[Frost1x]

Not sure I believe emergentism. While it may be difficult to quantify, I don't find the "whole greater than the sum of its parts," just the perception of the sum being greater than its parts or the reality hiding in the complexity from us mere mortals.

Without emergent properties (your work + my work < our work), it really is a zero sum game. To me, you may be able to manipulate perception of value in this fashion but that's where it ends (which to be fair, is often enough).

[kbutler]

No, differential preferences make free exchange a positive sum game (economic surplus/gains from trade). Emergent properties can magnify the value, but are not necessary.

The apple farmer sells apples because (he considers) the money is worth more than the apples. Consumers buy apples because (they consider) the apples are worth more than the money.

  My perceived benefit - my compensation to you > 0 (I win = consumer surplus)
  My compensation to you - your perceived cost > 0 (You win = producer surplus)

If either one of those is not true, no voluntary exchange takes place. In compelled exchange, only the first needs to be true. This takes various forms, including taxation, robbery, and slavery.

Note that those two equations are from two individual perspectives - I determine my benefit, you determine your cost. If you simplify to "benefit > your cost" and compel the exchange, you get a dystopia - compulsion "for the benefit of all/others/king/etc.", without realizing the full costs to those compelled to sacrifice. Voluntary exchange is required to allow each individual to determine their own benefits and costs.

Note also that this incorporates transaction costs inside the "benefit" or "cost". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem for more info.

[sdenton4]

It would be interesting to try worker co-ops for software... It is a woefully underexplored space. I expect three is /some/ emergent value (eg, I don't really do ux worth a damn...), and a worker co-op could get there without needing to get huge.