3 ms·

But what labor did they contribute? Follow the chain and at most what they did was buy someone else's labor and attach it to the Google brand (through having mo

But what labor did they contribute? Follow the chain and at most what they did was buy someone else's labor and attach it to the Google brand (through having more cash for hiring), there's other ways to do that though, like loans, or structuring as a co-op so all employees are simply the only shareholders.

csomar 4y ago
There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. The theory is cute and some people in Europe thought it would work. It didn't and that's how we ended up with capitalism. Humans are capitalist traders by instinct. Marxism makes logical sense, however.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Humans are capitalist traders by instinct. Humans are Feudal creatures by instict - thats why feudalism lasted thousands of yeats. Democracy and freedom are fragile and unnatural, they must be cherished. > There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. This is the brain disease of American politics, anyone pointing out injustice of any kind is accused of Marxism. The only acceptable way for society to evolve is ever-increasing privilidges for the wealthy untill average man can never hope to afford real estate and can't afford a layer. Then we will arrive at feudalism.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > Then we will arrive at feudalism Feudalism failed when capitalism competed with it.
- komali2 4y ago
  > There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. Too late, I'm already a communist. A very capitalistically successful one, mind you. Further along this thread is way off topic, I don't want to kick off a flame war of communism vs capitalism, I wanted to see what people have in mind about how companies like Google, that exist in a capitalist system, can be forced to care for the needs of their employees over the needs of their shareholders. Whether or not the system should / can be changed is, well, another thread or something lol, not for here. That said your comment has some interesting ideas that I'm seeing as misconceptions ("some people in Europe that thought it would work" are arguably some of the most important philosophers in the western tradition) but maybe you're thinking along some lines I'm not aware of, so if you want to chat about this I'd love to do so in email, my address is on my profile page here.
WalterBright 4y ago
> But what labor did they contribute? I.e. you're positing the "Labor Theory of Value", which is the basis of Marxism. The LToV errs in assigning zero value to risk-taking and the fact that some people are far more productive than others.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  Is it any more in error than equating market price with value?
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Nobody has ever found a better way. What you're willing to pay for something determines its value to you.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      The assumption that price paid == utility is only valid in the economic equivalent of "assume no friction" from intro-level physics. The equivalence isn't guaranteed to hold once you bring individuals' budget sets and various market distortions into play (information problems, sticky prices, et alia). You see the same thing on the supply side, with the assumption that price sold == marginal cost breaking down in general, except under very specific conditions.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Bottom line: you're still only valuing something by what you are willing to pay for it. That is its value to you. (Others assign a different value, but that's how the market works.) Supply + Demand determine the value.
        komali2 4y ago
        Right but notice utility is mentioned nowhere. Demand is totally irrational, because it's human. See toilet paper, fujifilm x100v, tesla stock, NFTs. Supply can be arbitrarily subject to the irrational whims of humanity as well - see oil, diamonds. "Supply + demand" seems an oversimplification of a huge chain of irrational human links.

csomar 4y ago

There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. The theory is cute and some people in Europe thought it would work. It didn't and that's how we ended up with capitalism. Humans are capitalist traders by instinct. Marxism makes logical sense, however.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Humans are capitalist traders by instinct. Humans are Feudal creatures by instict - thats why feudalism lasted thousands of yeats. Democracy and freedom are fragile and unnatural, they must be cherished. > There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. This is the brain disease of American politics, anyone pointing out injustice of any kind is accused of Marxism. The only acceptable way for society to evolve is ever-increasing privilidges for the wealthy untill average man can never hope to afford real estate and can't afford a layer. Then we will arrive at feudalism.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > Then we will arrive at feudalism Feudalism failed when capitalism competed with it.
komali2 4y ago
> There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism. Too late, I'm already a communist. A very capitalistically successful one, mind you. Further along this thread is way off topic, I don't want to kick off a flame war of communism vs capitalism, I wanted to see what people have in mind about how companies like Google, that exist in a capitalist system, can be forced to care for the needs of their employees over the needs of their shareholders. Whether or not the system should / can be changed is, well, another thread or something lol, not for here. That said your comment has some interesting ideas that I'm seeing as misconceptions ("some people in Europe that thought it would work" are arguably some of the most important philosophers in the western tradition) but maybe you're thinking along some lines I'm not aware of, so if you want to chat about this I'd love to do so in email, my address is on my profile page here.

WalterBright 4y ago

> But what labor did they contribute? I.e. you're positing the "Labor Theory of Value", which is the basis of Marxism. The LToV errs in assigning zero value to risk-taking and the fact that some people are far more productive than others.

nerdponx 4y ago
Is it any more in error than equating market price with value?
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Nobody has ever found a better way. What you're willing to pay for something determines its value to you.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    The assumption that price paid == utility is only valid in the economic equivalent of "assume no friction" from intro-level physics. The equivalence isn't guaranteed to hold once you bring individuals' budget sets and various market distortions into play (information problems, sticky prices, et alia). You see the same thing on the supply side, with the assumption that price sold == marginal cost breaking down in general, except under very specific conditions.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Bottom line: you're still only valuing something by what you are willing to pay for it. That is its value to you. (Others assign a different value, but that's how the market works.) Supply + Demand determine the value.
      - komali2 4y ago
        Right but notice utility is mentioned nowhere. Demand is totally irrational, because it's human. See toilet paper, fujifilm x100v, tesla stock, NFTs. Supply can be arbitrarily subject to the irrational whims of humanity as well - see oil, diamonds. "Supply + demand" seems an oversimplification of a huge chain of irrational human links.