[wat0n]

The argument was originally that the owner took all the risk.

Now the argument has changed to "owners take more risk" which is only true in absolute terms and ignores context.

But Musk is only able to risk that much more because that amount only represents a small enough percentage of his wealth that he can easily risk it.

You are assuming that is only generally true in absolute terms. You don't actually know that for sure.

Likewise, you are assuming workers can't change jobs all that easily. Again, not necessarily true - specially not in tech.

[Pants-of-dog]

It is possible that owners risk less than employees in both relative and absolute terms.

[wat0n]

In absolute terms? Sounds unlikely.

I guess it could be, if only little instruments of labor were used. But sounds unlikely.

[Pants-of-dog]

The stories of companies losing money because of Musk’s blue check mark fiasco are hilarious.

Musk was unintentionally beneficial in that regard.

[Wellsy]

I don't get why risk is so fixated on here as it often takes on a moralistic aspect than an analysis of the generation of surplus value and how it is allocated.
The risk of the worker and the capitalist in itself is related to the conditions of their work in varying ways, but in itself does not create value and thus is irrelevant. You can state how some types of risks can yield great rewards, but one still has to analyze the manner of production and its relation to markets/distribution to consider value, not wow look at this company lead by this celebrity figure try and break into an untapped market.

This is why Marx doesn't consider it in his early (unfinished) volumes of Capital which like Hegel's system of thought, relies on developing simpler categories before showing their necessity and relationships to the more complex. It becomes too fixated on individuals rather than individuals acting within a system/activity that sets limits and motives to how they are to behave within that system.

And all of this is simply to quibble over the class antagonism inherent in the working day and the distribution of wealth and not the problems inherent to such a mode of production.
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/laboraction-ny/1945/v09n15/engels.htm#:~:text=when%20thus%20determined%3F-,A%20Fair%20Day's%20Work%3F,and%20to%20propagate%20his%20race.

A fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work! A good deal might be said about the fair day’s work too, the fairness of which is perfectly on a par with that of the wages. But that we must leave for another occasion. From what has been stated it is pretty clear that the old watchword has lived its day, and will hardly hold water nowadays. The fairness of political economy, such as it truly lays down the laws which rule actual society, that fairness is all on one side – on that of capital. Let, then, the old motto be buried for ever and replaced by another:

Possession of the means of work – raw material, factories, machinery – by the working people themselves.

http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/10867/1/VWills_ETD_2011.pdf

The implementation of such a genuine, substantive freedom of course would require “despotic inroads117 on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production,” something Marx already wrote earlier, in The Communist Manifesto (Manifesto of the Communist Party, MECW 6:504). It would neither be a realization of bourgeois freedom nor would it even be commensurate with, or justifiable on the basis of, bourgeois freedom and equality, even as it is bourgeois production which makes this substantive freedom first possible. In the reformist struggles of workers under capitalism, we see a first inkling of how this genuine, substantive freedom comes into conflict with formal, bourgeois freedom.
...
In Capital, as in the Grundrisse, we see that the worker's freedom to enter into a contract and to dispose of his labor-power as he wills is only an illusory freedom, and that he was never in this transaction a totally “free agent” at all because he is not simply free to sell his labor-power or not, but rather is compelled to sell it if he wishes to live. That compulsion makes the worker susceptible to the most brutal working conditions. Thus, the first step in bringing about substantive freedom from oppressive working conditions and exploitative relations of production is for workers to combine together and push for laws that actually curtail the abstract freedom granted to them in bourgeois society. These measures on the part of workers are vehemently opposed by the bourgeoisie...

[wat0n]

I don't get why risk is so fixated on here as it often takes on a moralistic aspect than an analysis of the generation of surplus value and how it is allocated.
The risk of the worker and the capitalist in itself is related to the conditions of their work in varying ways, but in itself does not create value and thus is irrelevant. You can state how some types of risks can yield great rewards, but one still has to analyze the manner of production and its relation to markets/distribution to consider value, not wow look at this company lead by this celebrity figure try and break into an untapped market.

This is why Marx doesn't consider it in his early (unfinished) volumes of Capital which like Hegel's system of thought, relies on developing simpler categories before showing their necessity and relationships to the more complex. It becomes too fixated on individuals rather than individuals acting within a system/activity that sets limits and motives to how they are to behave within that system.

It's not irrelevant. If a risk-averse investor can get the same returns at a low risk, he'll go for the less risky option.

Since risk does indeed influence decisions, it can't be just ignored because you feel like it.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't get why risk is so fixated on here as it often takes on a moralistic aspect than an analysis of the generation of surplus value and how it is allocated.
The risk of the worker and the capitalist in itself is related to the conditions of their work in varying ways, but in itself does not create value and thus is irrelevant.

Risk is fixated on because it takes on a moralistic aspect: the justification of unilateral allocation of most of the earnings and a lack of accountability.

[Wellsy]

It's not irrelevant. If a risk-averse investor can get the same returns at a low risk, he'll go for the less risky option.

Since risk does indeed influence decisions, it can't be just ignored because you feel like it.

Yes, it can be useful in assessing why one market yields greater returns than another, that it is more lucrative.
But at this point, people are moralizing about what is owed to the capitalist based on that risk and not analyzing the role of the capitalist in the production of a product that is then sold. The risk in itself does not generate any value, it is by taking certain risks, one has the opportunity for the generation of different value and thus different returns.
Just as I might say that a worker takes a risk of moving somewhere else in the hopes of landing a higher paying job. This risk in itself is a precondition for the possibility of a higher wage but itself doesn't create that higher wage, just as the risk in investment is a precondition but doesn't tell us the nature of value and how it should be or in fact is distributed to people in each class.

And even the phrasing here is still too small in scale, if "a risk-averse investor". One is not going to get a generalizable result unless they can show how the single case is exemplary of the larger and systematic trends. One can indeed talk about the dynamics of how capital flows into particular industries based on risk and return. But this is a result of the broader system and isn't a decision made from nothing either.

[wat0n]

Yes, it can be useful in assessing why one market yields greater returns than another, that it is more lucrative.
But at this point, people are moralizing about what is owed to the capitalist based on that risk and not analyzing the role of the capitalist in the production of a product that is then sold. The risk in itself does not generate any value, it is by taking certain risks, one has the opportunity for the generation of different value and thus different returns.
Just as I might say that a worker takes a risk of moving somewhere else in the hopes of landing a higher paying job. This risk in itself is a precondition for the possibility of a higher wage but itself doesn't create that higher wage, just as the risk in investment is a precondition but doesn't tell us the nature of value and how it should be or in fact is distributed to people in each class.

I wouldn't say it's moralizing to say that opportunity costs exist or that risk aversion influences both investment and employment decisions.

I also don't think anyone said risk aversion alone explains each - only that it is part of the mix.

Now, on the other hand, saying how should value be distributed among people... That is moralizing, it definitely is.

And even the phrasing here is still too small in scale, if "a risk-averse investor". One is not going to get a generalizable result unless they can show how the single case is exemplary of the larger and systematic trends. One can indeed talk about the dynamics of how capital flows into particular industries based on risk and return. But this is a result of the broader system and isn't a decision made from nothing either.

You can always find weird people who even like taking risk, do extreme sports, etc - but it seems most people are indeed risk averse.

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdo ... 14-005.pdf

[Wellsy]

I wouldn't say it's moralizing to say that opportunity costs exist or that risk aversion influences both investment and employment decisions.

I also don't think anyone said risk aversion alone explains each - only that it is part of the mix.

Now, on the other hand, saying how should value be distributed among people... That is moralizing, it definitely is.

Indeed, the noticing of opportunity cost wouldn't be moralizing and I would imagine a Ricardo or even Marx may not use such a term but speak of how value is the basis on which investment centers, such that there are trends in investment going to markets that yield higher rewards. It need not require everyone do so, but that there can be such a tendency, just as workers may drift to jobs with higher wages near by and this is part of the tendency towards equillibrium where there is not a substantial or largely an equal basis of wages or profit in different areas so that no one area is higher than another.
It is all very dynamic.

You can always find weird people who even like taking risk, do extreme sports, etc - but it seems most people are indeed risk averse.

https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdo ... 14-005.pdf

Indeed, but individuals tend to also act in a way that reflects the environment they exist within although there are consistent and stable personality traits across situations.
If for example there is a strong incentive to do something and severe consequences to not follow suit or perform as well, regardless of disposition, that is a strong force along normative ideals within an activity to follow regardless of one's individual ideas. There can be inertia to types of activity that might be criticized but can steamroll the attempted individual who tries something different. This is why one can find some scenarios where investment really is like wild gambling among some types and it becomes normative to behave as such.

[wat0n]

I'm pretty sure you can find all sorts of ad-hoc scenarios, and indeed some investors love taking risks. But I would not say it's the norm.

[Unthinking Majority]

As an investor, the only thing that is risked is money. For workers, we risk losing our jobs, our health, our safety, our connection with our family, and many other things through inept management by owners.

Then why haven't you created your own co-op or own business?

[Fasces]

Can you cite any serious Marxian updates to that view regarding opportunity costs?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Marx-Lekt%C3%BCre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

But oppurtunity cost itself is a fictional value based on hypothetical action. The idea that capitalists need compensation for the value of things they did not do is absurd.

But it does affect the profit the capitalist yields and also his investment decisions.

You are begging the question here. The discussion has to do with whether or not individual capitalists should be the primary vector of investment, rather than democratic bodies, and whether investment decisions should be motivated by monetary profit in the first place.

Certainly, the hammer's share goes to its owner. And 50-50 split is quite arbitrary, the distribution of income doesn't really work like that.

It should be more weighted in favor of labor - even the best tools still require labor to maintain and use them.

He may not, actually. Not if he can extract as much rent as possible and then work elsewhere.

A few bad individuals within the pool of workers aren't enough to override the collective goals of the body, and I don't think a whole group of workers are going to vote themselves into unemployment. This critique is more broadly a critique that has been rehashed for centuries, basically a restatement of the idea that individuals without property or land should not vote because they can't be trusted because they don't have 'stake in the game'. Should only landowners vote? Taxpayers?

If you want to democratize businesses, it would probably make more sense to give workers an ownership share. Some businesses do.

In practice though I suspect workers themselves would eventually just decide to use the democratic process (vote) for special matters (e.g. strategy, long term policy) rather than for the day to day operations of businesses. I can imagine the latter would be... Cumbersome.

By giving workers a voice on the board of directors, I do mean electing a representative to that board to act in their interests - not some sort of direct democracy referendum. IE: If a Board of Directors has 6 seats, workers of the firm should be able to pick individuals to serve on a plurality, if not majority, of those seats; the other seats can be chosen by stake-holders.

[wat0n]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neue_Marx-Lekt%C3%BCre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

How do they address opportunity cost?

But oppurtunity cost itself is a fictional value based on hypothetical action. The idea that capitalists need compensation for the value of things they did not do is absurd.

Why?

If an investment project is less profitable than simply lending to the US government, why would any investor aiming to maximize profits do it?

You are begging the question here. The discussion has to do with whether or not individual capitalists should be the primary vector of investment, rather than democratic bodies, and whether investment decisions should be motivated by monetary profit in the first place.

Sounds like a moral statement, not a scientific one.

If you want to motivate investment decisions for reasons other than profit, sure, do it with your own money. Don't expect many others to join you however.

It should be more weighted in favor of labor - even the best tools still require labor to maintain and use them.

And even the best worker can't work well without tools. Ultimately what determines this isn't what you want, but market forces whether one likes it or not.

A few bad individuals within the pool of workers aren't enough to override the collective goals of the body, and I don't think a whole group of workers are going to vote themselves into unemployment. This critique is more broadly a critique that has been rehashed for centuries, basically a restatement of the idea that individuals without property or land should not vote because they can't be trusted because they don't have 'stake in the game'. Should only landowners vote? Taxpayers?

Of course a group of workers can vote themselves into unemployment, if that means they can get a nice severance pay out of it.

And, of course as well, cooperatives fail from time to time, even though those workers actually do have ownership stake in them. That's exactly what happened to most kibbutzim in Israel, and those that survived did so becoming a lot more similar to how normal businesses are.

Also, we're not discussing the managing of a government and the coercive power of the state, but simply how a private business should be conducted. Not that one can say people can truly vote for any and all options under communism anyway.

By giving workers a voice on the board of directors, I do mean electing a representative to that board to act in their interests - not some sort of direct democracy referendum. IE: If a Board of Directors has 6 seats, workers of the firm should be able to pick individuals to serve on a plurality, if not majority, of those seats; the other seats can be chosen by stake-holders.

Sure. I don't think this would address the issues I mentioned, not if the workers don't own the company.

One thing the unions can do, actually, is set up their pension fund and buy some of their company's shares, that could actually let them have a representative in the board all under current laws. But they often don't and they prefer to invest elsewhere for their pensions, oddly enough.

[Fasces]

How do they address opportunity cost?

Oppurtunity cost does not determine the value of a widget.

Sounds like a moral statement, not a scientific one

The thread is literally about the ethics/morality of being a billionaire.

we're not discussing the managing of a government and the coercive power of the state, but simply how a private business should be conducted.

No meaningful difference. They're both social groups organized by people to accomplish tasks.

[wat0n]

Oppurtunity cost does not determine the value of a widget.

If it influences investment decisions, it definitely does determine the value of a project

The thread is literally about the ethics/morality of being a billionaire.

Yet what I said was about the science behind Marxism.

Although, one can't really just ignore the real world when discussing ethics.

No meaningful difference. They're both social groups organized by people to accomplish tasks.

Oh but there is.

A private business cannot compel you to do anything by force, only the state can.

[Rugoz]

The idea that capitalists need compensation for the value of things they did not do is absurd.

They arguably did do those things, by deciding to be capitalists.

You are begging the question here. The discussion has to do with whether or not individual capitalists should be the primary vector of investment, rather than democratic bodies, and whether investment decisions should be motivated by monetary profit in the first place.

The profit motive is only a means to satisfy consumers. The latter vote with their wallet.

Where the market fails, the "democratic body" (i.e. the state) is supposed to step in to protect consumers.

As for the state making all investment decisions. I don't think that has worked out particularly well in the past. Either way, the state would have to save for investment, just like the capitalists.

A few bad individuals within the pool of workers aren't enough to override the collective goals of the body, and I don't think a whole group of workers are going to vote themselves into unemployment. This critique is more broadly a critique that has been rehashed for centuries, basically a restatement of the idea that individuals without property or land should not vote because they can't be trusted because they don't have 'stake in the game'. Should only landowners vote? Taxpayers?

By giving workers a voice on the board of directors, I do mean electing a representative to that board to act in their interests - not some sort of direct democracy referendum. IE: If a Board of Directors has 6 seats, workers of the firm should be able to pick individuals to serve on a plurality, if not majority, of those seats; the other seats can be chosen by stake-holders.

Most people change jobs multiple times in their life, very few change countries. The barrier is much higher. And while people are educated to be patriotic, they aren't exactly educated to be loyal to their company.

Workers are stakeholders in companies to some degree, for example they accumulate firm-specific human capital. But compared to the shareholder value that probably doesn't amount to much (depends on the market value).

In Germany half of board members (or rather the "Aufsichtsrat") in large companies must be worker representatives.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

I see that you are no longer supporting your claim.

—————————-

To get back to the OP:

No, it seems like there are no good billionaires. It seems impossible to become a billionaire without exploiting people.

[Godstud]

There's also no such thing as a good Communist/Socialist, @Pants-of-dog. To them everyone's a victim. That's your narrative. Everyone's being oppressed by something.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You do not seem to have an argument.

————————-

This thread has been a series of non-capitalists explaining basic capitalism to self-proclaimed capitalists, while the capitalists justify the behaviour of billionaires on a moral level.