5 ms·

What are "business champions" and why should we want more of them? What do they do for society?

bhupy 6y ago
They sustainably provide goods & services. Everything that we attribute to a modern way of life: our food options, the ability to freely communicate with anyone in the world, modern transportation, home appliances, clothing, and finally the global supply chains that enable all of the above — are all provided to society by so called "business champions".
- rimunroe 6y ago
  Isn't the life well-off people in the United States only possible in its current form because of massive exploitation of people and resources? How is that in any way sustainable, and why should it be sustained?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    I don't know, do you think that Google Maps and Google Search (and all of its contribution to QoL improvements) have been brought to you by way of exploitation of people? Which people? Or if you're referring to the outsourcing of work to the 3rd world as exploitation, how does that square with the fact that the standard of living has been dramatically increasing, globally? Do you think that out-sourcing of work will happen forever? Why do we choose to out-source manufacturing work to China instead of Belgium or Japan? I don't think that I disagree that resources are exploited, but that's true regardless. The only way to produce modern goods & services to people is through resource extraction. Either that operation is centrally coordinated by state actors, or it's de-centrally coordinated by corporations.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      > I don't know, do you think that Google Maps and Google Search (and all of its contribution to QoL improvements) have been brought to you by way of exploitation of people? Unequivocally yes. > Which people? The users. Most of whom have no idea that their personal information, browsing history, and spending habits are being harvested and monetized.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Okay, but is this universally true for ALL businesses that produce ALL goods and services? The TV in your living room, the couch, the desk, the food in your fridge, the soap in your bathroom, the sheets on your bed — are they provided by "exploitation"? NB: I have little patience for the Marxist argument that all workers are exploited due to "profit"...the labor theory of value has been largely debunked.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        rimunroe 6y ago
        > The TV in your living room, the couch, the desk, the food in your fridge, the soap in your bathroom, the sheets on your bed — are they provided by "exploitation"? Of course. Some examples from like a minute of searching: • Electronics https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-iphone-factory-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-ip... • Food https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/06/19/193548623/why-slave-labor-still-plagues-the-global-food-system https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/06/19/193548623/wh... • Clothing https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-sneakers-the-answer-is-probably https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-s...
        bhupy 6y ago
        You haven't proven that this is UNIVERSALLY the case. Your original beef was with the abstract concept of "business champions". It is entirely possible for some businesses to be good and some to be "bad". I look at all of these examples you've shown me, and my conclusion isn't that "business champions" are bad, it's that "slave labor" is bad. We can easily compartmentalize that, and even outlaw it. More fundamentally, businesses are just associations of people, just like non-profits, or clubs, or churches, or government agencies. All play a part in society to produce the standard of living most of us enjoy. If your beef is with those that live in poverty, consider that the poverty rate is the lowest it's ever been — GLOBALLY. The only reasonable blanket argument against all businesses is the argument that central planning yields better outcomes, and therefore all businesses are bad, and "business champions" are net negative to society. It's a coherent argument, but not one that I agree with.
    - rimunroe 6y ago
      > I don't know, do you think that Google Maps and Google Search (and all of its contribution to QoL improvements) have been brought to you by way of exploitation of people? Which people? Absolutely. The tech industry doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm definitely not an expert or very knowledgable on this, but it seems unlikely that Silicon Valley could have come into existence without cheap food, clothes, electricity, and hardware, all of which we have as a product of cheap labor (farming, resource extraction, manufacturing) and resources. For example, My phone--and I assume the laptop I used to type and send this message--has a good chance of having been assembled using forced/slave labor. > Or if you're referring to the outsourcing of work to the 3rd world as exploitation, how does that square with the fact that the standard of living has been dramatically increasing, globally? Do you think that out-sourcing of work will happen forever? Why do we choose to out-source manufacturing work to China instead of Belgium or Japan? I assume it will continue forever in some form, although I'd expect where it happens will shift. Do you expect outsourcing to stop? > I don't think that I disagree that resources are exploited, but that's true regardless. The only way to produce modern goods & services to people is through resource extraction. Either that operation is centrally coordinated by state actors, or it's de-centrally coordinated by corporations. I suppose one of my points is that resource extraction harms people without regard to whether or not they benefit from it, and that it doesn't seem like people benefit in proportion to how much it harms them. Further, the people who are benefiting the most from extracted resources tend to live far away from where it happens.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Cheap labor != slave labor. Different labor has different market value in different locations, and this is a result of a difference in standard of living. > I assume it will continue forever in some form, although I'd expect where it happens will shift. Do you expect outsourcing to stop? > I suppose one of my points is that resource extraction harms people without regard to whether or not they benefit from it, and that it doesn't seem like people benefit in proportion to how much it harms them. Further, the people who are benefiting the most from extracted resources tend to live far away from where it happens. But on the flip side, standards of living are not static. The standard of living in Japan has increased, to the extent that it is no longer economical to outsource low-skill work there. China's standard of living is increasing, and it will eventually be as economical to outsource work to China as it is to outsource labor to Japan or Belgium. Manufacturing will constantly move to the next poorest country, in perpetuity, seeking out the next cheapest labor pool until there is none left. The ensuing equilibrium would have globally high standards of living with diversified supply chains, with any concentration largely being a function of 1) access to natural resources, and 2) access to expertise. One could argue that this is a desirable end state...for everyone. Note that "slave labor" is fundamentally different, and is also not unique to private corporations — even state actors have the capacity, and incentive to cut corners to deliver goods & services. Just like I would rather pay less in prices for goods & services, voters would rather pay less in taxes to state actors for the same. This is not an indictment of businesses, it's an indictment of slavery. It is entirely possible to compartmentalize that, and address it directly.

They sustainably provide goods & services. Everything that we attribute to a modern way of life: our food options, the ability to freely communicate with anyone in the world, modern transportation, home appliances, clothing, and finally the global supply chains that enable all of the above — are all provided to society by so called "business champions".

rimunroe 6y ago
Isn't the life well-off people in the United States only possible in its current form because of massive exploitation of people and resources? How is that in any way sustainable, and why should it be sustained?
- bhupy 6y ago
  I don't know, do you think that Google Maps and Google Search (and all of its contribution to QoL improvements) have been brought to you by way of exploitation of people? Which people? Or if you're referring to the outsourcing of work to the 3rd world as exploitation, how does that square with the fact that the standard of living has been dramatically increasing, globally? Do you think that out-sourcing of work will happen forever? Why do we choose to out-source manufacturing work to China instead of Belgium or Japan? I don't think that I disagree that resources are exploited, but that's true regardless. The only way to produce modern goods & services to people is through resource extraction. Either that operation is centrally coordinated by state actors, or it's de-centrally coordinated by corporations.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    > I don't know, do you think that Google Maps and Google Search (and all of its contribution to QoL improvements) have been brought to you by way of exploitation of people? Unequivocally yes. > Which people? The users. Most of whom have no idea that their personal information, browsing history, and spending habits are being harvested and monetized.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Okay, but is this universally true for ALL businesses that produce ALL goods and services? The TV in your living room, the couch, the desk, the food in your fridge, the soap in your bathroom, the sheets on your bed — are they provided by "exploitation"? NB: I have little patience for the Marxist argument that all workers are exploited due to "profit"...the labor theory of value has been largely debunked.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - rimunroe 6y ago
        > The TV in your living room, the couch, the desk, the food in your fridge, the soap in your bathroom, the sheets on your bed — are they provided by "exploitation"? Of course. Some examples from like a minute of searching: • Electronics https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-iphone-factory-2020-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-forced-uighur-labor-ip... • Food https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/06/19/193548623/why-slave-labor-still-plagues-the-global-food-system https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/06/19/193548623/wh... • Clothing https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-sneakers-the-answer-is-probably https://www.fastcompany.com/90279693/did-a-slave-make-your-s...
        bhupy 6y ago
        You haven't proven that this is UNIVERSALLY the case. Your original beef was with the abstract concept of "business champions". It is entirely possible for some businesses to be good and some to be "bad". I look at all of these examples you've shown me, and my conclusion isn't that "business champions" are bad, it's that "slave labor" is bad. We can easily compartmentalize that, and even outlaw it. More fundamentally, businesses are just associations of people, just like non-profits, or clubs, or churches, or government agencies. All play a part in society to produce the standard of living most of us enjoy. If your beef is with those that live in poverty, consider that the poverty rate is the lowest it's ever been — GLOBALLY. The only reasonable blanket argument against all businesses is the argument that central planning yields better outcomes, and therefore all businesses are bad, and "business champions" are net negative to society. It's a coherent argument, but not one that I agree with.
  - rimunroe 6y ago
    > I don't know, do you think that Google Maps and Google Search (and all of its contribution to QoL improvements) have been brought to you by way of exploitation of people? Which people? Absolutely. The tech industry doesn't exist in a vacuum. I'm definitely not an expert or very knowledgable on this, but it seems unlikely that Silicon Valley could have come into existence without cheap food, clothes, electricity, and hardware, all of which we have as a product of cheap labor (farming, resource extraction, manufacturing) and resources. For example, My phone--and I assume the laptop I used to type and send this message--has a good chance of having been assembled using forced/slave labor. > Or if you're referring to the outsourcing of work to the 3rd world as exploitation, how does that square with the fact that the standard of living has been dramatically increasing, globally? Do you think that out-sourcing of work will happen forever? Why do we choose to out-source manufacturing work to China instead of Belgium or Japan? I assume it will continue forever in some form, although I'd expect where it happens will shift. Do you expect outsourcing to stop? > I don't think that I disagree that resources are exploited, but that's true regardless. The only way to produce modern goods & services to people is through resource extraction. Either that operation is centrally coordinated by state actors, or it's de-centrally coordinated by corporations. I suppose one of my points is that resource extraction harms people without regard to whether or not they benefit from it, and that it doesn't seem like people benefit in proportion to how much it harms them. Further, the people who are benefiting the most from extracted resources tend to live far away from where it happens.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Cheap labor != slave labor. Different labor has different market value in different locations, and this is a result of a difference in standard of living. > I assume it will continue forever in some form, although I'd expect where it happens will shift. Do you expect outsourcing to stop? > I suppose one of my points is that resource extraction harms people without regard to whether or not they benefit from it, and that it doesn't seem like people benefit in proportion to how much it harms them. Further, the people who are benefiting the most from extracted resources tend to live far away from where it happens. But on the flip side, standards of living are not static. The standard of living in Japan has increased, to the extent that it is no longer economical to outsource low-skill work there. China's standard of living is increasing, and it will eventually be as economical to outsource work to China as it is to outsource labor to Japan or Belgium. Manufacturing will constantly move to the next poorest country, in perpetuity, seeking out the next cheapest labor pool until there is none left. The ensuing equilibrium would have globally high standards of living with diversified supply chains, with any concentration largely being a function of 1) access to natural resources, and 2) access to expertise. One could argue that this is a desirable end state...for everyone. Note that "slave labor" is fundamentally different, and is also not unique to private corporations — even state actors have the capacity, and incentive to cut corners to deliver goods & services. Just like I would rather pay less in prices for goods & services, voters would rather pay less in taxes to state actors for the same. This is not an indictment of businesses, it's an indictment of slavery. It is entirely possible to compartmentalize that, and address it directly.