5 ms·

> Just don't understand how one could be convinced these days of the fundamental conceit that even a properly profitable company is necessarily going to provide

> Just don't understand how one could be convinced these days of the fundamental conceit that even a properly profitable company is necessarily going to provide good things for people downstream, or for society in general. if one has worked in a number of business it should become fairly obvious that good products and good revenue are orthogonal phenomena (sometimes they align of course) > What is the argument for that in general again? i think the general conceit is that bad or good product, someone is paying and they are getting some kind of value so who is anyone to say its good or bad for society? > the idea that companies with a self interest in profit will reliably help people or the world wasn't this idea put forth strongly by milton freidman and the chicago school - "greed is good" [1] - because more economic activity rises all...? i have to admit intuitively it sounds good even if its probably b.s [2] > It just does not at all feel rational, its like everyone in the world is dreaming. well, at least some economists anyways.... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/business/dealbook/milton-friedman-essay-anniversary.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/business/dealbook/milton-...

kaashif 3y ago
Let's remember that Adam Smith was against the idea of the joint stock company, a company where the shareholders and managers are different people. He thought that smaller, owner operated businesses would outcompete joint stock companies, primarily because the incentives between owners and managers were aligned. Managers managing other people's money will make worse decisions over the long term than managers managing their own money. That was his theory back in 1776, things didn't turn out that way obviously.
- andrekandre 3y ago
  > That was his theory back in 1776, things didn't turn out that way obviously well, i guess its because join-stock companies were able to raise more capital faster?

kaashif 3y ago

Let's remember that Adam Smith was against the idea of the joint stock company, a company where the shareholders and managers are different people. He thought that smaller, owner operated businesses would outcompete joint stock companies, primarily because the incentives between owners and managers were aligned. Managers managing other people's money will make worse decisions over the long term than managers managing their own money. That was his theory back in 1776, things didn't turn out that way obviously.

andrekandre 3y ago
> That was his theory back in 1776, things didn't turn out that way obviously well, i guess its because join-stock companies were able to raise more capital faster?