3 ms·

[flagged]

polotics 1y ago
Are you sure you read the parent post? It was not about wealth being immanent at all as I read it, it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey? What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series) > It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights.
  - dahart 1y ago
    The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor. > What capital is there to own? The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much of the world. The ABC & BBC capital used to include tons of high power broadcasting equipment, but maybe that mostly going or gone now?
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      I didn’t mean capital in the accounting sense, I meant receiving capital as remuneration as opposed to a salary. The more accurate word would have been equity, but I was using the term polotics used: >it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.
      - dahart 1y ago
        What do you mean? @plotics wasn’t talking about remuneration for products or services, nor equity. “Capital ownership” in the sentence you quoted is referring to the company, the ol’ ownership of the means of production. “Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.
        lotsofpulp 1y ago
        That is called equity (at least in the USA). > Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves. This is remuneration, the reward in exchange for your effort/wares/risk. In this case, the artist would have had to ask taxpayers (or the taxpayers’ representatives) to sell them a piece of the taxpayer’s equity. Or some type of royalty/revenue sharing agreement. Obviously, that was not going to happen for a small time artist (that kind of stuff is reserved for well connected people when it comes to government assets). But the second best option the world has come up with is public equity markets, where the common people can invest and gain access to equity, which is also very liquid.
        dahart 1y ago
        You asked what the capital is, and the government assets reserved for well connected people is the “capital” in this case. You can call capital equity or remuneration, but that seems slightly weird even though there’s overlap of concepts. Either way, I don’t think that’s what the phrase @plotics used was referring to. The “capital” in that case was referring to the money, goods, and other means of production used to finance the project before any remuneration occurs. Capital is the leverage by which the well connected people assert the rights to the future profits. Workers not having equity is indeed what not having access to the full value means, which keeps workers from building capital. I think we’re probably in agreement. And even though there’s an analogy to capital, Bluey wasn’t a capitalist operation so definitely not clear Marxist ideas apply here.
danielvaughn 1y ago
If you’ve seen the show, you’d know that this artists’ work was deeply instrumental to the creation of the wealth. It would be one thing if the author was an associate grabbing coffees and scheduling meetings. In this case, not getting a royalty for their contribution is shameful.
- MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
  I agree it is shameful. This is however not the issue that is being discussed here. Fyi, George Lucas made sure everyone involved in Star Wars got taken care of.
suddenlybananas 1y ago
Or maybe the people who actually build that wealth deserve to keep it.
tomhow 1y ago
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Uehreka 1y ago
  After the number of times I’ve seen people invoke the HN guidelines to trample good spirited discussions there should be a guideline against quoting the guidelines.
  - input_sh 1y ago
    If anyone's entitled to quote the guidelines, it's the mod you're replying to.
    - dredmorbius 1y ago
      Announcement: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558671>
dahart 1y ago
How do you think wealth works? Regardless of your political stance or economic beliefs, that doesn’t seem like a very informed or thoughtful summary of Marx, who I assume is who the parent comment was referring to, and was one of the more influential economists of all time. Have you read Marx? He might have thought and written about wealth more than both you and me. FWIW he didn’t argue that wealth somehow exists, he argued that for business owners, wealth stems from the discrepancy between what laborers are paid and what their employers collect. He went much further than that, but that much is technically true, right?

[flagged]

Are you sure you read the parent post? It was not about wealth being immanent at all as I read it, it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey? What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series) > It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights.
- dahart 1y ago
  The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor. > What capital is there to own? The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much of the world. The ABC & BBC capital used to include tons of high power broadcasting equipment, but maybe that mostly going or gone now?
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    I didn’t mean capital in the accounting sense, I meant receiving capital as remuneration as opposed to a salary. The more accurate word would have been equity, but I was using the term polotics used: >it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.
    - dahart 1y ago
      What do you mean? @plotics wasn’t talking about remuneration for products or services, nor equity. “Capital ownership” in the sentence you quoted is referring to the company, the ol’ ownership of the means of production. “Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        That is called equity (at least in the USA). > Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves. This is remuneration, the reward in exchange for your effort/wares/risk. In this case, the artist would have had to ask taxpayers (or the taxpayers’ representatives) to sell them a piece of the taxpayer’s equity. Or some type of royalty/revenue sharing agreement. Obviously, that was not going to happen for a small time artist (that kind of stuff is reserved for well connected people when it comes to government assets). But the second best option the world has come up with is public equity markets, where the common people can invest and gain access to equity, which is also very liquid.
        dahart 1y ago
        You asked what the capital is, and the government assets reserved for well connected people is the “capital” in this case. You can call capital equity or remuneration, but that seems slightly weird even though there’s overlap of concepts. Either way, I don’t think that’s what the phrase @plotics used was referring to. The “capital” in that case was referring to the money, goods, and other means of production used to finance the project before any remuneration occurs. Capital is the leverage by which the well connected people assert the rights to the future profits. Workers not having equity is indeed what not having access to the full value means, which keeps workers from building capital. I think we’re probably in agreement. And even though there’s an analogy to capital, Bluey wasn’t a capitalist operation so definitely not clear Marxist ideas apply here.

danielvaughn 1y ago

If you’ve seen the show, you’d know that this artists’ work was deeply instrumental to the creation of the wealth. It would be one thing if the author was an associate grabbing coffees and scheduling meetings. In this case, not getting a royalty for their contribution is shameful.

MrBuddyCasino 1y ago
I agree it is shameful. This is however not the issue that is being discussed here. Fyi, George Lucas made sure everyone involved in Star Wars got taken care of.

suddenlybananas 1y ago

Or maybe the people who actually build that wealth deserve to keep it.

tomhow 1y ago

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Uehreka 1y ago
After the number of times I’ve seen people invoke the HN guidelines to trample good spirited discussions there should be a guideline against quoting the guidelines.
- input_sh 1y ago
  If anyone's entitled to quote the guidelines, it's the mod you're replying to.
  - dredmorbius 1y ago
    Announcement: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558671 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558671>

dahart 1y ago

How do you think wealth works? Regardless of your political stance or economic beliefs, that doesn’t seem like a very informed or thoughtful summary of Marx, who I assume is who the parent comment was referring to, and was one of the more influential economists of all time. Have you read Marx? He might have thought and written about wealth more than both you and me. FWIW he didn’t argue that wealth somehow exists, he argued that for business owners, wealth stems from the discrepancy between what laborers are paid and what their employers collect. He went much further than that, but that much is technically true, right?