> Different systems produce different results. It tends to be the case that when you drastically alter the fundamental properties of a system, you won’t get the same results - because it isn’t the same system.
Yes, but you claim to know changing which set of variables, by which amount, produced what result, while you don't actually know that. Your epistemology is emotional rather than rational.
> and you fail to observe that all current implementations of that idea have never demonstrated a single instance of producing Google-like companies since the industrial revolution, your ideas are not going to be very robust.
Not that I think Google is a great company (it's a pretty lousy one, all things considered) but it is unique, and still you don't know precisely what combination of variables unique to the US produced this particular result.
> which is why they fired her.
That's fine, but you blamed them for being sort of victims in the first place.
> And the conditions that make Google better for them were not created exclusively by employees and especially not by employees who didn’t share the mission.
I never said that.
> It is only through the right balance of incentives that such a system can function at all.
Sure, but there can be more than one right balance, and you don't know all of them. You make the mistake of thinking that if the current situation is X and you think X is good, then any other balance Y is likely worse than X.