8 ms·

Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if i

Business is a social construct and we can un-construct it if it proves no longer to be the socially valuable way to do things. It's there to serve humans. if it doesn't do that, it's a parasite, drag it out behind the shed and shoot it.

WalterBright 11y ago
If people find a business's product valuable enough that they'd pay their own money for it, then it serves a valuable purpose.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Overly small scale perspective. Exaggerated scenario for clarity: your one starving human buying survival kibble from a fully automated megacorporation is better off with the kibble and without the pittance they spent on it, an infinitesimal amount of value was created. But humanity as a whole would be better off overthrowing the business system and directing the machines to make every human's life a paradise. Systems should be compared as systems, not as piecemeal and mostly-forced decisions.
  - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
    No, not at all. I think in all the comments here, there is an egregious error. The error is in totally ignoring the concept of economics or failing the recognize the reality of scarcity. It's not a "social construct"in any non-trivial sense. People throw that "social construct" thing around as if it is at all relevant. You could say the "law of identity" is a social construct and you don't accept ... Ok that's fine, it just means you, and I mean this only literally, don't accept "logic." To "make every human's life a paradise" is also quite literally to either reject the concept of scarcity or to think you would create some sort "Matrix" like environment, some weird sci-fi stuff, which is fun to talk about but not a solid economics argument.
    - Spooky23 11y ago
      That's absurdity. If economics were the end all, be all, we'd live in a planned economy dominated by a small cartel of businesses. Society rejected that 100+ years ago. Recall that until recently, the folks concerning themselves with money were not at the top of the social heap -- with good reason.
      - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
        Based on your usage, this is totally wrong notion of "absurdity." What I wrote is actually correct. I'm not sure what "economics were the end all be all means" but economics is a method by which to understand the "world" under the circumstance of scarcity. I suggest reading a little more of it; it's an interesting topic. Actually, I don't think this makes any sense. Economics is not about describing a perfect society or something. Don't be silly. :) It's about understanding reality. Agents engage in activity described by economic principles under the condition of scarcity. I know that seems sad or something I guess to some. It's like climate change doesn't care if you believe it's real or not. It's just the way it is ... under the condition of scarcity.
        pitay 11y ago
        Most economists didn't predict the Global Financial Crisis. Given that you have to wonder about the utility of the so called 'economics' and whether statements made by economists are true. Feel free to correct me or give more information, I am perfectly fine with being educated.
tmptmp 11y ago
The Marxists and communists have tried doing that thing many times and have failed spectacularly. Business based market economy is the only (till now) successful and socially most beneficial type of society that has ever existed. I upvoted the OP because he/she/it (it may be a bot) has put this thing in clear words.
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Up until now, the possibility of having a group of people who lead a leisure life without an undercaste of slaves hasn't existed. Automation is a new thing under the sun.
  - hjhgjtyhdf 11y ago
    That's funny because the "slaves" in America right now enjoy a higher standard of living than virtually every king and queen before our generation.
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      Kings and queens didn't have to work 70 hour weeks to feed themselves last I checked.
      - hjhgyhgd 11y ago
        A person on welfare today has more access to a vast number of food options than Kings and Queens of yesteryear. Grapes and wine are extremely cheap and affordable to anyone who has $5 in their pocket. A full meal of chicken and rice can also be had for $3.
        astazangasta 11y ago
        My word, their cups floweth over.
    - pharke 11y ago
jrmurad 11y ago
"un-construct it... drag it out behind the shed and shoot it." Can you "un-construct" this newspeak for us? It sounds like you're advocating that you or some other force besides free and voluntary trade should literally shut down private businesses, possibly beating and robbing their owners in the process (as has been done historically)? Because there's some formula for determining "social value" which has "number of employees" as a factor?
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  Humanity, a sufficient majority thereof, simply stops playing the game. Money was a concept. It is now ignored. Corporations were a concept. They are no longer believed in. Ownership is a bouncing cheque with nobody caring to cash it. Most people stop playing "private business". You owned a railway? It's been automated. You owned a steel foundry? It's been automated. It answers to the world direct democracy, not to you. It's busy making things for free. And everyone else is busy doing their vocations. If you wanna go hide in a valley, sell things to each other and hope for civilization to vanish, go right ahead.
  - jrmurad 11y ago
    You earlier referred to Business as a potential "parasite". Sounds like you are clarifying that you hope such a parasite will starve and wither away. Which is fine. Others might advocate taking proactive and violent measures to kill something which they deem to be parasitic.
  - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
    What you're saying doesn't make sense. Again, your position ignores scarcity and act as if economics is something like a "big bad boogey man" cooked up or something weird like that. The steel foundry example is interesting. Does it have an infinite amount of raw materials? Is it utilizing a perpetual energy machine? To me this like if the professor asks the class "where does the electricity in your class come from?" and the students respond "The socket!"
    - 11y ago
xkcd-sucks 11y ago
It's not there to serve itself, in the sense that an ant colony is there to serve itself?
elcapitan 11y ago
The problem with "dragging out behind the shed and shooting it" is that the people who propagate it usually start with other people. Thanks 20th century, but no thanks.
eanzenberg 11y ago
Hi Venezuela, nice to meet you.
xiaoma 11y ago
Interestingly though, it's just now becoming possible to build a fully autonomous, distributed company on Etherium. In theory there's no way to tell if such an entity were controlled by humans or an AI.

WalterBright 11y ago

If people find a business's product valuable enough that they'd pay their own money for it, then it serves a valuable purpose.

JulianMorrison 11y ago
Overly small scale perspective. Exaggerated scenario for clarity: your one starving human buying survival kibble from a fully automated megacorporation is better off with the kibble and without the pittance they spent on it, an infinitesimal amount of value was created. But humanity as a whole would be better off overthrowing the business system and directing the machines to make every human's life a paradise. Systems should be compared as systems, not as piecemeal and mostly-forced decisions.
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  No, not at all. I think in all the comments here, there is an egregious error. The error is in totally ignoring the concept of economics or failing the recognize the reality of scarcity. It's not a "social construct"in any non-trivial sense. People throw that "social construct" thing around as if it is at all relevant. You could say the "law of identity" is a social construct and you don't accept ... Ok that's fine, it just means you, and I mean this only literally, don't accept "logic." To "make every human's life a paradise" is also quite literally to either reject the concept of scarcity or to think you would create some sort "Matrix" like environment, some weird sci-fi stuff, which is fun to talk about but not a solid economics argument.
  - Spooky23 11y ago
    That's absurdity. If economics were the end all, be all, we'd live in a planned economy dominated by a small cartel of businesses. Society rejected that 100+ years ago. Recall that until recently, the folks concerning themselves with money were not at the top of the social heap -- with good reason.
    - dinkumthinkum 11y ago
      Based on your usage, this is totally wrong notion of "absurdity." What I wrote is actually correct. I'm not sure what "economics were the end all be all means" but economics is a method by which to understand the "world" under the circumstance of scarcity. I suggest reading a little more of it; it's an interesting topic. Actually, I don't think this makes any sense. Economics is not about describing a perfect society or something. Don't be silly. :) It's about understanding reality. Agents engage in activity described by economic principles under the condition of scarcity. I know that seems sad or something I guess to some. It's like climate change doesn't care if you believe it's real or not. It's just the way it is ... under the condition of scarcity.
      - pitay 11y ago
        Most economists didn't predict the Global Financial Crisis. Given that you have to wonder about the utility of the so called 'economics' and whether statements made by economists are true. Feel free to correct me or give more information, I am perfectly fine with being educated.

tmptmp 11y ago

The Marxists and communists have tried doing that thing many times and have failed spectacularly. Business based market economy is the only (till now) successful and socially most beneficial type of society that has ever existed. I upvoted the OP because he/she/it (it may be a bot) has put this thing in clear words.

JulianMorrison 11y ago
Up until now, the possibility of having a group of people who lead a leisure life without an undercaste of slaves hasn't existed. Automation is a new thing under the sun.
- hjhgjtyhdf 11y ago
  That's funny because the "slaves" in America right now enjoy a higher standard of living than virtually every king and queen before our generation.
  - astazangasta 11y ago
    Kings and queens didn't have to work 70 hour weeks to feed themselves last I checked.
    - hjhgyhgd 11y ago
      A person on welfare today has more access to a vast number of food options than Kings and Queens of yesteryear. Grapes and wine are extremely cheap and affordable to anyone who has $5 in their pocket. A full meal of chicken and rice can also be had for $3.
      - astazangasta 11y ago
        My word, their cups floweth over.
  - pharke 11y ago

jrmurad 11y ago

"un-construct it... drag it out behind the shed and shoot it." Can you "un-construct" this newspeak for us? It sounds like you're advocating that you or some other force besides free and voluntary trade should literally shut down private businesses, possibly beating and robbing their owners in the process (as has been done historically)? Because there's some formula for determining "social value" which has "number of employees" as a factor?

JulianMorrison 11y ago
Humanity, a sufficient majority thereof, simply stops playing the game. Money was a concept. It is now ignored. Corporations were a concept. They are no longer believed in. Ownership is a bouncing cheque with nobody caring to cash it. Most people stop playing "private business". You owned a railway? It's been automated. You owned a steel foundry? It's been automated. It answers to the world direct democracy, not to you. It's busy making things for free. And everyone else is busy doing their vocations. If you wanna go hide in a valley, sell things to each other and hope for civilization to vanish, go right ahead.
- jrmurad 11y ago
  You earlier referred to Business as a potential "parasite". Sounds like you are clarifying that you hope such a parasite will starve and wither away. Which is fine. Others might advocate taking proactive and violent measures to kill something which they deem to be parasitic.
- dinkumthinkum 11y ago
  What you're saying doesn't make sense. Again, your position ignores scarcity and act as if economics is something like a "big bad boogey man" cooked up or something weird like that. The steel foundry example is interesting. Does it have an infinite amount of raw materials? Is it utilizing a perpetual energy machine? To me this like if the professor asks the class "where does the electricity in your class come from?" and the students respond "The socket!"
  - 11y ago

xkcd-sucks 11y ago

It's not there to serve itself, in the sense that an ant colony is there to serve itself?

elcapitan 11y ago

The problem with "dragging out behind the shed and shooting it" is that the people who propagate it usually start with other people. Thanks 20th century, but no thanks.

eanzenberg 11y ago

Hi Venezuela, nice to meet you.

xiaoma 11y ago

Interestingly though, it's just now becoming possible to build a fully autonomous, distributed company on Etherium. In theory there's no way to tell if such an entity were controlled by humans or an AI.