4 ms·

Your second paragraph is utter nonsense. A productive business absolutely creates value. History is littered with examples of entire brand new industries birt

by whatok 11y ago

Your second paragraph is utter nonsense. A productive business absolutely creates value. History is littered with examples of entire brand new industries birthed by the sole creation of a single company. The pie literally grows larger. This doesn't create value? By "existing labor" voluntarily "redeploying" themselves, they are in complete recognition of that fact and want to partake in the additional value created.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
Additional value by virtue of being a startup? Joining a startup doesn't make someones labor output suddenly increase. What may appear as "utter nonsense" is actually deeper understanding. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
- serge2k 11y ago
  > Additional value by virtue of being a startup? Joining a startup doesn't make someones labor output suddenly increase. shhh, you will upset the Founders are gods and we should worship at their Startup temples viewpoint that is the foundation of HN.
  - whatok 11y ago
    The parent poster completely altered his post after I responded to it so I would take that into mind when reading things. Also, throughout this thread I have never once mentioned anything about startups but assume away.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      Nope. Parent Poster added to the explanation so you could be less ignorant. The second paragraph you referred to is still there, it is just expanded upon with more paragraphs for greater detail and clearer explanations. The reason this was done was because I reached my post limit. Not like anyone else is looking at this anymore anyway. I can move the additional explanations to the responding post if you want, as that's where I intended it to be at first. I could've waited for the rate limiter to expire but I responded hastily because I was highly, highly offended by you saying that my paragraph was "utter nonsense." You don't say these kinds of things to people in real life. I'm not sure if your post qualifies for a flag but I do know really negative comments like that are frowned upon by the moderators. You never once mentioned startups. That is true. But you do mention the creation of a company. You're telling me that the creation of a company isn't a startup? Ok I now assume that the creation of a company isn't a startup. You're talking exclusively about split-ups, as that's the only other time I know about where company creation occurs without the creation of a startup: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp. If a company splits up. The old company is destroyed and the new companies are the sum of it's old parts. No new value is created. Understand? Or is my assumption incorrect? Clarify if i'm wrong about what you're referring to by "sole creation of a single company."

by whatok 11y ago

crimsonalucard 11y ago

Additional value by virtue of being a startup? Joining a startup doesn't make someones labor output suddenly increase. What may appear as "utter nonsense" is actually deeper understanding. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

serge2k 11y ago
> Additional value by virtue of being a startup? Joining a startup doesn't make someones labor output suddenly increase. shhh, you will upset the Founders are gods and we should worship at their Startup temples viewpoint that is the foundation of HN.
- whatok 11y ago
  The parent poster completely altered his post after I responded to it so I would take that into mind when reading things. Also, throughout this thread I have never once mentioned anything about startups but assume away.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    Nope. Parent Poster added to the explanation so you could be less ignorant. The second paragraph you referred to is still there, it is just expanded upon with more paragraphs for greater detail and clearer explanations. The reason this was done was because I reached my post limit. Not like anyone else is looking at this anymore anyway. I can move the additional explanations to the responding post if you want, as that's where I intended it to be at first. I could've waited for the rate limiter to expire but I responded hastily because I was highly, highly offended by you saying that my paragraph was "utter nonsense." You don't say these kinds of things to people in real life. I'm not sure if your post qualifies for a flag but I do know really negative comments like that are frowned upon by the moderators. You never once mentioned startups. That is true. But you do mention the creation of a company. You're telling me that the creation of a company isn't a startup? Ok I now assume that the creation of a company isn't a startup. You're talking exclusively about split-ups, as that's the only other time I know about where company creation occurs without the creation of a startup: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/split-up.asp. If a company splits up. The old company is destroyed and the new companies are the sum of it's old parts. No new value is created. Understand? Or is my assumption incorrect? Clarify if i'm wrong about what you're referring to by "sole creation of a single company."