Hacker News Reader

Comment by estearum | Hacker News Reader

If you think Rockefeller (especially) is an example of unalloyed greed, you unfortunately land in category (1) mentioned above.

The problem is not wealth. The problem is not producing massive value and capturing a portion of it.

The problem is thinking that the system-level goal of capitalism is to extract wealth rather than to produce it and distribute it. Of the men you listed, only Vanderbilt supports your argument.

View on HN

I would be fascinated to hear what value you think JP Morgan created rather than moved around. His company continues to do so long after his death.

If you don't think underwriting and lending (and extended universe of financial services) are legitimate forms of value creation, I'm afraid that a hackernews comment thread won't be up to the task of demonstrating otherwise.

... Aren't we back to a definition, then, that includes tech companies adding value too? All the free services I use every day I would consider value for me. Instant free search, fast home delivery, insightful educational content (90s educational TV had no competition over modern educational YouTube). Etc etc. I see fewer ads than I did in the 90s, too.

I certainly didn't argue that tech companies don't add value.

Theres a reason American capital markets and tech go hand in hand after all. Just read the recent Mistral thread about the lack of capital in Europe and why Mistral seems largely third rate in the AI frontiers.

Rockefeller, the “competition is sin” guy, sure that has nothing to do with greed. His philanthropy had a positive impact but he was still an unethical business person hellbent on stopping anyone else from making money on his turf

Shareholder primacy certainly is relatively new, but it's also true that "the system-level goal of capitalism is to extract wealth". After that, hopefully we use that capital to produce and distribute goods "fairly".

But Capitalism isn't synonymous with the free market, or any other market configuration, and it's totally possible for the people who control the means of production and distribution to... not produce or distribute. In fact, that may be advantageous in their efforts to secure more capital.

Ultimately, "they" really always have been greedy villains. Shareholder supremacy just made it worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com