> The most egregious misrepresentation of value creation in the letter is [...] compensation to employees. This is patently ridiculous. Every single dollar of c

> The most egregious misrepresentation of value creation in the letter is [...] compensation to employees. This is patently ridiculous. Every single dollar of compensation paid out is done transactionally: it is used to purchase labor. In a typical transaction, no market value is created. [...] > Money and labor are both more abstract than fruit, so there is a little bit of leeway to interpret employment transactions as being non-zero-sum. [...] But however you look at it, taking full credit for every single dollar of compensation as value creation— as if Amazon, and not the US Mint, created those dollars, and as if the many, many millions of hours of labor consumed by the company in return were valueless— is a ghastly overstatement. It's obviously sensible for the author to focus on Amazon & Bezos' letter in the blogpost instead of casting a broad non-specific net, but I feel like this very argument is the main one used by various government ministers / congressmen / economists / etc. ad nauseum to justify various support & investments in large multinationals and the so-called "job creation"/"value creation" they offer national economies throughout the world. Time. And. Time. Again. And it has never made any sense to me for these exact reasons. It also strikes me as a pretty basic fallacy that should not hold up to any scrutiny when used by high-profile decision-makers like this.*