4 ms·

The concept of property has been warped to include the value of shares of a corporation, whose value is generated by the labor of its employees. This is the pri

The concept of property has been warped to include the value of shares of a corporation, whose value is generated by the labor of its employees. This is the primary way the richest people steal wealth from labor.

satvikpendem 3y ago
Only if you believe in the Labor Theory of Value, which most don't. If I own a ship that's going on some expedition (as how shares originally started), I raise capital and reduce risk by issuing shares that people can buy. I have to, well, share my wealth but I have more money now to do the expedition. Corporations are just bigger versions of the same idea, they're still run by people, any of whom can decide not to work there anymore, for better or worse.
cambaceres 3y ago
What you and other students of Karl Marx always ignore is the fact that if company owners was not allowed to earn profit then there would be no companies founded, meaning that the workers would not have jobs.
- agentultra 3y ago
  I think the idea is that the workers would profit from their labour and control what gets produced. I’m not sure that means companies wouldn’t be started and everyone would sit around doing nothing.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    They can do that, nothing stops people from setting up co-ops today, I've been in one as well in fact. But at the same time, if I'm making something lucrative, I'd want to profit from it. That other people I hire are willing to work for the wage I give them is their problem, since if they don't like the wage, they can always go elsewhere (given that they are skilled workers, not workers who can find no other job in some company town or something).
    - anticensor 3y ago
      Your argument possesses a fundamental mistake that most venture capitalists make: that the demand is infinitely elastic but supply is completely fixed; in other words, the manufacturers being able to perfectly impose what consumers want to consume.
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        I don't see where I imply that supply is fixed. I don't think that makes sense even from a VC point of view, since the company they fund is itself another manufacturer or producer of goods, thereby increasing the supply.
    - HyperSane 3y ago
      > since if they don't like the wage, they can always go elsewhere Capitalists are well known to collude to keep pay down and viciously suppress unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297... https://fortune.com/2023/03/02/nlrb-starbucks-union-buffalo-howard-schultz-ceo/ https://fortune.com/2023/03/02/nlrb-starbucks-union-buffalo-...
- HyperSane 3y ago
  What you and other billionaire boot-lickers ignore is that earning $10 million from starting a company is very reasonable, "earning" $100 billion is just stealing from many thousands of employees. We really should NOT need a logarithmic scale when talking about wealth inequality.
simonh 3y ago
Except the labour theory of value is utter nonsense. It lead Marx to argue that railway workers, helping transport goods to where they were needed, contributed negative value and were parasitic on manufacturing labour. Ideas, leadership and capital are vital to a functioning economy. Every time a system has been set up that denied that, and it has been tried many times, the results were catastrophic. In several cases tens of millions of people dead catastrophic.
- agentultra 3y ago
  Indeed. Eventually the interests of capital owners force them to fail. Like when the CIA backed a military coup by a fascist general to overthrow a democratically elected socialist. Because US investments were threatened.
  - simonh 3y ago
    No economic system can mitigate toxic politics. Regulatory or political capture by economic interests is always a threat. As is political seizure of economic assets or resources. These are human failings you find in any system. This is why rule of law is so important.
    - agentultra 3y ago
      And why the struggle must always continue! A society doesn't simply implement socialism (or any system) and call it a utopia. There will always be forces and counter-forces. Fascism will continue to find a way back into any system it can.
      - simonh 3y ago
        We can both completely completely agree on both points. There are no magic wands that will solve corruption and rent seeking. These are both human flaws. I’m not even against a dose of socially managed resources and services where it makes sense. Cheers.

satvikpendem 3y ago

Only if you believe in the Labor Theory of Value, which most don't. If I own a ship that's going on some expedition (as how shares originally started), I raise capital and reduce risk by issuing shares that people can buy. I have to, well, share my wealth but I have more money now to do the expedition. Corporations are just bigger versions of the same idea, they're still run by people, any of whom can decide not to work there anymore, for better or worse.

cambaceres 3y ago

What you and other students of Karl Marx always ignore is the fact that if company owners was not allowed to earn profit then there would be no companies founded, meaning that the workers would not have jobs.

agentultra 3y ago
I think the idea is that the workers would profit from their labour and control what gets produced. I’m not sure that means companies wouldn’t be started and everyone would sit around doing nothing.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  They can do that, nothing stops people from setting up co-ops today, I've been in one as well in fact. But at the same time, if I'm making something lucrative, I'd want to profit from it. That other people I hire are willing to work for the wage I give them is their problem, since if they don't like the wage, they can always go elsewhere (given that they are skilled workers, not workers who can find no other job in some company town or something).
  - anticensor 3y ago
    Your argument possesses a fundamental mistake that most venture capitalists make: that the demand is infinitely elastic but supply is completely fixed; in other words, the manufacturers being able to perfectly impose what consumers want to consume.
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      I don't see where I imply that supply is fixed. I don't think that makes sense even from a VC point of view, since the company they fund is itself another manufacturer or producer of goods, thereby increasing the supply.
  - HyperSane 3y ago
    > since if they don't like the wage, they can always go elsewhere Capitalists are well known to collude to keep pay down and viciously suppress unions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297/tech-giants-settle-wage-fixing-lawsuit https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306592297... https://fortune.com/2023/03/02/nlrb-starbucks-union-buffalo-howard-schultz-ceo/ https://fortune.com/2023/03/02/nlrb-starbucks-union-buffalo-...
HyperSane 3y ago
What you and other billionaire boot-lickers ignore is that earning $10 million from starting a company is very reasonable, "earning" $100 billion is just stealing from many thousands of employees. We really should NOT need a logarithmic scale when talking about wealth inequality.

simonh 3y ago

Except the labour theory of value is utter nonsense. It lead Marx to argue that railway workers, helping transport goods to where they were needed, contributed negative value and were parasitic on manufacturing labour. Ideas, leadership and capital are vital to a functioning economy. Every time a system has been set up that denied that, and it has been tried many times, the results were catastrophic. In several cases tens of millions of people dead catastrophic.

agentultra 3y ago
Indeed. Eventually the interests of capital owners force them to fail. Like when the CIA backed a military coup by a fascist general to overthrow a democratically elected socialist. Because US investments were threatened.
- simonh 3y ago
  No economic system can mitigate toxic politics. Regulatory or political capture by economic interests is always a threat. As is political seizure of economic assets or resources. These are human failings you find in any system. This is why rule of law is so important.
  - agentultra 3y ago
    And why the struggle must always continue! A society doesn't simply implement socialism (or any system) and call it a utopia. There will always be forces and counter-forces. Fascism will continue to find a way back into any system it can.
    - simonh 3y ago
      We can both completely completely agree on both points. There are no magic wands that will solve corruption and rent seeking. These are both human flaws. I’m not even against a dose of socially managed resources and services where it makes sense. Cheers.