3 ms·

It incentivizes people to find minerals that are valuable to the public. You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one wh

It incentivizes people to find minerals that are valuable to the public. You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land.

mathgeek 3y ago
> You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land. You don't even need to construct the scenario where someone with enough capital just buys up as much as possible, knowing they will get lucky with some subset of their property. That's both a modern problem and the plot of Blazing Saddles (yes, I'm choosing that example to focus on how widespread of an issue this has been for centuries).
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
That doesn’t answer any of my questions though on how the assignment of creation happens
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Fair enough: > Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? I'm not sure what you mean. Finding and extracting the asset adds a valuable, productive good to the economy (ignoring the enormous downside). Are you debating the word choice, "creating"? I guess I don't see that discussion as valuable. Are you using the word choice to make a point? Make it! > How did the land to acquire become yours? You know how; again, please make your point? > Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything Is all of this an argument for communism - the only ones who do anything valuable are the workers? I think that's as self-serving and narrow-minded as the ultra-capitalists who think only they matter. Providing and allocating capital is essential and a valuable skill; if it's easy for you, I'm sure you have plenty of it by now.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    >the only ones who do anything valuable are the workers? Correct! Because the act of creation is where value is created. By definition capital does not create value, otherwise there would be no requirement to have labor to do the “transformation.” Exactly to your point I have at points had quite a bit of money (not currently true). But it’s not from “capital growth” it’s from aggressively selling my labor and capturing the majority of my labor value. That said, if you were to compare the amount of value, I’ve created to the amount of money I received, It’s not even fucking close I’ve created 1000x more value than I have captured. Why? because at the time that I did those deals, I was not in a powerful enough position to demand the value capture, because we’re stuck in a state where the vast majority of people need to debase themselves simply to survive. Is that the type of system that has long term capacity for multigenerational equitable success? The answer is no and there’s no way you can slice that that makes it a yes. If, however, your goal is a infinite race to the bottom for worker self exploitation, where people will literally destroy themselves in order to otherwise survive, based on the whims of hoarded capital owners arbitrary self inflated egos about how the world works. Having been a LP in a venture fund, a Director in a large public company, and a multitime start up founder I can guarantee this is exactly how it works. If that’s the world you want then we’re right on track.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Well, I wouldn't go nearly as far as you do, but I do appreciate your up front, clear argument for your point. My perception is that the labor/capital allocation of return is far out of whack, due to a power imbalance. But I feel you still aren't accounting for the value of capital. It's too easy an answer, intellectually, just to dismiss the whole thing and ignore the complication. Production requires capital and labor. If I lend you my truck for your contracting service, shouldn't I get some return on that? What if you use my property to manufacture your skateboard (or whatever)? What if I give you some of my personal cash to hire workers, who then produce the skateboards, which you sell at a profit? I know these are simple, chosen examples, but where do you see the problem and how do you quantify appropriate returns?
      - 3y ago

mathgeek 3y ago

> You can construct a hypothetical where someone gets lucky, and you can construct one where someone has reason to suspect the minerals are there and invests in the land. You don't even need to construct the scenario where someone with enough capital just buys up as much as possible, knowing they will get lucky with some subset of their property. That's both a modern problem and the plot of Blazing Saddles (yes, I'm choosing that example to focus on how widespread of an issue this has been for centuries).

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

That doesn’t answer any of my questions though on how the assignment of creation happens

wolverine876 3y ago
Fair enough: > Where was the act of creation that led to the increase of the value? I'm not sure what you mean. Finding and extracting the asset adds a valuable, productive good to the economy (ignoring the enormous downside). Are you debating the word choice, "creating"? I guess I don't see that discussion as valuable. Are you using the word choice to make a point? Make it! > How did the land to acquire become yours? You know how; again, please make your point? > Most likely you didn’t discover the land, or do anything to find the materials (hiring people to do labor) so there’s no reason to think you should receive anything Is all of this an argument for communism - the only ones who do anything valuable are the workers? I think that's as self-serving and narrow-minded as the ultra-capitalists who think only they matter. Providing and allocating capital is essential and a valuable skill; if it's easy for you, I'm sure you have plenty of it by now.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  >the only ones who do anything valuable are the workers? Correct! Because the act of creation is where value is created. By definition capital does not create value, otherwise there would be no requirement to have labor to do the “transformation.” Exactly to your point I have at points had quite a bit of money (not currently true). But it’s not from “capital growth” it’s from aggressively selling my labor and capturing the majority of my labor value. That said, if you were to compare the amount of value, I’ve created to the amount of money I received, It’s not even fucking close I’ve created 1000x more value than I have captured. Why? because at the time that I did those deals, I was not in a powerful enough position to demand the value capture, because we’re stuck in a state where the vast majority of people need to debase themselves simply to survive. Is that the type of system that has long term capacity for multigenerational equitable success? The answer is no and there’s no way you can slice that that makes it a yes. If, however, your goal is a infinite race to the bottom for worker self exploitation, where people will literally destroy themselves in order to otherwise survive, based on the whims of hoarded capital owners arbitrary self inflated egos about how the world works. Having been a LP in a venture fund, a Director in a large public company, and a multitime start up founder I can guarantee this is exactly how it works. If that’s the world you want then we’re right on track.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Well, I wouldn't go nearly as far as you do, but I do appreciate your up front, clear argument for your point. My perception is that the labor/capital allocation of return is far out of whack, due to a power imbalance. But I feel you still aren't accounting for the value of capital. It's too easy an answer, intellectually, just to dismiss the whole thing and ignore the complication. Production requires capital and labor. If I lend you my truck for your contracting service, shouldn't I get some return on that? What if you use my property to manufacture your skateboard (or whatever)? What if I give you some of my personal cash to hire workers, who then produce the skateboards, which you sell at a profit? I know these are simple, chosen examples, but where do you see the problem and how do you quantify appropriate returns?
    - 3y ago