Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

notesfrombelow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#81

Post by labcomputer »

gremlinunderway wrote: post #66
kstenerud wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Also, socialist states with advanced economies built airplanes, hydroelectric dams and all kinds of complex things.

Yes, by having property … owned by the state!

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#82

Post by yunwal »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #61
geetee wrote: post #14

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.

So 900b total among its 36000 employees for a total of 900b/4.3 trillion market cap. Or roughly 20% employee owned (if that 25m number is correct).

This article (warning: obnoxious ads) is the only one I can find that claims to know who nvidea’s shareholders are and puts the number at 4.3%

https://capital.com/en-int/analysis/nvidia-shareholder-who-o...

I would not consider that to be employee owned (although I certainly wouldn’t mind the 25m)

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#83

Post by luckylion »

kmeisthax wrote: post #77
omarhaneef wrote: post #11

At 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.

Imagine for a second that any time you borrowed money to buy something, like a home or a car, you paid that back not by actually paying the loan plus interest, but by a % garnishment of your lifetime wages. That is what equity capital is like. Obviously, nobody would take that kind of deal. But what if regular loans were just flat out not made available to you? Like, if tomorrow, banks as a class individually decided…

> Imagine for a second that any time you borrowed money to buy something, like a home or a car, you paid that back not by actually paying the loan plus interest, but by a % garnishment of your lifetime wages. That is what equity capital is like.

Weird analogy. It's more like "what if you borrowed money to buy something, didn't have to return it, but if you made money with that thing, you give the lender a cut, forever".

Because the point is: it's not a loan, you don't have to pay it back, and you're not on the hook for it if things go wrong. That's the big upside and why lots of people do that instead of getting a loan. Because loans are available, but people don't want that risk and are willing to give up some of their ownership to avoid it.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#84

Post by cmrdporcupine »

api wrote: post #73
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is clearly written from a bit of a Marxian perspective and I think there's a lot assumed ... presuppositions about exploitation and value theory. So yeah, even though on first skim I think I agree with the thrust of this article, I think you're right it's poorly defended, assuming it's at all for an audience outside of people who already think this way.

Marxism is back in vogue again. I guess people have tried reviving Naziism/fascism so now they’ve got to try reviving the other failed early 20th century totalistic political ideology. I get that the status quo has huge issues, but can we have some new ideas maybe instead of continuing to try to revive late 19th century ones that have repeatedly and disastrously failed?

As a person with Marxian leanings I can tell you it's not "back in vogue" in fact in both academia and general populace actual Marxist theory has probably never been less vibrant or popular?

Maybe some people get that impression because they've conflated "Marxism" with general socialist urges or even cultural "left" wing identity politics, but that in fact is proof exactly of the opposite. It's never been more heretical to advocate for wealth redistribution or dismantling or restricting parts of the capitalist market, even in the context of a total ecological crisis brought on by industrial production and exponential growth.

It's not even on the table of discussion in any western country, so I am not sure where you fear comes from. That a claim like this could be made shows me exactly how far to the right we've drifted since e.g. the 60s. That someone like Mamdani could be smeared or red-baited as a "Marxist" for advocating for rent control is hilarious really.

(But frankly I'm not here to debate the merits or get into a drive-by debate with your half-formed opinions, nor was that the aim or thrust of what my comment above was about.)

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#85

Post by yogurt-male »

labcomputer wrote: post #70
sumuyuda wrote: post #35

Earlier 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.

> 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 sam…

> VCs are happy to throw away money on 99 failed startups precisely because they are entitled to the continued surplus from 1 successful startup.

And why is this a good thing? I think the past decade and the current bubble point to this being a bug, not a feature. What I mean to say is that VCs seem far too eager to throw money at ventures with untenable business plans or that lack any edge over competing firms, which is a waste.

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#86

Post by cmrdporcupine »

rixed wrote: post #51
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is clearly written from a bit of a Marxian perspective and I think there's a lot assumed ... presuppositions about exploitation and value theory. So yeah, even though on first skim I think I agree with the thrust of this article, I think you're right it's poorly defended, assuming it's at all for an audience outside of people who already think this way.

I haven't read Marx since I left college, but in my remembering the only thing that is "theft" in the capital is the initial accumulation. There is no idea that any form of ownership beside that is theft (I don't believe there is any notion of "evil" either.) To be honest, you don't give the impression that you have read anything from the author that you are siting. Marx is like those ancient greek phylosophers and c…

"you don't give the impression that you have read anything from the author that you are siting"

Oh, ok. Anyways.

First section of Capital Vol I is all about "surplus value" and exploitation, with a heavy dose of the labour theory of value. It has nothing to do with "initial accumulation" at all, it's about ongoing extraction of surplus value in production, and no, Marx doesn't call it "theft" -- he calls it "exploitation" (which to him is actually somewhat of a value neutral world describing a technical process, actually).

Whether it's a defensible position in economics or philosophy is a whole other discussion. There's nuance.

Also I assuming you mean "citing", not "siting"

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#87

Post by AndrewKemendo »

supportengineer wrote: post #67

After 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.

There’s not because you can’t find the initial capital to start it

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#88

Post by fluoridation »

yogurt-male wrote: post #85
labcomputer wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sam…

> VCs are happy to throw away money on 99 failed startups precisely because they are entitled to the continued surplus from 1 successful startup. And why is this a good thing? I think the past decade and the current bubble point to this being a bug, not a feature. What I mean to say is that VCs seem far too eager to throw money at ventures with untenable business plans or that lack any edge over competing firms, whic…

What do you mean "a bug"? A bug in what? If to someone it makes sense to pour money into an apparently non-viable business on the off chance that it succeeds, what exactly is it that you're saying is not functioning properly? The person's mind? So what do you want to do about it?

Re: Silicon Valley startups: being evil, again and again

#89

Post by esseph »

fogzen wrote: post #60
renegade-otter wrote: post #38

It's like accusing a pig of being a pig. Pig gonna do what pig does. What DOESN'T work is legally-enforced "norms" that we the people decide everyone has to follow. Businesses are "people" now, according to the US Supreme Court, so it's our job to make them face consequences if they refuse to behave like actual "humans" bound by laws. But it's only if we elect representatives who are not corrupt grifters.

Is it really so crazy to extend democracy to the enterprise?

Absolutely, unless we're going to start jailing tons of executives from tons of companies.
Post reply on HN