12 ms·
Silicon Valley billionaires believe in the free market, as long as they benefit
- dealerdirt 13y agoWelcome to dealer dirt. Take a few moments and write a review aboWelcome to dealer dirt. Take a few moments and write a review about your recent product purchasing or service experience. http://www.dealerdirt.com http://www.dealerdirt.com
- jokoon 13y agothat's what politics encourage you to do, so off course those guys will be billionaires.
- adventured 13y agoThis article clearly elaborates that the author doesn't understand either the philosophy or ethics of libertarian (or actual free market) economics. From what I can tell, the author may have not have even read cursory basics on Wikipedia about such. This header: "Google, Apple and other tech firms likely colluded to keep their workers' wages down." then concludes: "So much for that libertarian worldview" That assumes incorrectly that willful collusion is somehow anti-free market, or anti-libertarian. The free market has absolutely no position on collusion, except that force may not enter into economic transactions. If two parties choose to collude to set prices, the free market has no opinion on the matter as such; if they set prices incorrectly in the process of judging the market, they will lose. That is basic free market ideology. A free market doesn't outlaw or in any way forbid collusion. Nor is it considered immoral in laissez-faire doctrine to agree to freeze or suppress wages across an industry. The use of force (eg to prevent workers from leaving their job for a better paying one) to control workers would be considered immoral and illegal. Otherwise, it's the responsibility of the worker to pursue a job that properly compensates their talent, not the responsibility of the business owner to overpay the worker (and if the owner isn't properly compensating the worker, and that worker leaves, the owner loses). As a response to wage collusion by business owners, in a free market workers also have the right to collude to attempt to inflate wages; owners also have a right to fire every single one of them in response. Whichever group judges correctly about their value proposition, wins. One can then move on to debating the merits of laissez-faire Capitalism versus other systems; or libertarian ideology; or 19th century free market economics. The author however is far off base in understanding even where the conversation would begin.
- valtih1978 13y agoWe have a first libertarian to manipulate here. He even does not bother to read adn understand the basic idea exposed by the article. He thinks that we are children and keeps selling us the fraud.
- adventured 13y agoI never said I was a libertarian. What I explained is rudimentary free market doctrine. My ability to explain Stalinism doesn't automatically make me a Communist, either.
- valtih1978 13y agoThe fact that you can explain a doctrine does not render the criticism of that doctrine incorrect. Indecent attack on critique means that you use all means to defend a flawed doctrine, which implies you is a proponent of that flawed doctrine. The author obviously knows the reality, which stands behind the marvelous "free-market" fiction. He attacks this fiction. He says that self-correcting free-market fails to optimize itself since it kills itself by converging to monopoly. In the ideal free-market theory, you do not need the anti-monopoly law. But you have to use it in reality to mantain the free-market from collapse. It is clear what author says. He attacks this childish free-market fundamentalism. He makes a right point. You attack him without the reason and defend the flawed ideology, support spreading the wrong beliefs. How can I believe that you is not a libertarian?
- mason240 13y agoAn ironically childish and vapid response.
- ChristianMarks 13y agoNonsense. The free market ideologue lets the market solve all problems through the mechanism of price signals, and nothing else. Side deals in which one group systematically wins asymmetric zero-sum games against another group are excluded.
- ChristianMarks 13y agoThis kind of "free-market libertarianism" involves systematically winning asymmetric zero-sum games against labor: free for me, not for you [1]. [1] http://publicsphere.org/2014/02/02/the-asymmetric-zero-sum-game/ http://publicsphere.org/2014/02/02/the-asymmetric-zero-sum-g...
- jpttsn 13y agoSo that article is just phrasing the normative in positive terms? Besides rigour, what's the point? This confuses more than it clarifies. Economic injustice is a question of moral values; phrasing it as a scientific truth lends it a false air of credibility.
- akiselev 13y agoTo a large extent, yes. Economic injustice, however, increases the probability and severity of civil unrest. It is in the best interest of those with economic power that those without don't bang down their doors and line them up against a wall.
- ChristianMarks 13y agoPutnam has argued against a strict fact-value dichotomy in "The Collapse of the Fact-Value Dichotomy" and in a recently published book of essays edited by Putnam entitled, "The End of Value-Free Economics (Routledge INEM Advances in Economic Methodology)." Economic justice, theft and fraud are not strictly questions of moral values--this presupposes a spurious fact-value dichotomy. These notions have both normative and positive aspects; the positive aspects of these notions (and others, related to class dominance) can be captured in game theoretic terms--and should be. In the Preface to Game Theory Evolving, economist Herbert Gintis suggested that the mathematical methods of non-cooperative (and cooperative) game theory developed by von Neumann and Morgenstern, Nash and their successors–Gintis among them–have the potential to elevate social and political discourse above ideological debate. Gintis does not take the step of applying game theory to the topics under discussion--but neither have most of the comments here, with the expected result.
- 13y ago
- c_plus_minus 13y agoSteve Jobs, Eric Schmidt, Intel heads and so on are/were libertarians? News to me (and them I imagine).
- icebraining 13y agoEric Schmidt in particular is an Obama donor and adviser, and since 2008, chairman of the New America Foundation, which "does not believe in immediate government deficit reduction; it believes that will only make the situation worse. Instead, as stated in the paper, it has other suggestions, including investing in a sustained infrastructure program, lasting from five to seven years, to create jobs and demand." Sounds extremely right-wing libertarian to me! /s
- blazespin 13y agoThe whole article was rife with made-upisms. For example, plenty of libertarians believe in intellectual property.
- billpg 13y agoI hear some communists also believe in the private ownership of the means of production too.
- dnautics 13y agoeh, that one's real. It's a wedge issue, and there are not entirely unreasonable libertarian arguments for IP. I happen to totally disagree with them, because they're wrong, but I sympathize with the libertarian that believes in IP.
- salgernon 13y agoWhile I frankly believe that libertarians are idiots and will drag society and social progress into the victorian age (hey, opinion, ok?), I think its important to point out that Steve Jobs @ Apple was not in any way one. I don't believe for a minute that he cared about how much people made and was far more concerned with either employees leaving with secrets, or more likely annoyed that a revolving door of employees between his company and others took time away from getting his projects completed. Apple has no problem paying people, but if they're trying to complete something for particular market opportunity, they probably don't want to waste time bringing new hires up to speed.
- coolsunglasses 13y agoYet, when I look at the data, Apple engineers get paid below the market average and they work at one of the most profitable companies of all time.
- cbsmith 13y agoConsidering how many engineers would gladly take a below market wage for an opportunity to work at Apple, I don't think that is necessarily out of line with market forces doing their usual "magic". Even economists would admit that wages are not the sole determinant of where people choose to work.
- girvo 13y agoI was thinking about this the other day coincidentally. The only big tech company I would want to work for is Apple, and I'd gladly take a few tens of thousands less than my already far larger than my living expenses wage to have the opportunity to. I wonder what that says about me?
- dhimes 13y agoI wonder what that says about me For one thing, it says that you are likely young. And I don't intend that as an insult.
- cbsmith 13y agoI love this notion that Silicon Valley billionaires can all be painted with the same brush. Truly, if there was ever a group of individuals known to celebrate conforming to the thought processes of others, this is it.
- ergoproxy 13y agoThe author, Dean Baker, has a very narrow view of what libertarianism is and isn't. I'm a left-libertarian. I take a great deal of inspiration from the libertarian activist Karl Hess, who developed the language of the 1% versus the 99% in his 1975 manifesto, Dear America: "1.6 percent of the adult population owns 82 percent of all stock, and thus actually owns American business and industry. In a very real sense, that tiny 1 percent of the population faces the other 99 percent across a barrier of very real self-interest. That tiny 1 percent has been accumulating more as the years go on, not less. The key to that accumulation is assuring that the people who make up the other 99 percent are sharply restricted in what power and privilege they accumulate." Again, that was written by an American libertarian. Libertarianism is a family of philosophical viewpoints, that runs the gamut from the "Libertarian socialism" of Noam Chomsky to the "Geolibertarianism" of Henry George to the craziness of the "Tea Party." It's noteworthy that Ayn Rand denounced libertarianism. I was excommunicated from the Objectivist club in college for espousing libertarian anarchist views. It's also noteworthy that Tea Party founder Karl Denninger renounced the Tea Party, saying it was co-opted by the Republican Party, which shifted its focus to "Guns, gays, God." He sums up his feelings toward the Tea Party, saying: "Tea Party my ass. This was nothing other than The Republican Party stealing the anger of a population that was fed up with The Republican Party's own theft of their tax money at gunpoint to bail out the robbers of Wall Street and fraudulently redirecting it back toward electing the very people who stole all the f---ing money!" Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-... Someone who's really interested in the variety of libertarianism ought to start with the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
- abalone 13y agoCollusion is small potatoes. The real "free market" hypocrisy is that Silicon Valley was created by government spending. Still plays a huge role today. Really disappointed more authors don't take on that topic. I don't like the author's definition of "classic libertarianism" though. Classic libertarianism is anarcho-socialism. Liberty in all spheres of life: the personal, the political, the economic. Opposition to all forms of tyranny and concentration of power. What the author is describing in the article is American "Libertarianism" which came about in the mid-20th century. It adopted the term from libertarian socialism but cleansed it of its critique of authoritarianism in the economic sphere (corporations are dictatorships). It's as though a royal servant came up with a philosophy of "liberty to do whatever you want with your kingdom" and the royals embraced it, along with anyone else who aspired to it. It's a corruption of the term. But the idea that anyone in Silicon Valley is an honest Libertarian (in the American sense) is ridiculous, given the massive amount of state spending that supports it.
- hackerboos 13y agoThe word Libertarian was coined by french anarchist (libertarian communist) Joseph Déjacque. In the US the word libertarian would be better replaced with neo-liberal.
- dantheman 13y agoor perhaps: classical liberal
- rat87 13y agoA neo-liberal is just someone who is strongly pro free-trade and possibly some lowered/standardized regulation of business(although not universally, possibly(but not always) formerly or currently associated with center-left(or at least center-left from a US perspective)
- conanite 13y ago)
- 13y ago
- romanovcode 13y agoI like how top comments are arguing about what "Libertarianism" is and that author does not know what it is 100%. Yet they are completely ignoring the main point of this article - big companies pushing down wages. lol
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mattgreenrocks 13y agoPedanticism poisons discussions, but nerds gotta be right on the Internet.
- shadowfox 13y agoFor multiple definitions of right (if the top comments are to be believed) :P
- c_plus_minus 13y agoWell it was discussed at length last week on here. Since this article is mainly about the perceived libertarian angle, of course that would dominate discussion
- romanovcode 13y agoCan you please give a link if you still have it, I missed that completely.
- c_plus_minus 13y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7111531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7111531 Hmm, seemed more comprehensive in my memory :)
- discardorama 13y agoI was about to comment on that. We seem to be great at missing the forest for the trees.
- Allower 13y agoSilicon Valley has nothing to do with a free market, those companies make ridiculous profits for one reason, intellectual property. And IP is in complete opposition to the free market.
- irv 13y agoA point that was made in the article
- yummyfajitas 13y agoThis article is stupid. Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs are all Democrats and Obama supporters. Most valley leaders are. The reasoning of the article laid out explicitly: Peter Thiel is guilty of hypocrisy because (democrats) Larry Page and Steve Jobs failed to live up to Peter Thiel's libertarian principles. [edit: CEO of Adobe, also involved in this mess, is a Democrat and selected by Obama to be on his PMAB.]
- rayiner 13y agoAlso, Peter Thiel isn't all that libertarian from what I can tell.
- 3pt14159 13y agoThiels a Forbsian libertarian. Focused on the economy, focused on the short term, thinks libertarianism is the best for the long term, but doesn't want to get bogged down in ideological debates about whether or not net neutrality is a libertarian position or not while the government is spending 5% of the GDP on the military and healthcare consumers almost 20% of GDP.
- DanielBMarkham 13y agoYeah a person could write trash like this all day long. "If humans are such a great species, how come I don't like rabbits?" "Mother Theresa talks a good game. If that's true, why was Hitler such a bad person?" This is a terrible essay.
- jrs99 13y agois collusion even anti libertarian?
- yummyfajitas 13y agoWhether it is or not (I'd generally say not, but I don't want to speak for true libertarians [1]), this article is stupid. [1] I'm only weakly libertarian, so I don't want to speak for them. My values are almost entirely left wing liberal, but I haven't drank the koolaid on economic theories designed to justify the status quo and protect party cronies.
- theorique 13y agoIn other news: - kids believe in extra cookies at snack time - dogs believe in steak and not dry kibble in the dog bowl People (and animals) like things that they perceive to benefit them. How is this even news?
- forgottenpaswrd 13y agoFree market includes the freedom to conspire for lowering wages down like includes the freedom from workers to decide where they work or even compete with those companies. Having said that, we don't live in a free market, the economy is ruled by central banks who do central planning, thanks to free money for them, taken from the rest of us. In the technology sector, we live in a world with business and software patents, and with lawsuits costing millions, which makes competing against the big guys harder and harder for little guys.
- rayiner 13y agoLibertarianism is a scapegoat here. These people are all Democrats. More or less in the same vein as all the Democrats on Wall Street.
- judk 13y agoThe Koch brothers are Libertarian and Republican. Judging by their political spending. These labels are entirely useless. Word games are stupid. To have a useful conversation, just agree on words, then argue ideas.
- nickik 13y agoEverybody only belive in the free market if they benefit. Nobody wants a free market, everybody wants direct handouts or whatever else. As long as there is a third party that can be made to help you, you will. The only reason there exists a relativly free market in the first place is that there is a balance between diffrent 'powers'. Everybody individually would benefit from some policys in there faver but there are few policys that help everybody. As soon as one groupe gets to much power (meaning political influance) the get a handout (Sugar Farmers, US Steel ...).
- iambateman 13y agoThe free market is all about fighting for your own self interest. The purpose of government is to ensure those members with special power or position are not able to extort those advantages. ANYONE in their position would do this. It's not a matter of belief or politics or even ethics. It's a matter of oversight. The people responsible for providing for the free market have failed to protect relatively less powerful market players. Let's stop pretending that the "free market" isn't a dirty nasty place.
- mathattack 13y agoThis seems strange, as it's a little removed from the folks doing most of the complaining, no? This case is striking on many levels, the most obvious being the effective theft of large amounts of money by some of the richest people on the planet from their employees.
- xname 13y agoI heard many young people try very hard to get an unpaid volunteer / intern job in UN headquarters. They need to pay their own rent and food out of their own pocket to work for UN for nothing. How crazy is this? UN must be libertarian! Damn!