3 ms·

> 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 micr

by 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).
        digging 3y ago
        This is so pointless.
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > my snark was about being completely wholesome If "completely wholesome" is your standard, does anything at all in our world meet it? But if we allow wholesomeness to be evaluated on a scale, most businesses seem to me to be a lot more wholesome than the large corporations that buy government regulations and get favored by government policies. So tarring all businesses with the same brush does not seem to me to be a good idea.
digging 3y ago
...Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." > 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? Yes... I explicitly addressed this point already. It doesn't appear that you've actually read my entire post, despite its brevity.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." Sure I did: I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. Try living without all the wealth that businesses create (and have created over centuries) and see how you like it. > I explicitly addressed this point already. I don't see where. You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all.
  - digging 3y ago
    > I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. It's not. A rich person getting richer doesn't make society healthier or happier. Wealth can be used for public good, though. > You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all. Because the positive value created by a business is, actually, not relevant to the discussion. Did you miss my fire analogy? Really doesn't seem like you grasped my points. Could be my fault if you can show me where my meaning was unclear. I'm not anti-fire. At the same time, I think that we as a society should prevent people from running around starting fires whenever and wherever they want, because it's dangerous. (Yes, by force if necessary. I'm not ignorant of the logical conclusion of laws.) Fortunately, we already do this, because everyone agrees: fire indeed hot. You, on the other hand, are not acknowledging the danger of profit-seeking behavior. Again: that's my entire fucking point, so please address it.
    - pdonis 3y ago

by pdonis 3y ago

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).
      - digging 3y ago
        This is so pointless.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > my snark was about being completely wholesome If "completely wholesome" is your standard, does anything at all in our world meet it? But if we allow wholesomeness to be evaluated on a scale, most businesses seem to me to be a lot more wholesome than the large corporations that buy government regulations and get favored by government policies. So tarring all businesses with the same brush does not seem to me to be a good idea.

digging 3y ago

...Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." > 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? Yes... I explicitly addressed this point already. It doesn't appear that you've actually read my entire post, despite its brevity.

pdonis 3y ago
> Nothing you wrote refuted the point that "making a profit and doing public good are completely separate imperatives." Sure I did: I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. Try living without all the wealth that businesses create (and have created over centuries) and see how you like it. > I explicitly addressed this point already. I don't see where. You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all.
- digging 3y ago
  > I pointed out that making a profit by creating wealth is doing public good. It's not. A rich person getting richer doesn't make society healthier or happier. Wealth can be used for public good, though. > You mention businesses that are too small or inefficient to do much harm, but you never mention businesses creating positive value at all. Because the positive value created by a business is, actually, not relevant to the discussion. Did you miss my fire analogy? Really doesn't seem like you grasped my points. Could be my fault if you can show me where my meaning was unclear. I'm not anti-fire. At the same time, I think that we as a society should prevent people from running around starting fires whenever and wherever they want, because it's dangerous. (Yes, by force if necessary. I'm not ignorant of the logical conclusion of laws.) Fortunately, we already do this, because everyone agrees: fire indeed hot. You, on the other hand, are not acknowledging the danger of profit-seeking behavior. Again: that's my entire fucking point, so please address it.
  - pdonis 3y ago