Paul Graham's near-death experience(valleywag.com)
valleywag.com
Paul Graham's near-death experience
http://valleywag.com/tech/acquisitions/paul-grahams-near+death-experience-295574.php
36 comments
The fact that Viaweb happened to be at the mercy of its investors at that moment hardly meant it was worthless. In fact it generated lots of revenue for Yahoo. I believe roughly the same amount as Broadcast.com, which cost 100x as much.
This comment made me think "wouldn't it be weird if PG owned a basketball team?"
If I had that much money, I'd never buy a sports team. I'd found a town. That's the luxury I dream about. Probably just as well I can't have it though; it would be a huge time sink.
It's also funny to think that everyone has a dream about "what if I had some plateau of wealth higher than the one I occupy now"
[deleted]
"Please tell us in one or two sentences something about each family member that shows a high level of ability."
If you had that much money, you could stage a takeover of Equatorial Guinea. Why settle for a town when you could have a country?
PG, this reminds me of a question I had a while ago. In your Silicon Valley essay, you mention in a footnote that one could reproduce SV with 30 of the right people. Who would those people be (or what kinds of people)? Angels like Ron Conway? VC's like Sequoia?
If I could only pick 30 I'd want the people stuff emanates from. I'd probably choose mostly hacker-founders like Larry & Sergey, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, and so on. Steve Jobs. Maybe Bill Gates. I wouldn't have to pick investors; enough would follow.
That's funny, I was thinking today that you should found one of those micro-universities like Deep Springs. I'd imagine the town would end up being somewhat similar though.
Wow, that's my goal exactly. Well, technically I want a country. But I guess if I make enough to do that, you'll make enough from it to do a town.
Equatorial Guinea is the perfect target for takeover. It has the second highest GDP per capita PPP adjusted in the world, yet the average citizen lives on less than a dollar a day because the evil dictator takes all the oil money. It's waiting to fall. Margaret Thatcher's son tried to stage a coup in 2005 and failed. MI6 and the CIA knew about the attempt and provided anecdotal support, they want Equatorial Guinea to have a new, western friendly leader.
Basically, Thatcher just didn't spend enough money. A billion in private defense contractors (mercenaries) would be plenty to take Equatorial Guinea with overwhelming force. The defenders might not even fire a shot.
Basically, Thatcher just didn't spend enough money. A billion in private defense contractors (mercenaries) would be plenty to take Equatorial Guinea with overwhelming force. The defenders might not even fire a shot.
I think starting fresh makes sense. I've been thinking about how to start a country for a short while now. Here is how I'd do it:
1) Buy or find an island around the size of Manhattan. This shouldn't be too hard. Avoid areas too hot or too cold. Low or no population a plus.
2) Buy an insurance contract with a group like BlackWater. Publicly declare the terms: they help invade whatever country violates your new sovereignty. This should make starting a country less dangerous initially.
3) Flagrantly violate useless laws in other countries to attract business and freedom-minded people. Patent laws and IP limits would be ideal targets. This would be a pirate nation.
4) Establish a fiat currency with predictable supply growth indexed on a percentage of the previous year's growth in GDP. Make it available online and with an open trading system.
5) Fund any government expenditures through the increase in the money supply, described in #4. This is an unavoidable implicit tax, at a low rate. To stress the point: there would be no other taxes.
Initial conditions and trust would be hard to start with. It might require lots of money in the founder(s) to work well. But I think this could be a very nice environment.
1) Buy or find an island around the size of Manhattan. This shouldn't be too hard. Avoid areas too hot or too cold. Low or no population a plus.
2) Buy an insurance contract with a group like BlackWater. Publicly declare the terms: they help invade whatever country violates your new sovereignty. This should make starting a country less dangerous initially.
3) Flagrantly violate useless laws in other countries to attract business and freedom-minded people. Patent laws and IP limits would be ideal targets. This would be a pirate nation.
4) Establish a fiat currency with predictable supply growth indexed on a percentage of the previous year's growth in GDP. Make it available online and with an open trading system.
5) Fund any government expenditures through the increase in the money supply, described in #4. This is an unavoidable implicit tax, at a low rate. To stress the point: there would be no other taxes.
Initial conditions and trust would be hard to start with. It might require lots of money in the founder(s) to work well. But I think this could be a very nice environment.
Starting fresh makes much more sense if you're doing this out of idealism. As an investment, taking Equatorial Guinea is better (because of the oil).
Either way, don't forget the underwater fiber optic connection to an internet backbone.
Either way, don't forget the underwater fiber optic connection to an internet backbone.
Good point about the fiber. I wonder if you could make dark fiber to embassies throughout the world to prevent local ISPs from blocking your country.
That, and other things about this, take lots of money. There are better ways to invest that money than starting a country, which is why it wouldn't make sense to go for oil.
That, and other things about this, take lots of money. There are better ways to invest that money than starting a country, which is why it wouldn't make sense to go for oil.
>1) Buy or find an island around the size of Manhattan. This shouldn't be too hard.
That's impossible. Unlike wealth, power is a zero-sum game, and a new country (of the kind that matters) is against the interests of everyone who has power. Even if you somehow manage to buy land on terms that will allow you to become de jure sovereign (again, absolutely impossible), as soon as something happens to it (like Blackwater deciding to turn it into their private base), everyone will just cheer.
That's impossible. Unlike wealth, power is a zero-sum game, and a new country (of the kind that matters) is against the interests of everyone who has power. Even if you somehow manage to buy land on terms that will allow you to become de jure sovereign (again, absolutely impossible), as soon as something happens to it (like Blackwater deciding to turn it into their private base), everyone will just cheer.
Why would blackwater violate a contract with a paying customer?
Power is not zero-sum. Trade is positive sum. That is very, very basic economics.
Power is not zero-sum. Trade is positive sum. That is very, very basic economics.
>Why would blackwater violate a contract with a paying customer?
Because their other paying customers, who pay them much more than you do, will compell them to?
>Power is not zero-sum. Trade is positive sum. That is very, very basic economics.
Power is zero-sum when we think of it as a percentage of "total power". It's irrational to think of wealth that way, because people care more about what a dollar can do for them than what percentage of world's wealth that dollar represents. With power, there is no such distinction. What your power can do for you is directly proportional to what percentage of "total power" you have. If there is a new actor and his power increases, everyone else's power (averaged out) decreases proportionally.
Because their other paying customers, who pay them much more than you do, will compell them to?
>Power is not zero-sum. Trade is positive sum. That is very, very basic economics.
Power is zero-sum when we think of it as a percentage of "total power". It's irrational to think of wealth that way, because people care more about what a dollar can do for them than what percentage of world's wealth that dollar represents. With power, there is no such distinction. What your power can do for you is directly proportional to what percentage of "total power" you have. If there is a new actor and his power increases, everyone else's power (averaged out) decreases proportionally.
6) Build a nuclear power plant yourself. This gives you an enormous amount of leverage in international politics.
Why would you want leverage is a useless system like international politics?
To avoid another country invading yours, simply declare that a tactical nuke has been placed in its capital. You don't even need a weapons program to make this seem legitimate ... just say you bought it from an underpaid Russian general.
To avoid another country invading yours, simply declare that a tactical nuke has been placed in its capital. You don't even need a weapons program to make this seem legitimate ... just say you bought it from an underpaid Russian general.
You're underestimating just how weak a rogue country is. If you tell the US that you have a nuke in DC, they won't believe you and they will crush you, overnight, with the real Special Forces. If you responsibility build your own nuclear power infrastructure, it will be assumed that you can build a bomb overnight and that's just as good as having the real thing. Japan is an example of a country with nuclear power on this level.
It doesn't work to be an enemy to the first world. They will crush you. You've gotta be a friend. That means if your country has a lot of oil, you give it to the corporations just like the powers that be want. They reward the leaders generously for going along with them and they kill you if you assert your independence and don't give them the oil. Threatening the death of civilians with nukes is just a really bad idea.
It doesn't work to be an enemy to the first world. They will crush you. You've gotta be a friend. That means if your country has a lot of oil, you give it to the corporations just like the powers that be want. They reward the leaders generously for going along with them and they kill you if you assert your independence and don't give them the oil. Threatening the death of civilians with nukes is just a really bad idea.
You would only counter any threats with the threat of a tactical nuke. There is no reason to declare you have them before there is a threat from another nation.
I see little reason why another country would be bothered with the enterprise before it gained momentum and wealth.
A reason to avoid nuclear power is to avoid getting attention. Avoiding oil deposits is another way to avoid attention.
I see little reason why another country would be bothered with the enterprise before it gained momentum and wealth.
A reason to avoid nuclear power is to avoid getting attention. Avoiding oil deposits is another way to avoid attention.
[deleted]
Me too. I already have the style of architecture all planned out in my head.
I wouldn't dictate the style of architecture. It's grim when towns seem too much the product of one mind. I'd do something more YCish in spirit: find good people and let them do what they want.
if this non-sequitur post is the best valleywag can do, seems like the rest of silicon valley gets it a lot worst.
I like how they have to add "a rich sum for the time." It's like "You kids out there getting $50M Series C's, understand that $50M was a lot of money back then!"
Wow, that's a post with zero substance. I can't possibly vote this up.
Out of all the great stuff in Paul's last essay to comment on, this is the best they could do?
Out of all the great stuff in Paul's last essay to comment on, this is the best they could do?
I think they're posting from Burning Man, so I would blame this nonsensical post on the drugs.
Right, when the giant man was burned early it was found that it was really put together with marijuana plants. Hence the entire population at the event were confused why they had the munchies so bad and wrote only 'quicky' articles between snacks.