Tag: paul graham

• If it’s cheap, buy it

  Reading Howard Marks’ investment memos is up there with reading Paul Graham’s essays. You just need to do it. Howard’s latest is about “taking the temperature” of the market and I think you’ll find the lessons invaluable for everything from equities to residential real estate.

  Here’s an excerpt that I liked:

  We don’t say, “It’s cheap today, but it’ll be cheaper in six months, so we’ll wait.” If it’s cheap, we buy. If it gets cheaper and we conclude the thesis is still intact, we buy more. We’re much more afraid of missing a bargain-priced opportunity than we are of starting to buy a good thing too early. No one really knows whether something will get cheaper in the days and weeks ahead – that’s a matter of predicting investor psychology, which is somewhere between challenging and impossible. We feel we’re much more likely to correctly gauge the value of individual assets.

  These are investing words to live by. Avoid your own emotionality and value the asset. If it’s not cheap, don’t buy it. If it’s cheap, buy it. Then take a long-term view. It all sounds simple enough, but it’s clearly not so easy. And that’s why we have extreme highs and extreme lows in the market.

  Eighteen months ago, everyone wanted to buy residential real estate. Today, prices are lower, but fewer people want to buy residential real estate. Part of this is obviously because of interest rates. But part of it is also just because of emotion.

  2023.07.10

• Doing great work

  Paul Graham just published his latest essay and it is a recipe for “how to do great work.” I highly recommend it, but you should know two things: (1) it assumes that you’re “very ambitious” and (2) it’s quite long. It’s possibly his longest essay.

  However, this second feature acts as a kind of filter. Because if you do actually make it to the end, his assumption is that it says something about both your level of ambition and your overall commitment to doing great work. You are presumably not the majority.

  As I read through it (albeit relatively quickly), I immediately started copying and pasting excerpts that resonated with me. Eventually I stopped this because there were just too many of them. But as a preview, here are some of the ones that I did pull out:

  • Four steps: choose a field, learn enough to get to the frontier, notice gaps, explore promising ones. This is how practically everyone who’s done great work has done it, from painters to physicists.
  • Develop a habit of working on your own projects. Don’t let “work” mean something other people tell you to do. If you do manage to do great work one day, it will probably be on a project of your own. It may be within some bigger project, but you’ll be driving your part of it.
  • The educational systems in most countries pretend it’s easy. They expect you to commit to a field long before you could know what it’s really like. And as a result an ambitious person on an optimal trajectory will often read to the system as an instance of breakage.
  • The trouble with planning is that it only works for achievements you can describe in advance. You can win a gold medal or get rich by deciding to as a child and then tenaciously pursuing that goal, but you can’t discover natural selection that way.
  • To the extent you can, try to arrange your life so you have big blocks of time to work in. You’ll shy away from hard tasks if you know you might be interrupted.
  • There may be some jobs where it’s an advantage to be cynical and pessimistic, but if you want to do great work it’s an advantage to be optimistic, even though that means you’ll risk looking like a fool sometimes. There’s an old tradition of doing the opposite. The Old Testament says it’s better to keep quiet lest you look like a fool. But that’s advice for seeming smart. If you actually want to discover new things, it’s better to take the risk of telling people your ideas.
  • People who do great things don’t get a lot done every day. They get something done, rather than nothing.

  You really should read the entire essay, though. It’s worth it.

  2023.07.04

• The sources of wealth

  Back in the old days, and by the old days I mean the 1980s, there were a handful of ways in which you were likely to get rich. You either inherited it, or you made it in oil or real estate. The Forbes list of the 100 richest Americans was first published in 1982 and, at that time, 60 of the people on this list had inherited their wealth. Of the 40 new fortunes on the list, about 60% were primarily related to oil or real estate. If you couldn’t inherit your money, these two industries were a good place to start.

  But as Paul Graham explains in this recent essay about “how people get rich now,” this is no longer the case. On the 2020 list, there were 73 new fortunes, but only 4 stemmed from real estate and only 2 stemmed from oil. As you might imagine, today’s biggest driver is what we call tech and, more specifically, it is people founding tech companies (there are also a couple of examples of early employees doing very well). Of the 73 new fortunes last year, approximately 30 came from tech, including 8 of the top 10 fortunes on the list.

  Given how many people are starting new companies today (it has become easier and cheaper) and given how many of these companies are quickly growing to big valuations (things are scaling faster), it is perhaps tempting to think about this period of time as being entirely unprecedented. Never before have we seen so many young people getting rich by starting their own company. And never before have we seen such inequality.

  However, Graham argues in his essay that this period of time is the default. What we saw in the second half of the 20th century was actually an anomaly. Indeed, if you go back to the end of the 19th century, the richest people in the US were mostly people who were starting their own companies and taking advantage of new technologies, such as that of mass production.

  His claim is that for the most part it wasn’t really viable to start your own company in, say, the 1960s. Instead, most people simply went to work for a big company that had some sort of oligopolistic positioning in the market. And it turns out that was pretty good for maintaining a strong middle class. Less people were getting fabulously rich. I’d like to see some more data points around entrepreneurship and wealth during this era. But regardless, I think it’s pretty clear that the dominant sources of wealth have changed.

  2021.04.18

• How to model a wealth tax

  I just came across this post by Paul Graham called, “modeling a wealth tax.” It’s from last year, but it recently resurfaced. In it, he paints a scenario. Let’s say you’re a successful entrepreneur in your twenties (i.e. you make some money) and then you live for another 60 years. How much of your stock would the government take with various wealth taxes?

  With a 1% wealth tax, it means that you would get to keep 99% of your stock each year. But assuming the wealth tax gets applied every year, you would be left with 0.99^60, which equals 0.547. Put more simply, a 1% wealth tax would mean that over the course of the 60 years after you built your company, you would be giving the government 45% of your stock.

  How did this number get so big?

  The reason wealth taxes have such dramatic effects is that they’re applied over and over to the same money. Income tax happens every year, but only to that year’s income. Whereas if you live for 60 years after acquiring some asset, a wealth tax will tax that same asset 60 times. A wealth tax compounds.

  Of course, Paul also points out that giving away a portion of your assets each year doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re becoming net poorer, so long as your assets are increasing in value by more than the wealth tax rate.

  Still, these are massive numbers. A 2% wealth tax would translate, over this same 60 year time period, into the government taking 70% of your stock. A 5% wealth tax works out to 95%. For more on this, check out Paul Graham’s post.

  2021.03.03

• Rich people and nerds (in Miami)

  

  Back in 2006, Paul Graham penned an essay about how to be Silicon Valley. Since then, it seems like every city on the planet has tried to replicate the successes of the Valley. At the time, his argument was pretty simple. Geography used to be destiny when it came to cities. New York City, for example, is arguably what it is today because of its geography and its deep harbor, which created a natural competitive advantage compared to other east coast cities such as Boston and Philadelphia. But this, he argues, has become far less relevant. Now, you can create a great city pretty much anywhere. So what are the necessary ingredients?

  Paul argued that you only really need two kinds of people to create a technology hub: rich people and nerds. You need people creating new things and you need rich people to fund those new ideas. That’s it. So in theory, if you could just dump a bunch of these kinds of people in one place — Nunavut? — you’d perhaps get unicorns coming out the other end. He goes on to say that Miami is a perfect example of a city that has lots of the former, but very few of the latter. It has lots of rich people, but, in his words, it’s not the kind of place that nerds like. So it is/was not a good startup city. (I’m a nerd and I like Miami.)

  But the year is now 2021 and a global pandemic seems to be helping to change this dynamic. Every tech entrepreneur and/or investor now seems to want to move to either Austin or Miami. To that end, SoftBank recently announced that it has earmarked $100 million for startups that are based in Miami or that plan to be based in Miami in the near future. It’s perhaps a good testament to the momentum that seems to be developing around the startup scene in the city, which is something that their mayor has been incredibly vocal about.

  But here’s something to consider. Was Paul right about the two requisite ingredients for a successful startup hub? And if so, does Miami now have enough nerds? Maybe this recent influx of people was just what it was missing.

  Photo by Cody Board on Unsplash

  2021.01.28

• The maker’s schedule

  Four years ago I wrote about a great essay that Paul Graham had published way back in 2009 about two different kinds of schedules: the manager’s schedule and the maker’s schedule. Put differently, the manager’s schedule is one of command. It is for bosses to drop in for 15, 30, or 60 minutes at a time, say a bunch of things, and then jump to the next meeting.

  The maker’s schedule, on the other hand, is one of doing, whether that be programming or working on an excel model. And the reality is that you can’t make or do much with only 15, 30, or 60 minutes. To make anything of real substance you need longer uninterrupted blocks of time. You need time to get into the zone.

  I’m reminded of this dichotomy now, more than ever, because of video conferencing. It has never been easier to overload a calendar with meetings. Consequently, it has never been easier to screw up a maker’s schedule.

  2020.12.08

• Living in the future

  

  Sam Altman’s recent blog post about how to generate ideas for startups has some invaluable tips that I think apply to much more than just new companies. As a reminder, Sam Altman is an entrepreneur and the former president of Y Combinator. So he’s had a fair bit of experience dealing with both startups and new ideas. YC also runs lots of experiments in an effort to get better at funding both great founders and great ideas. And it turns out that being able to generate a lot of new ideas is a critical skill to have when doing a startup. But again, I think you can ignore, for a moment, that Sam is even talking about startups and still find value in his words.

  Here’s the excerpt that stood out for me:

  It’s important to be in the right kind of environment, and around the right kind of people. You want to be around people who have a good feel for the future, will entertain improbable plans, are optimistic, are smart in a creative way, and have a very high idea flux. These sorts of people tend to think without the constraints most people have, not have a lot of filters, and not care too much what other people think.

  The best ideas are fragile; most people don’t even start talking about them at all because they sound silly. Perhaps most of all, you want to be around people who don’t make you feel stupid for mentioning a bad idea, and who certainly never feel stupid for doing so themselves.

  Stay away from people who are world-weary and belittle your ambitions. Unfortunately, this is most of the world. But they hold on to the past, and you want to live in the future.

  Photo by Fábio Lucas on Unsplash

  2020.05.29

• A theory of genius

  I thoroughly enjoy the way that Paul Graham reasons through arguments. There’s something hyper rational about it. And even if you happen to disagree with his position(s), you still end up appreciating the way he has taken you through his logic. I guess that’s what you get when you combine a computer scientist with someone who clearly likes to write.

  His latest essay is about how to do great work. Conventional wisdom, he explains, has it that you really need two things: ability and determination. That’s how you win. And that’s how you create new things. But Paul makes the case for a third ingredient — one that is arguably even more telling than the first two. Here’s an excerpt:

  If I had to put the recipe for genius into one sentence, that might be it: to have a disinterested obsession with something that matters.

  Aren’t I forgetting about the other two ingredients? Less than you might think. An obsessive interest in a topic is both a proxy for ability and a substitute for determination. Unless you have sufficient mathematical aptitude, you won’t find series interesting. And when you’re obsessively interested in something, you don’t need as much determination: you don’t need to push yourself as hard when curiosity is pulling you.

  He refers to this as his “Bus Ticket Theory of Genius,” because bus ticket collectors are an example, in his view, of a group with a “disinterested obsession.” They’re not collecting bus tickets for any particular reason, other than because of interest. And when you have this kind of obsession with things that (ultimately) matter, it can lead to important discoveries.

  Think Darwin and his obsession with natural history.

  But the other reason this topic resonates with me is because it makes the case for passion projects, side hustles, creative pursuits, and all other irresponsible things that seem to get harder to fit in the older we all get. I am believer in this. There’s tremendous value in indulging in the things that stoke our curiosity, even if they might seem to silly to others.

  And so I will leave you all with this final thought/excerpt:

  It might be at least as useful to ask yourself: if you could take a year off to work on something that probably wouldn’t be important but would be really interesting, what would it be?

  2019.11.26

• Sidewalk Labs, Amazon HQ2, and the Milanese Leonardo

  Earlier this week the WSJ announced that Sidewalk Labs (Alphabet Inc.’s urban innovation organization) is close to a deal with Waterfront Toronto to develop a new 12-acre section of the eastern waterfront. Sidewalk Labs would be their innovation and funding partner. It’s not final yet and it’s still subject to board approval, but the sentiment is that it should go.

  There aren’t a lot of details about the project – other than the fact that it will be fairly big, up to 3 million square feet – but the overall intent is digital city building. It’s about imagining what a city could be if you built it today “from the internet up.” More info about Sidewalk Labs, here.

  I thought of this project as I read Seth Godin’s daily blog post this morning in bed. Here are two snippets from that post:

  When a new technology arrives, it’s often the nerds and the neophiliacs who embrace it. People who see themselves as busy and important often dismiss the new medium or tool as a bit of a gimmick and then “go back to work.”
  

  There’s never a guarantee that the next technology is going to be the one that moves to the center of the conversation. But it’s certain that a new technology will. It always has.

  Openness matters.

  I’m anxious to learn more details about the project, but this is obviously very exciting. It also creates momentum and strengthens the case for Amazon HQ2 in Toronto. The above 12-acre Quayside area is only the tip of the iceberg. There’s the rest of the eastern waterfront and also East Harbour.

  

  Some people have been critical of this city’s push for Amazon HQ2. Anthony Lacavera, chairman of Globalive Capital, called this “the biggest Trojan Horse of all time.” His view is that Amazon would simply use HQ2 Toronto as a mechanism for cheaper labor (USD > CAD) and to siphon the best and brightest down to the US.

  Now, I agree that it would be more impactful to create the next Amazon then to simply lure in its second headquarters. Big entrepreneurial successes are what fuel the darwinian evolution of startup hubs. The founders, early employees and investors make boatloads of money and then they start reinvesting that back into the ecosystem by, among other things, backing the next generation of entrepreneurs.

  But does this necessarily mean that an Amazon HQ2 would be detrimental to Toronto by acting as a conduit to the US? Will it discourage entrepreneurship? Should we eschew all US firms out of fear that this may in fact happen? I don’t think so.

  There’s tremendous value in concentrating smart people in one place – ideas build on ideas. And I don’t think technology has been able to disrupt that, at least not yet. One example of this is a theory that Paul Graham calls the Milanese Leonardo:

  You can see how powerful cities are from something I wrote about earlier: the case of the Milanese Leonardo. Practically every fifteenth century Italian painter you’ve heard of was from Florence, even though Milan was just as big. People in Florence weren’t genetically different, so you have to assume there was someone born in Milan with as much natural ability as Leonardo. What happened to him?

  And his reasoning is as follows:

  Nothing is more powerful than a community of talented people working on related problems. Genes count for little by comparison: being a genetic Leonardo was not enough to compensate for having been born near Milan instead of Florence. Today we move around more, but great work still comes disproportionately from a few hotspots: the Bauhaus, the Manhattan Project, the New Yorker, Lockheed’s Skunk Works, Xerox Parc.

  Xerox Parc (Palo Alto Research Company) is a great example of the kind of positive externalities that can happen as a result of smart people being in close proximity to each other while they wrestle with similar problems. It has been well documented that it was Steve Jobs’ visit to Xerox Parc that inspired many of Apple’s early innovations.

  So my view: let’s increase Toronto’s urban metabolism and make it the Florence of 1450.

  Ed Clark – who is leading the charge for HQ2 in Toronto – has been clear that large taxpayer subsidies are not on the table for Amazon. That would not be fair to the existing companies in this city. If that is what it is going to take, then we are not going to win. We will win based on our city, our human capital, and our openness to the rest of the world. That feels right.

  Welcome Sidewalk Labs. Welcome Amazon. This city is open for business and to new ideas. 

  Image: Waterfront Toronto

  2017.10.07

• The geography of superstars

  

  We often talk about superstar cities such as New York, London and, in the case of tech, San Francisco. But what about the superstar people that drive these economies?

  Aaron Renn recently wrote a post called “The Superstar Gap”, where he argues that the interior of the U.S. is suffering from a big handicap because of its lack of superstars. Chicago is one example he gives. Very good, but not the best.

  He also cites a 2010 analysis by Carl Wohlt that shows the “100 Most Creative People in Business” predominately living in the West and Northeast, compared to the Midwest and South.

  This is interesting because – if we assume this gap to be true – it gets me thinking about a number of important questions:

  • Is it that the interior isn’t effectively fostering superstar talent?

  • How much superstar talent is actually latent and untapped?

  • Is it that superstar talent is getting sucked into a select few superstar cities, away from other places? Definitely happening.

  • How many superstar cities (filled with superstar people) can sustainably exist in today’s world?

  Now by definition, superstar talent is going to be a smaller segment of the population – it’s one tail of the bell curve. 

  But I do think we should be careful not to assume that the raw talent doesn’t exist in certain cities. People and place are linked, and superstar cities are arguably just empowering new forms of individual superstardom.

  If we are to use successful startups as one measure of superstardom, it’s important to keep in mind that they are incredibly fragile in their nascent stages. The right people need to come together. The right funding has to fall into place. And the list goes on. 

  Below is an excerpt from a 2006 essay by Paul Graham (Y Combinator) called, Want to start a startup?

  Successful startups are almost never started by one person. Usually they begin with a conversation in which someone mentions that something would be a good idea for a company, and his friend says, “Yeah, that is a good idea, let’s try it.” If you’re missing that second person who says “let’s try it,” the startup never happens.

  That someone might have been a superstar.

  2017.06.10