3 ms·

> Here the same person was much more positive about the system (easy to understand he is not, at least not to me), wonder were he was telling the truth. I don'

> Here the same person was much more positive about the system (easy to understand he is not, at least not to me), wonder were he was telling the truth. I don't think I understand what you mean. Here's the relevant passage from your link wrt bonuses: > [Before writing more in this, especially regarding Valve, I shall need to become better acquainted with the peer-review based process of determining bonuses. Watch this space!] That's from August, 2012 on an internal blog. The external interview he gave where he calls the review process "very complicated" is from February, 2013. So let's recap: * A reasonable person joining Valve after reading the Aug. 2012 blog would be worried because their "economist-in-residence" is publicly reserving judgment on the peer-reviewed bonus system * A reasonable person joining Valve after reading the Feb. 2013 interview would be worried because their "economist-in-residence" is characterizing the peer-reviewed bonus system as "very complicated" to a reporter * A reasonable person joining Valve after reading the Aug. 2012 blog and the Feb. 2013 interview would be very worried because their "economist-in-residence" moved from reserving judgment on an internal blog to criticizing the bonus system in a public interview At the very least, I see no discrepancies in what Veroufakis said in Aug and Feb that would lead you to conclude he wasn't telling the truth in one of those links. What am I missing?

MichaelMoser123 8y ago
i read it as an examination of a boss-less system 'that works'. For an individual (prospective employee) the question of how much you get and if its worth it is central, for him as a person examining the larger scheme of things it is less central. to quote: "The tantalising thought arose, during my musings, that this organisational structure may be as scalable as a market mechanism (assuming that the right technologies are in hand, ensuring transparency and low communications’ costs within the company). There is one important aspect of Valve that I did not focus on: the link between its horizontal management structure and its ‘vertical’ ownership structure. Valve is a private company owned mostly by few individuals. In that sense, it is an enlightened oligarchy: an oligarchy in that it is owned by a few and enlightened in that those few are not using their property rights to boss people around ... " blah blah blah.

MichaelMoser123 8y ago

i read it as an examination of a boss-less system 'that works'. For an individual (prospective employee) the question of how much you get and if its worth it is central, for him as a person examining the larger scheme of things it is less central. to quote: "The tantalising thought arose, during my musings, that this organisational structure may be as scalable as a market mechanism (assuming that the right technologies are in hand, ensuring transparency and low communications’ costs within the company). There is one important aspect of Valve that I did not focus on: the link between its horizontal management structure and its ‘vertical’ ownership structure. Valve is a private company owned mostly by few individuals. In that sense, it is an enlightened oligarchy: an oligarchy in that it is owned by a few and enlightened in that those few are not using their property rights to boss people around ... " blah blah blah.