unfair? What would have been fair, to disallow his father to play basketball with his son, and instead mandate he gives free basketball lessons to poor kids?

Maybe it is unfair that Curry's father didn't push for him to become a lawyer or a doctor, "forcing" him into a career as a basketball player. Well his dad knew about the world of basketball, so that is where he was able to help his son. Why shouldn't he do that? I personally will see to it that my kids learn to code, because that is where I am able to help. I don't feel bad about it at all. In fact I wish there were other things I were able to help with, but there are not. Still, they can go out into the world and seek other teachers. Especially with the internet, a lot of things are free to learn. There even is a Masterclass by Stephen Curry about learning to play Basketball.

PG talks about that in other essays, on how you should probably move to the right location. He compares Milano to Florence - it is unlikely people in Milano were less intelligent, but all the famous painters emerged in Florence.

Nevertheless I think your claim about the zip codes is too broad. Most people will have average lives. I suspect even in Silicon Valley only a small fraction of kids grow up to be successful entrepreneurs.

Your story doesn't actually demonstrate that you have to know Warren Buffet as a child and attend an expensive school to become successful.

I don't think anybody here claims that working hard automatically makes you successful, either, just that it is difficult to become successful without it.

Also your movers could probably afford to work less if they dropped their drug habits.

A lot of censorship is mandated by governments. Here in the EU companies have to pay huge fines if they don't comply with censoring laws.

The problem might not be venture capital, but simply there being entities (companies) that the government can get to.

Individuals fare even worse. Try to host content that your government does not approve off.

But maybe no government is better. It only says all other forms of government are worse.