Is the author's point that every business should be an employee-owned cooperative? How do we get there?
Aren't many or even most of the startups essentially "employee owned"? I've heard that the average employee at NVidia is worth $25m.
Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
61–70 of 138 posts
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#62[flagged]
Doubt it. Grew up in communist bloc country. There was much theft and we barely had any property.
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#63[flagged]
Property is the only way that we can build complex things. We couldn't have airplanes if property didn't exist. Anyone could just walk away with parts off the airplane if they felt like it. And in fact that's exactly what happens if you leave an airplane unprotected for too long. Hydroelectric dams would be impossible. You couldn't even have light bulbs or computers because their production methods require so much co…
[deleted]
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#64[flagged]
Property is the only way that we can build complex things. We couldn't have airplanes if property didn't exist. Anyone could just walk away with parts off the airplane if they felt like it. And in fact that's exactly what happens if you leave an airplane unprotected for too long. Hydroelectric dams would be impossible. You couldn't even have light bulbs or computers because their production methods require so much co…
> Property is the only way that we can build complex things.
This assertion needs to be substantiated, even if it is true. You give an example of how property "allows us to build complex things", but you don't prove that it's impossible for any other system of ownership or of mediating access to resources/"things" to allow that.
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#65At the heart of this article is the claim that buying equity is a form of theft. That is an extreme claim (in the sense of surprising, remarkable, unusual, and one that needs a lot more support than ordinary claims). It is inadequately defended here. The argument that it violates fair exchange is tautological.
For me, when you start to lobby, when you explicitly pay people to pass laws in your favour, that's when you cross a line. You go from playing within the rules of the system to making up rules that favour you, and it's wild that it's legal much less acceptable for corporations to do that.
So who do you think should be allowed to lobby politicians & how would you avoid lobbying from bleeding through unofficial channels?
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#66[flagged]
Property is the only way that we can build complex things. We couldn't have airplanes if property didn't exist. Anyone could just walk away with parts off the airplane if they felt like it. And in fact that's exactly what happens if you leave an airplane unprotected for too long. Hydroelectric dams would be impossible. You couldn't even have light bulbs or computers because their production methods require so much co…
Please look up the difference between private property and personal property. When people decry "property is theft", they're not talking about personal property, they're talking about private property.
Also, socialist states with advanced economies built airplanes, hydroelectric dams and all kinds of complex things. This is a joke of an argument. Say what you will about the living conditions, fairness, corruption or other issues with socialist states, but to pretend they "didn't build complex things" is ridiculous when you look up the number of scientific achievements made first by the USSR.
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#67After thinking about this problem for a while, I think that there is a potential for someone to make a nonprofit software company for the public good. And yet it would still pay high developer salaries.
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#68At the heart of this article is the claim that buying equity is a form of theft. That is an extreme claim (in the sense of surprising, remarkable, unusual, and one that needs a lot more support than ordinary claims). It is inadequately defended here. The argument that it violates fair exchange is tautological.
[deleted]
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the main argument that it is theft, is that they contribute nothing to the continued surplus generated after their loan was repaid. So they effectively steal the profits like a parasite. Why should they get ownership of the business? When you get a mortgage for your house, the bank doesn’t permanently own part of your house after you pay it off.
For one, in a mortgage the loan is secured by the house. But more importantly: you can get simple loans for startups too! Banks provide loans that are personally guaranteed (ie if the business goes under the founder is still on the hook). But if you want more money or something that is limited in liability then your pool of people willing to give money is much smaller and they usually want a stake in the business as…
The opposite argument would be that the default should behave like the house then, so ownership should switch over to the person providing the loan entirely - instead of passing on part ownership forever.
But that's obviously less desirable to the person providing the money, and they've obviously got all the cards... Hence the argument of this post.
I wouldn't call it evil myself, unless I wanted to classify capitalism as evil in it's entirety - which would feel disingenuous to me, considering the alternatives were always worse in hindsight.
Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again
#70At the heart of this article is the claim that buying equity is a form of theft. That is an extreme claim (in the sense of surprising, remarkable, unusual, and one that needs a lot more support than ordinary claims). It is inadequately defended here. The argument that it violates fair exchange is tautological.
I think the main argument that it is theft, is that they contribute nothing to the continued surplus generated after their loan was repaid. So they effectively steal the profits like a parasite. Why should they get ownership of the business? When you get a mortgage for your house, the bank doesn’t permanently own part of your house after you pay it off.
> Why should they get ownership of the business? When you get a mortgage for your house, the bank doesn’t permanently own part of your house after you pay it off.
Because the VCs are funding the startup on extremely favorable terms?
If the startup fails, the founders can just walk away. They are not personally liable for anything. They can (and often do) subsequently form another startup, often funded by the very same VCs who funded the one that just failed!
If, OTOH, you fail to pay your mortgage, the bank takes your house. And they make hard for you to get another mortgage from any bank by reporting the foreclosure to credit ratings agencies.
You absolutely can keep the equity (and surplus) for yourself… but you will need to personally guarantee the loan. You may need to declare bankruptcy if the startup fails, and all that entails.
VCs are happy to throw away money on 99 failed startups precisely because they are entitled to the continued surplus from 1 successful startup. Banks are happy to make failure to pay extremely unpleasant for you because they are not entitled to any surplus from business loans which lead to successful outcomes.