3 ms·

The puzzle piece that usually gets missed in these conversations is that a business is a public danger. It has to be, inherently, because as we see "just trying

The puzzle piece that usually gets missed in these conversations is that a business is a public danger. It has to be, inherently, because as we see "just trying to make a profit" consistently does harm at a certain scale. Making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives, and when push comes to shove prioritizing profit will reduce the ability to do public good. A business can be too small or too inefficient to do much harm, but we are doomed (literally) if we can't wrap our heads around the fact that all businesses are enemies of the public (literally). So often the conversation simply reaches a full stop at "businesses are just doing what they do" as if we have to accept that - as if making a profit is a good thing. Similarly, fire is a danger to the public. It consumes and destroys things. That doesn't mean we've sworn off fire - on the contrary, we use it to make new dangers (pollution, primarily). It's just that we have developed measures to contain fire. Without measures to contain profit-seeking behavior, humans can't coexist with businesses safely.

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago
Your comment comes off as thinly veiled misanthropy. What are you really promoting here? Going back to freezing in the dark?
- digging 3y ago
  You're reading messages I didn't write. My point was stated openly. We can't allow businesses to operate without consideration for their impacts on the public (unless we're ok with being destroyed by them).
pdonis 3y ago
> a business is a public danger Every business? A mom and pop grocery store is a business. A old-fashioned diner that serves actual cooked food instead of microwaved pre-processed junk is a business. Are they public dangers? > Making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives No, they're not. "Making a profit", in a sane economy, means creating wealth. Businesses are an essential tool for creating wealth. The problem is that we do not have a sane economy. We have governments that we have given vast regulatory powers, and that means corporations that are big enough to buy politicians can make a profit without creating wealth, by buying regulations that skew the economy in their favor. The effect of the regulations is not to make it easier to run a business but to make it harder, so much harder that only the large corporations can afford to do it--which means the mom and pop small businesses that actually create wealth can no longer exist. We also have governments that print money and give it to financial institutions in order to make cheap loans available to the same large corporations, so they can expand cheaply and drive out small business competitors. That's why we have big box stores and chain restaurants in strip malls next to freeways instead of mom and pop stores and old fashioned diners in actual town centers. But, as the saying goes, the problem is not that politicians can be bought but that they have something valuable to sell. As long as large corporations can buy regulations that favor them, they will. And as long as we let governments print money and give it to those they favor, that will just make things worse.
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  > Every business? A mom and pop grocery store is a business. And what kind of animal would oppose those? They have parents/grand-parents in their name. Surely they must be completely wholesome.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    From your snark I gather that you don't think businesses provide any value. So I assume you don't use any goods or services provided by businesses, right?
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      First of all if that was the case then I would obviously not do it since it would be tantamount to throwing money in a hole. So the answer to that is trivial. Second of all my snark was about being completely wholesome. If something is less than wholesome they can still be... okay, not outright bad. Third of all, OP (I don't agree but that's a different matter) was clearly talking about finding a balance between letting businesses pursue profit and keeping them from interfering with the larger public good since they gave an analogy with fire. (The examples with fire seemed a bit out of tune with that though.) We do use fire for good but we also have to contain it very carefully.
      - digging 3y ago
        Oh, you make a good point. I made a mistake with my fire analogy and didn't actually state that I'm pro-fire. I'm glad to have fire and to be able to use it. Not sure profit-seeking behavior is quite as useful, but whatever.
        pdonis 3y ago
        > Not sure profit-seeking behavior is quite as useful, but whatever. In other words, as I said elsewhere upthread, you just dismiss all the benefits we gain from businesses with "whatever". But if you're able to post here at all, you are taking advantage of numerous benefits provided by businesses. I don't think you are taking that into account. You even admit as much since you're "not sure" businesses are as useful as fire (when in fact businesses are far more useful than fire--businesses overall have created a lot more wealth than our use of fire has).

TheSpiceIsLife 3y ago

Your comment comes off as thinly veiled misanthropy. What are you really promoting here? Going back to freezing in the dark?

digging 3y ago
You're reading messages I didn't write. My point was stated openly. We can't allow businesses to operate without consideration for their impacts on the public (unless we're ok with being destroyed by them).

pdonis 3y ago

> a business is a public danger Every business? A mom and pop grocery store is a business. A old-fashioned diner that serves actual cooked food instead of microwaved pre-processed junk is a business. Are they public dangers? > Making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives No, they're not. "Making a profit", in a sane economy, means creating wealth. Businesses are an essential tool for creating wealth. The problem is that we do not have a sane economy. We have governments that we have given vast regulatory powers, and that means corporations that are big enough to buy politicians can make a profit without creating wealth, by buying regulations that skew the economy in their favor. The effect of the regulations is not to make it easier to run a business but to make it harder, so much harder that only the large corporations can afford to do it--which means the mom and pop small businesses that actually create wealth can no longer exist. We also have governments that print money and give it to financial institutions in order to make cheap loans available to the same large corporations, so they can expand cheaply and drive out small business competitors. That's why we have big box stores and chain restaurants in strip malls next to freeways instead of mom and pop stores and old fashioned diners in actual town centers. But, as the saying goes, the problem is not that politicians can be bought but that they have something valuable to sell. As long as large corporations can buy regulations that favor them, they will. And as long as we let governments print money and give it to those they favor, that will just make things worse.

avgcorrection 3y ago
> Every business? A mom and pop grocery store is a business. And what kind of animal would oppose those? They have parents/grand-parents in their name. Surely they must be completely wholesome.
- pdonis 3y ago
  From your snark I gather that you don't think businesses provide any value. So I assume you don't use any goods or services provided by businesses, right?
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    First of all if that was the case then I would obviously not do it since it would be tantamount to throwing money in a hole. So the answer to that is trivial. Second of all my snark was about being completely wholesome. If something is less than wholesome they can still be... okay, not outright bad. Third of all, OP (I don't agree but that's a different matter) was clearly talking about finding a balance between letting businesses pursue profit and keeping them from interfering with the larger public good since they gave an analogy with fire. (The examples with fire seemed a bit out of tune with that though.) We do use fire for good but we also have to contain it very carefully.
    - digging 3y ago
      Oh, you make a good point. I made a mistake with my fire analogy and didn't actually state that I'm pro-fire. I'm glad to have fire and to be able to use it. Not sure profit-seeking behavior is quite as useful, but whatever.
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > Not sure profit-seeking behavior is quite as useful, but whatever. In other words, as I said elsewhere upthread, you just dismiss all the benefits we gain from businesses with "whatever". But if you're able to post here at all, you are taking advantage of numerous benefits provided by businesses. I don't think you are taking that into account. You even admit as much since you're "not sure" businesses are as useful as fire (when in fact businesses are far more useful than fire--businesses overall have created a lot more wealth than our use of fire has).