From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Nov 18 2002 - 15:19:42 MST
Technotranscendence wrote:
>I posted this yesterday morning, but no one responded to it, so I'm
>posting it again:
>
>Do [any of] you believe that the only or important value of a company is
>its technological innovations? (I would use value here to be economic
>value, but it can also mean personal value.)
>
>Your answer to this has important implications for judging Microsoft and
>other IT companies.
>
>Cheers!
>
>Dan
>http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
>
No. One could hardly claim that the only value of any computer company
was it's technical innovations. True technical innovations are quite
rare, and usually un-patentable. (It's only the cheap knock-offs that
are patentable.) The value of a company lies in the increase in the
median level of wealth in the population that is created by it's
presence vs. its absence. This is, unfortunately, quite difficult to
even estimate. And even so, is an oversimplification. If the median
wealth doubled, but the wealth of the lower 1/3 of the population
declined, then I would still evaluate the company as a net loss for the
community, as maldistribution of wealth is, in-and-of itself, a major
element of illth. And wealth is definitely not measurable by currency.
It's a more subtle concept, and is, itself, quite difficult to measure,
but includes things like degree of happiness, hopes for the future,
choices available, etc. The physical surrogates of these capabilities
are only stand-ins for the true wealth. Wealth isn't owning a car, it's
being able to get where I want, when I want, comfortably, quickly,
conveniently, and with the degree of social interaction that I choose
with the people that I choose. A car is to an extent a way to
accomplish this, and to that extent represents wealth.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:13 MST