Hacker News Reader

Invention is great, but I would think that statement has an implied "... that we can make money on" at the end - at least, it seems to me like there's lots of value created by people doing non-inventive things, whether that's a chef making a great meal or a teacher helping a child or... most of the things most people are doing most of the time?

View on HN

I think the business use of the word "value" already implies the ability to make money from it.

But consider what it means to make money. Suppose you invent technology whereby those people doing their things most of the time can become twice as productive. They would be eager to pay for this benefit, and society has gained far more "value" by your definition as well.

I think you're both right. The benefits of successful invention (most inventions being unsuccessful) redound 1000-fold on surrounding society (rather than on the inventor, who nevertheless may profit).

Yet it's good people who assure the conditions under which invention is even possible.

The statement is either flatly false (if "value creation" is the same thing as "valuable") or tautologically true (if it means "novelty"). The sneaky insertion of real into "all real value creation" outs it as a No True Scotsman statement.

Consider taking the statement in the context of the argument made in the letter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com