zlacker

>>JimDab+(OP)
I don't buy it. If you listen to Sam and Greg, they want to change the world and bring us into a world of abundance that everyone can participate in. They were the ideators of this "awkward non-profit owning a for-profit company".

Microsoft is setup to create shareholder value. That's it. Both of them will eventually find it moot to advance tech so a few folks get richer.

>>zurfer+z8
If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. Sam's history is full of the worst parts of venture capital and startup mindset. He's only an idealist so far as he's good at selling the ideal outcome and drowning out any criticism.

>>Araina+5b
You can bring abundance to the world as a for profit entity.

The exchange of services and goods in a market is positive-sum.

>>konsch+vr
> The exchange of services and goods in a market is positive-sum.

As long as you ignore externalities, yes.

>>bart_s+dP
Even if you consider all externalities, trade is positive-sum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_thinking

>>konsch+q31
i'm legitimately trying to understand your position. can you please explain to me how trade that contributes to climate change is positive sum?

>>greeni+cf1
Why should all trade contribute to climate change?

If I have a solar panel factory, and I sell you a panel, so you can make green electricity - isn't that good for you, me AND the planet?

>>konsch+nR1
lol ok. dunno if you're trying to deflect or genuinely being serious.

>>greeni+9r9
What is your point again?

>>konsch+js9
i'm curious to hear an argument about how trade is always positive sum like you claimed with this comment:

> Even if you consider all externalities, trade is positive-sum.

even if the business pollutes the environment or contributes to climate change in an outlier way?

>>greeni+xB9
I didn't say that all trade is positive-sum. I said that some is.

You're arguing a straw man. Which means your reading comprehension is bad or you're intentionally mudding the waters. Either way, I think we're good here.