Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrkandy | Hacker News Reader

A great example of an article that appeals to emotions (negative ones) by manipulating facts.

I'm genuinely curious, and I know this can get political quickly, but I mean this in good faith. The wealth that people like Bezos or Musk have—did it only come into existence because they created their companies? In other words, if they had never been born or chosen a different path, their wealth wouldn't simply be redistributed among others, right? The world would just have less overall wealth, roughly equal to their net worth. Is that correct?

There are a lot of ideological assumptions underlying the very concept of wealth creation, but even if you buy into those I don't think that statement is true. Bezos could only be responsible for creating the difference between him and the hypothetical other most wealth creating possibilities, and there is no reason that difference couldn't be negative.

Jonas Salk, inventor of the Polio vaccine, chose not to patent his creation or seek any profit from it. Imagine the alternative where Jonas Salk patents the Polio vaccine, sells each dose for the profit maximizing price, and becomes one of the wealthiest people in the world. Which scenario led to more overall wealth?

"manipulating facts" implies changing the data. I don't think that phrase applies to simply choosing the way the facts are presented.

It can. You can tell the truth in a way that is designed to mislead. (See almost every political statement that isn't an out-and-out lie. See much of advertising. See many statements by CEOs. See many statements by government spokespeople and diplomats. And on and on.)

The facts can be true. The narrative isn't necessarily true, and isn't necessarily the best interpretation of the facts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com