Why not let people employ each other where they are instead of importing grandpa’s beliefs about how money is produced?

It’s the workers doing that produce the real value, not a rich person holding capital they’ll only spend on us if we capitulate.

Why do we need the age old tale of a shared ephemeral store like religion and fiat finance when we see those things become monopolized and gamed by the previous generation every time?

We need to believe one old person is literally worth 100x the average person?

Who does that benefit?

Most companies are not AT&T. To cite one European example, in Spain 80% of companies are 1-3 employees. Giving the entrepreneur a tax break is a great way to help 80% of employers.

In the US that number might be even higher [0] (99% percent according to that article but we’d have to cross check what “small business” means in this context).

Your rhetoric seems to imply that all companies are owned and managed by greedy monopoly-esque despots wearing a penguin suit and smoking a cigar, but reality just doesn’t follow.

You should also consider the alternative. Where is wealth generated if not through companies? Is it the government? In this scheme, the government is the company and covers 100% of business. How’s a government different than the closed board of a monopolic company? Or are they just “the good ones” and therefore somehow immune to produce injustice? To me, as you can probably tell, this notion is naive at best.

I have no issues with taxing the super rich a lot more. I don’t think anyone needs to be worth USD 185 Billion. However, I’m not sour about it and don’t believe a “revolution” is the only solution. Far from it. We’ve dealt with this before: it’s about regulation and policy. Very incremental.

IMHO what makes fairness is a social ladder. As long as there’s a way for the willing, there’s fairness. Any immigrant will tell you as much.

[0] https://www.fundera.com/blog/small-business-employment-and-g...

Why must the masses be tethered to a monopolized ephemeral value store?

None of us owe servitude to old debts, contracts, wives tales, sonnets, limericks, hymns, poems, stories.

When the world changes it does so because society decides there are different words to better represent its goals.

Laws are no longer based upon the words of Gods. The rich are not Gods. They don’t represent meritorious effort when they’re inheriting and being gifted wealth with no strings (see Trump admin and covid payouts, it’s still happening under Biden; he’s just less gaudy.)

Why not just logistical distribution of materials to boost communal health, etc.

The masses are already used to only being able afford a vacation every X months. Working off a home for X years.

Why do we still enable a minority to shrug off the same responsibility in deference to old contracts none of us are legally obligated to mind?

You're not reading me. We are the companies. 99% of companies are small business. No such monopoly.

I’m not disputing the value of collective effort.

I’m disputing our implementation that favors minority capture of collective effort.

Why do I need to be a “company”?

We already have a system of collective effort called “government”.

Why another layer of abstraction?

Why must they run on grandpa’s fiscal beliefs, and previously brokered debt servicing and network effects?

> Why not let people employ each other where they are instead of importing grandpa’s beliefs about how money is produced?

Corporations and small businesses already do this

> It’s the workers doing that produce the real value, not a rich person holding capital they’ll only spend on us if we capitulate.

Yes, but the worker is fungible. The capital holder was entrusted with the money and risk. Workers have little risk, they can walk away from a company at any time. The capital holder is stuck.

> Why do we need the age old tale of a shared ephemeral store like religion and fiat finance when we see those things become monopolized and gamed by the previous generation every time?

What is the alternative? It isn't communism or socialism, both have failed numerous times before.

Also, you're posting on a board for capitalists. YC literally bets capital on moonshots to get a return on investment.

> We need to believe one old person is literally worth 100x the average person?

If the old person, had the capital and took the risk, then yes financial value is higher. In terms of being a person, no, they both go in the same box at the end.

> Who does that benefit?

Society. Jobs created a new economy by introducing the iPhone. YC gambles on new companies that benefit society. The phone in your pocket, the internet and computer you use employees tons of people. More than any government jobs program could.

But the example you're responding to does employ people. A surgeon will have to hire a whole host of employees to run his outpatient clinic. Or if she works in a hospital, an entire team will be built around her.

Plus there is the fairness issue. Corporations are just groups of people working together. So why does a single surgeon not get to be treated as the economic growth engine she is, but two surgeons can incorporate and get special treatment?

Because if the surgery/hospital operates at a loss (which they often do), they also get to carry forward those losses to deduct in future years. That's just notionally separate from the salary that the surgeon personally receives from the practice.

None of that makes sense. The corporation they work for employs people, and you can start a company by yourself.