Hacker News Reader

Comment by dotBen | Hacker News Reader

"to maximize shareholder value"

You know, philosophically speaking, not every company has to do that. And before someone steps in and quotes 'fiduciary responsibility for shareholder returns', I'm a VC and I run a VC fund so I'm acutely aware.

Now, if you take venture funding then that's a different story. But there are countless businesses - from small mom+pop to larger ones like Bob's Red Mills - which are operating for higher purposes than just shareholder returns. See B Corps generally. And the world is better place for it. I tuck into a bowl of Bob's oatmeal every morning and I'll be fucked if I'm buying Great Mills or PepsiCo (Quaker Oats) big company shit.

"he committed the cardinal sin of making the employees owners instead of fully capturing the excess capital of his means of production and offshoring production entirely to focus on branding"

Many would say this was anything but a cardinal sin. Try reading fewer Ayn Rand books.

View on HN

It was pretty clear to me that the above poster was "defending YC" by explaining that YC is doing the right thing for their value system; Bob's Red Mill instead pushed against the capitalist narrative rather than seek to maximize profits and grow at all costs.

I think the implicit suggestion which you seem to have missed, in referring to valuing humans above profits as "the cardinal sin", is that it's only a sin from within this framework, which is usually at odds with the opposing framework which values human welfare above company health.

Perhaps my own bias is showing, but this specific application of irony (making light of the harms of capitalism by singing its praises while using highly sensationalized rhetoric) is something I do as well.

Not a fan of Ayn Rand, but it is a bit tiresome to see her name dropped to illustrate a caricature.

Value is subjective. Bob valued employee ownership. He realized profits within his own value framework. Nothing here violates the principles of private property or voluntary association. If anything, Bob's success is a testament to the validity of the core libertarian premises.

Perhaps careful reading of opposing viewpoints is the solution here?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

Value is not subjective. It is objective. A foodstuff is valuable as nourishment, because it has the objective potential to nourish a human person. The value of a strawberry may not be accessible to someone with a strawberry allergy, but it maintains that value.

Where the organization of labor and ownership are concerned, there may very well exist various legitimate ways to do so, conditioned by circumstance and constrained by basic objective moral principles (like justice). The value such arrangements provide to various parties may differ.

> The value of a strawberry may not be accessible to someone with a strawberry allergy, but it maintains that value.

> Value is not subjective. It is objective.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements. The value of a strawberry not being "accessible" may as well not be there for that person who is allergic to strawberries, and in that way it is subjective. One person may prefer to drink beer over wine and another vice versa; it would be strange to claim that beer and wine are objectively equally valuable to both of those people.

Charge, mass, velocity, and spin are objective. Value exists only in the eye of the beholder.

In all of Ayn Rands books her heroes refuse to compromise their integrity and product quality despite external pressures, and lose out on making a profit as a result. Randian heroes do what Bob did, not what modern wall street capitalists do.

Which makes Ayn Rand's heroes better than the douchebags we have IRL.

> Try reading fewer Ayn Rand books.

in ops's defense, he's specifically stating that his statement is from a neoliberal classical view. which would be entirely accurate. It not necessarily HIS personal opinion.

I guess I could read you a statement from Mein Kampf if you want. Not necessarily MY opinion... and it certainly wouldn't be.

But my point is, why would I do that? In both of these examples I can only assume one writes out an opinion because it's close to the one they hold themselves. I don't go around advocating opinions I don't actually hold myself.

> I guess I could read you a statement from Mein Kampf if you want. Not necessarily MY opinion... and it certainly wouldn't be.

with all due respect, being able to take a assertion or make a reasoned argument within the context of a logical framework outside your personal beliefs is a prerequisite to be a judge or lawyer or engineer.

beyond mere "devils argument", it is valuable to be able to evaluate an idea in its context. one could argue for all sorts of things from the context of Mein Kampf and not personally believe it. it could be used a rhetorical device for framing a narrative in a way that lets others view it objectively.

>being able to take a assertion or make a reasoned argument within the context of a logical framework outside your personal beliefs is a prerequisite to be a judge or lawyer or engineer.

Add analyzing the incentives and actions of 3rd parties generally. An important skill all-around.

> I guess I could read you a statement from Mein Kampf if you want. Not necessarily MY opinion... and it certainly wouldn't be.

the difference is that you use it knowingly as a threat, and have seemingly decided that anything you deem threatening must have been done on purpose to hurt you.

>But my point is, why would I do that?

Simple. You wouldn't read a statement from Mein Kampf, because no one in their right mind except for some neo-Nazis believes that trash. However, if you lived in a society full of and run by neo-Nazis, then yes, it would be entirely relevant to read a statement from that book even if you don't personally believe it.

In our case, our society really is full of and run by neoliberal classical believers, so it makes perfect sense to state that point of view, and then counter at the end. And it's not just modern society; I'd say that HN, in particular, has even more believers in that kind of philosophy than mainstream society (where it's mainly the people at the top who believe and practice it).

Dude, he’s being sarcastic

Reply on news.ycombinator.com