3 ms·

Most businesses do not "make the world a better place". It was a mistake to ever believe that it's realistic that every business can do that and really only ser

by kodah 3y ago

Most businesses do not "make the world a better place". It was a mistake to ever believe that it's realistic that every business can do that and really only served the egos of those who have uttered those words. Most businesses are providing a service or a product, that thing may be useful, but there's a pretty high bar from that point to "making the world a better place".

robertlagrant 3y ago
Well, for their customers they are making the world a better place. Given there's no absolute standard for that, people wanting your product or service so much they'll pay you money for it is about the best measure we have.
- chirau 3y ago
  Well, in that case, WeWork definitely was a better place for a bunch of creatives and entrepreneurs in NYC and other cities.
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  This is a well-established and researched part of market failure. It involves the idea of negative externalities, like how a market for heroin creates a social cost that is borne by the general public. And you're right that a market transaction is the best measure of "good" that we have. To get some sense of "what society might pay" to limit or eliminate such a market, an analyst must resort to more difficult methods like cost-benefit analysis. It's a huge topic and is used by major governments.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Indeed. But given negative externalities are not the job of companies to compute (because they don't get to define them) the establishing and enforcing of non-mark-distorting negative externalities is government's, and it's government's failure when it's not done, or not done well.
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  idk, im pretty sure that my internet company or the train company or my local grocer are actively trying to make their customers life worse and succeeding. and the answer isn't "oh but without them you'd have to walk/grow your own food/lay your own cable" for starters none of the companies mentioned did that themselves, train company didnt build infrastructure, supermarket didnt grow food, internet company didnt lay cable. Sure they provide some value I suppose in logistics or whatever but lets be real its not that hard given some capital. If they didn't someone else would gladly step in and do it instead, theres no world in which the customer is forced to actually go without. You might say "but these are all distorted markets", and to that i'd say: they are pretty much the main points of interaction I and a lot of people have with the economy (and we can think of dozens more examples). If these are all exceptions, the market is one big exception. I feel like making the world a better place requires a much greater standard than just "someone paid you for some resource/commodity you hoarded". I grant you sure, in a simplified model where there are countless competitors & perfect information available to all consumers, buisnesses would have to compete on providing good services, but thats not the world we live in. It's frankly ridiculous that it's not enough reward to be richer than croesus, people want us to believe that they are moral because they got all that wealth.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > "someone paid you for some resource/commodity you hoarded" I don't think conversations like this can ever progress when this constant misrepresentation takes place. No one is talking about hoarding. If I get paid to write someone some software, what hoarding happened?

by kodah 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

Well, for their customers they are making the world a better place. Given there's no absolute standard for that, people wanting your product or service so much they'll pay you money for it is about the best measure we have.

chirau 3y ago
Well, in that case, WeWork definitely was a better place for a bunch of creatives and entrepreneurs in NYC and other cities.
SantalBlush 3y ago
This is a well-established and researched part of market failure. It involves the idea of negative externalities, like how a market for heroin creates a social cost that is borne by the general public. And you're right that a market transaction is the best measure of "good" that we have. To get some sense of "what society might pay" to limit or eliminate such a market, an analyst must resort to more difficult methods like cost-benefit analysis. It's a huge topic and is used by major governments.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Indeed. But given negative externalities are not the job of companies to compute (because they don't get to define them) the establishing and enforcing of non-mark-distorting negative externalities is government's, and it's government's failure when it's not done, or not done well.
RugnirViking 3y ago
idk, im pretty sure that my internet company or the train company or my local grocer are actively trying to make their customers life worse and succeeding. and the answer isn't "oh but without them you'd have to walk/grow your own food/lay your own cable" for starters none of the companies mentioned did that themselves, train company didnt build infrastructure, supermarket didnt grow food, internet company didnt lay cable. Sure they provide some value I suppose in logistics or whatever but lets be real its not that hard given some capital. If they didn't someone else would gladly step in and do it instead, theres no world in which the customer is forced to actually go without. You might say "but these are all distorted markets", and to that i'd say: they are pretty much the main points of interaction I and a lot of people have with the economy (and we can think of dozens more examples). If these are all exceptions, the market is one big exception. I feel like making the world a better place requires a much greater standard than just "someone paid you for some resource/commodity you hoarded". I grant you sure, in a simplified model where there are countless competitors & perfect information available to all consumers, buisnesses would have to compete on providing good services, but thats not the world we live in. It's frankly ridiculous that it's not enough reward to be richer than croesus, people want us to believe that they are moral because they got all that wealth.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > "someone paid you for some resource/commodity you hoarded" I don't think conversations like this can ever progress when this constant misrepresentation takes place. No one is talking about hoarding. If I get paid to write someone some software, what hoarding happened?