47 ms·

"the most productive individual in society" I think this is the crux of the issue. Is Zuckerberg amongst the most productive individuals in the society? As ano

"the most productive individual in society" I think this is the crux of the issue. Is Zuckerberg amongst the most productive individuals in the society? As another example, was Steve Jobs so much more productive than his competitors. Can Warren Buffet be considered productive at all, for that matter (we wouldn't have a shortage of insurance companies, sugar water selling companies, furniture and apparel companies if the specific ones Buffet invested and makes his money in never existed)? Note, I'm only mentioning individuals I am a fan of here. There are many worse examples than these. Just taking Zuckerberg for example, while he obviously did something extremely useful, his greatest "productivity" (as defined by his earnings) was that he happened to be the one whose social network, amongst the many hundreds of combinations being tried at the time, happened to have the right combination of factors that made it extremely popular. Is that reason enough to award him so much more control over the future of society as opposed to the guy who invented Orkut, for example?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kuschku 11y ago
I originally wanted to reply to a reply to your comment, but it was deleted. The reply said that he disagrees with your logic, as we as society decided that capital accumulation is productivity. My comment to that was: > > We have defined productivity with capital accumulation in society. > We have not. > People get capital for being lucky, and from privileged backgrounds. Zuckerberg is not an exception, nor are most of us here on HN. > You don’t get rich because you are doing the best work. In fact, the most productive researchers usually end up on minimal grants having to save money, and never actually make much money themselves. > The money ends up with the people who have luck, connections, are at the right place at the right time. > This is why society has decided to publicly fund research based on productivity with tax money, as obviously the free market is unable to do so. > The free market isn’t funding Wendelstein 7-X, nor the LHC. The free market isn’t funding the E-ELT. The free market isn’t giving any of the involved researchers billions. > The people who invented the computer died poor, but a person who just happened to do what MySpace did before, at the right place, right time, happened to become billionaire. > No, capital accumulation is not even correlated to productivity.
patmcc 11y ago
>>Is that reason enough to award him so much more control over the future of society as opposed to the guy who invented Orkut, for example? Capitalism says yes, and it's the best mechanism we've come up with so far.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kuschku 11y ago

I originally wanted to reply to a reply to your comment, but it was deleted. The reply said that he disagrees with your logic, as we as society decided that capital accumulation is productivity. My comment to that was: > > We have defined productivity with capital accumulation in society. > We have not. > People get capital for being lucky, and from privileged backgrounds. Zuckerberg is not an exception, nor are most of us here on HN. > You don’t get rich because you are doing the best work. In fact, the most productive researchers usually end up on minimal grants having to save money, and never actually make much money themselves. > The money ends up with the people who have luck, connections, are at the right place at the right time. > This is why society has decided to publicly fund research based on productivity with tax money, as obviously the free market is unable to do so. > The free market isn’t funding Wendelstein 7-X, nor the LHC. The free market isn’t funding the E-ELT. The free market isn’t giving any of the involved researchers billions. > The people who invented the computer died poor, but a person who just happened to do what MySpace did before, at the right place, right time, happened to become billionaire. > No, capital accumulation is not even correlated to productivity.

patmcc 11y ago

>>Is that reason enough to award him so much more control over the future of society as opposed to the guy who invented Orkut, for example? Capitalism says yes, and it's the best mechanism we've come up with so far.