[andrepd]

A certain 19th century German thinker wrote abundantly on that issue :-) It's not just creative endeavours.

The fact that access to capital is not evenly distributed means that those who don't have it have to surrender their surplus value to those that have it.

[bobxmax]

How does that remotely apply here? If she has the value, why didn't she distribute it herself?

[greenavocado]

It's the story of the United Fruit Company (UFC) all over again.

The oligarchs have put in place roadblocks to free distribution and free enterprise with many historical parallels.

UFC deliberately acquired lands containing key water sources, which gave them control over entire agricultural regions.

Major streaming platforms acquire exclusive distribution rights to popular IP franchises, controlling access to valuable content "watersheds" that audiences already want.

In countries like Guatemala and Honduras, UFC company built extensive irrigation systems that they controlled exclusively, making surrounding farms dependent on their cooperation.

Dominant platforms control recommendation algorithms and user interfaces that determine content discovery, making independent creators dependent on these "irrigation systems" to reach audiences.

UFC secured favorable water rights legislation in many countries, often through political influence, giving them priority access during droughts or shortages.

Large media conglomerates lobby for favorable copyright and licensing frameworks, often extending protection periods or creating barriers that disproportionately benefit established players.

In some cases, UFC would redirect water to their plantations, leaving independent farmers with insufficient irrigation during critical growing periods.

Platforms can suddenly change recommendation algorithms or promotional strategies, redirecting audience "flow" to preferred content and leaving independent creators with insufficient visibility.

UFC built and controlled private railroad networks (like the Northern Railway in Costa Rica) that were often the only viable way to transport bananas to ports before they spoiled.

Major platforms control the technical infrastructure for content delivery, forcing creators to use their systems under their terms to reach audiences before content becomes irrelevant.

UFC owned or controlled most major port facilities needed for export, creating a bottleneck they controlled entirely.

Key content aggregation points (app stores, streaming platforms) operate as essential "ports" that creators must pass through, with these gatekeepers taking significant revenue percentages.

In more remote regions, UFC maintained the only usable roads, effectively controlling who could move products to market.

Social media platforms maintain the only viable pathways to audience building in many genres, controlling which creators gain visibility through opaque algorithmic decisions.

UFC's fleet of refrigerated ships controlled the actual export logistics, completing their vertical integration.

The largest media companies control integrated marketing, distribution, and monetization systems that independent creators cannot replicate, completing their vertical integration advantage.

This infrastructure control meant that even farmers who maintained their land independence faced a stark choice: sell to UFC at their offered prices or watch crops rot without access to transportation networks. Many small farmers eventually sold their land simply because independent operation became economically impossible under these conditions.

Just as farmers with technically "independent" land still couldn't effectively operate without UFC's infrastructure, many content creators today maintain technical ownership of their intellectual property but face nearly impossible odds without access to the distribution infrastructure controlled by major platforms and media companies.

[MrBuddyCasino]

[flagged]

[danielvaughn]

If you’ve seen the show, you’d know that this artists’ work was deeply instrumental to the creation of the wealth. It would be one thing if the author was an associate grabbing coffees and scheduling meetings.

In this case, not getting a royalty for their contribution is shameful.

[MrBuddyCasino]

I agree it is shameful. This is however not the issue that is being discussed here.

Fyi, George Lucas made sure everyone involved in Star Wars got taken care of.

[polotics]

Are you sure you read the parent post? It was not about wealth being immanent at all as I read it, it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

[lotsofpulp]

Doesn’t the British government and/or Australian government own Bluey?

What capital is there to own? Maybe Ludo Studios negotiated a piece of the pie for themselves, but I doubt it is much in the grand scheme of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluey_(TV_series)

> It was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Broadcasting Corporation, with BBC Studios holding global distribution and merchandising rights.

[dahart]

The government part is a good point, this is not the best example of a capitalist endeavor.

> What capital is there to own?

The rights you mentioned is part of the ‘capital’ - these days capital and ‘means of production’ certainly involve intellectual property. I think it always did - capital was always referring to ownership - but the mix is starting to lean heavily on intangibles now, with software running so much of the world. The ABC & BBC capital used to include tons of high power broadcasting equipment, but maybe that mostly going or gone now?

[lotsofpulp]

I didn’t mean capital in the accounting sense, I meant receiving capital as remuneration as opposed to a salary. The more accurate word would have been equity, but I was using the term polotics used:

>it was about capital ownership granting full access to work-created value.

[dahart]

What do you mean? @plotics wasn’t talking about remuneration for products or services, nor equity. “Capital ownership” in the sentence you quoted is referring to the company, the ol’ ownership of the means of production. “Granting full access to work-created value” means the owners (investors, CEO, etc.) would split profits among workers rather than keep the profits for themselves.

[tomhow]

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Uehreka]

After the number of times I’ve seen people invoke the HN guidelines to trample good spirited discussions there should be a guideline against quoting the guidelines.

[input_sh]

If anyone's entitled to quote the guidelines, it's the mod you're replying to.

[dredmorbius]

Announcement: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43558671>

[suddenlybananas]

Or maybe the people who actually build that wealth deserve to keep it.

[dahart]

How do you think wealth works? Regardless of your political stance or economic beliefs, that doesn’t seem like a very informed or thoughtful summary of Marx, who I assume is who the parent comment was referring to, and was one of the more influential economists of all time. Have you read Marx? He might have thought and written about wealth more than both you and me. FWIW he didn’t argue that wealth somehow exists, he argued that for business owners, wealth stems from the discrepancy between what laborers are paid and what their employers collect. He went much further than that, but that much is technically true, right?