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.
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.
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.
This is the same reason the bank asks for an independent valuation of a house (and requires the buyer to maintain insurance) before releasing the money to pay for it: The value of the collateral needs to plausibly match the value of the loan, so that the value of the loan can be recovered in case of default.
The only way this works is for the founder to personally guarantee the loan. Which means the founder needs to have sufficient personal assets to keep the bank happy. It also means the founder risks personal bankruptcy if those assets are not enough to cover the loan if the startup defaults.
The company will have some value left on default. E.g if it's a software company it will have the IP for the software etc pp
Now wherever that's enough for anyone to be willing to take that risk with the loan is another story and thus I could now quote my previous comment in its entirety
I acknowledged as much... In both comments even.
Failed startups don’t have value left at the end. They go until they run out of money. Then they liquidate the office furniture to make the last payroll. Sometimes they don’t wrap up early enough and the founder and board members are personally liable for it.
Nobody wants to buy the custom software needed to run “The pets.com for GenAI” because it would be cheaper to start from scratch than to understand the codebase and make it do what you want.
Companies like 23-and-me that accumulate valuable data while going bankrupt are the rare exception… but banks/VCs do not know a-priori which ones will be that exception! If they did, they just wouldn’t make the bad loans in the first place!
> Now wherever that's enough for anyone to be willing to take that risk
Well, but it clearly isn’t, right? So everything else you wrote is sort of irrelevant.
I mean, why don’t you lend a startup $1000 on the condition they pay you back $1500 in two years[1] if they succeed and nothing if they fail? Pass the hat around your neighborhood and I bet you could fund a few real startups!
Except that.. oh.. when it’s your money on the line, suddenly you realize those are very stupid terms. You lose the whole $1000 90% of the time, break even 5% of the time and make a +$500 profit 5% of the time. The math isn’t mathing here.
So you’ll want to very carefully vet the founders and their plan. Be very picky about who you fund. Maybe you’ll ask them to personally guarantee some fraction of the loan. Suddenly, your highly moral terms look exactly like the business loans that approximately 0% of startups use because VCs offer them a better deal.
[1] Any more than that would be usury, which is immoral, right?
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.
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.
But this comment only makes sense when starting from a whole bunch of assumptions, which happen to be true right here and now, but are in no way universal.
Let me make a comparison: "If to someone it makes sense to carry a flamethrower to the grocery store to defend against thieves, what exactly is wrong with that?" What's wrong is a society where that kind of defense is necessary! We shouldn't be debating whether the individual should carry a flamethrower to the grocery store, we should be discussing how to improve society so they don't have to.
Also, rich people don't get to create a problem and also claim credit for solving it (with money).
Edit: much better analogy.
Yeah, like I said, you completely missed the point of my comment. Here, let me fix the analogy for you:
A: The fact that people drive cars on roads is a bug, not a feature.
B: A bug where? Like, in people's minds for thinking that driving cars on roads is a practical mode of transportation?
C: People should be able to walk to work.
Do you see how C's reply to B is a non sequitur? It doesn't answer the question that was posed, it presents an irrelevant "should", and even if one is generous enough to grant that people should be able to walk to work, it doesn't make choosing to drive cars on roads for other purposes an irrational decision. And, and, it most certainly doesn't make it irrational in the world we actually live in.
EDIT:
>We shouldn't be debating whether the individual should carry a flamethrower to the grocery store, we should be discussing how to improve society so they don't have to.
I don't appreciate being told what is or isn't okay to talk about.
To borrow your analogy: there is, in fact, major issue in people driving cars on roads. This is why many cities elect to reduce car use by means of policy. This is accomplished because there's a dialectic where "should" translates into "must." It's called governance.
I have not failed to do it, I have chosen not to do it. I asked a specific question and received as an answer something that's totally irrelevant. I am decidedly not interested in whether "it would be possible to have a system where startups to require less funding, for example, by UBI, or normalizing bootstrapping". It has nothing to do with my original comment, and I'm not going to engage with it.
Ok, well, I personally really like driving a car with zero tailpipe emissions, and the cleaner air that comes from it (Tesla).
I think it’s awesome having a little rectangle in my pocket that sends text messages from anywhere on earth and summons an encyclopedia (Apple, Google, Starlink, Intel).
I enjoy talking to (and seeing) my friends and family while they are thousands of miles away (Cisco, Apple, and many others).
I think it is fantastic that we continue to find new labor-saving methods of farming so that fewer people need toil in the fields (the current batch of ag-drone and ag-AI startups).
This is like asking “well, why do we need that science mumbo jumbo anyhow?”
There's a subtle difference and it shows by how we even see wealth. We associate wealth with utility to society. That is, after all, why we create economies. We want to reward those who make society better.
But that's where there's been a disconnect. We figured out we could make money without pushing society forward. We'd historically refer to those people by different names... worse than that, we are focused on the short term. Silicon Valley has perfected the hype cycle. You get in cheap, pump up the price, sell, and do it all over again. It does not matter if it is vaporware, it matters that you can make a profit.
The problem is alignment. The economy is not aligned with its intentions.
Do we see much innovation these days? Is there even an incentive? No doubt there's innovation, but people are claiming it is accelerating. I'm unconvinced we're innovating faster than we did in the 90's. That decade changed society more than the 00's and 10's, even with the advent of the smartphone.
Unlike the author, I'm actually in favor of capitalism, yet I firmly believe that an economy still needs to by well regulated. There's very few economists who believe such regulation does not need to exist (we listen to partisans more than actual economists), and I've found even the most staunch free-market believers (often not actual economists) will have concessions. It's no secret that an unregulated market is not a free market. An unregulated market is a market regulated by the largest entities of the market.
It is probably no surprise that those who cannot think long term are unable to realize that the rise in popularity of socialism is due to the abuse of capitalism. Most people do not have a strong foundation in economics (why should they! They're spending years learning other skills than years reading textbooks, analyzing, and going to school). But people do know our system isn't working. Is it really more cost effective to build bunkers and buy private islands than it is to make the lives of the people better? I doubt it. But that's the same myopia I've discussed in my entire comment. The problem is how myopic we've become
They also have several older articles directly targeting insider trading by politicians.
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.
One could probably say that the privatisation of human communication is a form of "initial accumulation", or maybe just another step toward appropriation of culture, but that's apparently not the angle that the author decided to explore (can't be sure, I couldn't do better than skim that text which looked wrong in too many ways).
Marx’s writing predates the US civil war. When you “own” someone and then “own” their labor the fruits of that labor aren’t yours any more than the person. By that reasoning, if you then use the fruits of that labor to buy a house it’s a stolen house.
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"
But that's indeed not what you were saying.
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?
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.)
I'm not sure how to square this statement with reality. Which countries were Marxist? The obvious "communist"/"socialist" country was the USSR, but it was Leninist/Stalinist.
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 they would only accept payment in this sort of lifetime wage equity. Then it's not really a choice anymore. One of the options has been taken away from you. If I take a fair deal and have one of the counterparties flat out remove some of the negotiating options - even if they were not the ones taken - is it still a fair deal?
In other words, the argument that fair exchange has been violated is based on the idea that market power can be a form of coercion. If you don't agree, then you can argue that every possible counterparty deciding to only offer you a bad deal is perfectly acceptable and non-coercive. "Natural shorts[0] are not coercion", in other words. But why stop there? I mean, even in outright theft, where I'm holding a literal gun to your head and demanding payment, you could still choose to eat lead. We can redefine theft and coercion down to excuse any behavior we want on libertarian terms. The tautology is not with the argument, it's with fair exchange itself.
[0] As in, "thing you need to exist". You have a natural short position in food, drink, and shelter.
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.