3 ms·

Why use the loaded term anti-business when very, very few on the "left" of the USA are actually anti-business-commies-socialise-everything? From my perspective

by piva00 9mo ago

Why use the loaded term anti-business when very, very few on the "left" of the USA are actually anti-business-commies-socialise-everything? From my perspective at most there are attempts to curtail business practices untethered to any morality, which should be a net-positive for society. A completely theoretical pro-business political body would remove any and all obstacles to business: environmental regulations, labour protection, taxation, financial oversight, so on and so forth, I believe we can agree that such move would be detrimental to society at large while making businesses extremely rich, right? The shift of framing that any attempt to curtail the bad downsides/externalities of untethered capitalism is being "anti-business" is either ignorant, misleading, or purely furthering an agenda. There's no way for capitalism to survive without oversight, its incentives are to minmax on a race to the bottom on anything possible that could give a business an edge, without rules around that the benefits of such a system are completely eroded, you create social fractures that are reflected into politics, exactly what's been happening in the USA even before Trump 1. Perhaps this aggressive stance on being pro-business is part of the issue, and pursuing it above all else has steadily shown that society at large doesn't improve even though it fosters consumption, assets inflation, and the key economic metrics used to sell this idea. While this stance is pursued the political power keeps getting accumulated into the hands of an elite detached from reality, uncaring for any social aspect since there's absolutely no moral incentive to think about the social contract when you can live in an ivory tower with the scales tilted to your favour, and among others like you who also don't care about any aspect that can make the life in society better for all. Improvements to society at large are coincidental, not intentional. Capitalism is amoral, we need mechanisms that imbue some morality to it to avoid social fractures, the core issue is finding that line to balance, and which keeps shifting and needs iterative processes to rebalance when needed. The extremist version of pro-business-nothing-else-matters is clearly not the way you find a balance on anything, like any extremism it's almost by definition wrong when meeting reality.

rapsey 9mo ago
> A completely theoretical pro-business political body would remove any and all obstacles to business: environmental regulations, labour protection, taxation, financial oversight, so on and so forth, I believe we can agree that such move would be detrimental to society at large while making businesses extremely rich, right? This assumes that all obstacles and regulations are to the benefit of the environment and people and that the regulation results in intended consequences. In modern western countries regulation is very often ideological and actively harms the populace and economy. Case in point Germany and their green and anti nuclear hysteria, which resulted in total reliance on coal.
- piva00 9mo ago
  Which is why I exactly pointed out that "finding the line" should be a iterative process, it's just natural the pendulum will swing for correcting past mistakes. I don't know why you assumed I'm stating as if finding where these regulations lie to be a static thing, I thought I left a lot of nuance so this tired line wouldn't be played against the core of my argument... I didn't assume the current regulations are perfect, nor that there can be a perfect line, but that the process of finding this should exist, and that the answer will never lie in either extreme. Hope it's even clearer now. Edit: and also, "ideological" is a non-sequitur, even the criticism of it as you've done is ideological in nature...
  - rapsey 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - piva00 9mo ago
      Thought-terminating clichés are quite boring, and don't foster any discussion, I'd like to see more thought instead so curiosity could live and perhaps this comment thread could go somewhere where we both give into each other's argument but alas seems it's not possible to extract that from you, only tiresome one-liner platitudes. It is sad though, this is the kind of discussion I do enjoy having with clever people.
simianwords 9mo ago
I agree with everything you are saying except that the left is aggressively anti business that hurts broader society. The balance is clearly on the wrong end. What I mean is that, there seems to be an ideological push (and not a practical one) to curtail businesses without understanding the consequences of it. Where you probably disagree is that you think the left is broadly on the correct side of this issue. As an example, take the anti data centre push by the left. This is just fake morality disguised as "moral capitalism" broadly coming from the black and white ideology that dictates all businesses are bad and require push back. You and I agree that there is a balance to be made.
- piva00 9mo ago
  To be honest, I'm more aligned with you than with the left at the moment. I feel there's been a knee-jerk reaction from a wave of massive change coming and the efforts are being directed to the wrong place. For example: I don't agree that we should be curtailing the data center buildup, it bothers me because it's almost a stance of conservatism. While I do agree there's a need to closely monitor the situation with how AI develops, since in case it does pan out that it can, in a 5-10 years time frame, dislodge a big mass of labour without leaving room for those unemployed by a radical change it will create a lot of social strife. I'm more in the camp of caution, and planning on how to address the scenarios that could be most damaging, while I also understand there's no stopping when the machinery gets going as it is, we can only work around it to adapt to a new reality. > This is just fake morality disguised as "moral capitalism" broadly coming from the black and white ideology that dictates all businesses are bad and require push back. But most businesses do tend to go towards "bad" (if we define it as showing no empathy towards their damages to society) because those are the incentives, being "good" has very little financial incentive, and financial incentives are absolute king in this era of hyperfinancialised capitalism. The incentives for creating good products only exist to manage finances, not out of a desire to create good products as a benefit in itself which as a consequence will sell well. If there's a way to increase revenue while minimising attrition of the customer base, even in detriment of a great product, it will be done, because the incentives are there for that. I think we probably agree more than disagree, my belief is that we have wrong incentives if this is the system we will continue living under. I also believe we can continuously improve it, there's no end game in sight for the "perfect system", it's all experimentation and we ought to take into account the results of these experiments after 20-40 years, and be rational about what works and what doesn't. Whatever was the world in the 1980s when this era of hyperfinancialisation started is not the world in 2026, whomever was the winner of that change wants to keep the status quo because it benefits them while we do see fractures and issues arising from that. There's a balance to be made, and it will always go against the interests of past winners who will try to pitch the world as it is as the best it can be, and that more of whatever was done to make them winners is the only way forward.

by piva00 9mo ago

rapsey 9mo ago

> A completely theoretical pro-business political body would remove any and all obstacles to business: environmental regulations, labour protection, taxation, financial oversight, so on and so forth, I believe we can agree that such move would be detrimental to society at large while making businesses extremely rich, right? This assumes that all obstacles and regulations are to the benefit of the environment and people and that the regulation results in intended consequences. In modern western countries regulation is very often ideological and actively harms the populace and economy. Case in point Germany and their green and anti nuclear hysteria, which resulted in total reliance on coal.

piva00 9mo ago
Which is why I exactly pointed out that "finding the line" should be a iterative process, it's just natural the pendulum will swing for correcting past mistakes. I don't know why you assumed I'm stating as if finding where these regulations lie to be a static thing, I thought I left a lot of nuance so this tired line wouldn't be played against the core of my argument... I didn't assume the current regulations are perfect, nor that there can be a perfect line, but that the process of finding this should exist, and that the answer will never lie in either extreme. Hope it's even clearer now. Edit: and also, "ideological" is a non-sequitur, even the criticism of it as you've done is ideological in nature...
- rapsey 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - piva00 9mo ago
    Thought-terminating clichés are quite boring, and don't foster any discussion, I'd like to see more thought instead so curiosity could live and perhaps this comment thread could go somewhere where we both give into each other's argument but alas seems it's not possible to extract that from you, only tiresome one-liner platitudes. It is sad though, this is the kind of discussion I do enjoy having with clever people.

simianwords 9mo ago

I agree with everything you are saying except that the left is aggressively anti business that hurts broader society. The balance is clearly on the wrong end. What I mean is that, there seems to be an ideological push (and not a practical one) to curtail businesses without understanding the consequences of it. Where you probably disagree is that you think the left is broadly on the correct side of this issue. As an example, take the anti data centre push by the left. This is just fake morality disguised as "moral capitalism" broadly coming from the black and white ideology that dictates all businesses are bad and require push back. You and I agree that there is a balance to be made.

piva00 9mo ago
To be honest, I'm more aligned with you than with the left at the moment. I feel there's been a knee-jerk reaction from a wave of massive change coming and the efforts are being directed to the wrong place. For example: I don't agree that we should be curtailing the data center buildup, it bothers me because it's almost a stance of conservatism. While I do agree there's a need to closely monitor the situation with how AI develops, since in case it does pan out that it can, in a 5-10 years time frame, dislodge a big mass of labour without leaving room for those unemployed by a radical change it will create a lot of social strife. I'm more in the camp of caution, and planning on how to address the scenarios that could be most damaging, while I also understand there's no stopping when the machinery gets going as it is, we can only work around it to adapt to a new reality. > This is just fake morality disguised as "moral capitalism" broadly coming from the black and white ideology that dictates all businesses are bad and require push back. But most businesses do tend to go towards "bad" (if we define it as showing no empathy towards their damages to society) because those are the incentives, being "good" has very little financial incentive, and financial incentives are absolute king in this era of hyperfinancialised capitalism. The incentives for creating good products only exist to manage finances, not out of a desire to create good products as a benefit in itself which as a consequence will sell well. If there's a way to increase revenue while minimising attrition of the customer base, even in detriment of a great product, it will be done, because the incentives are there for that. I think we probably agree more than disagree, my belief is that we have wrong incentives if this is the system we will continue living under. I also believe we can continuously improve it, there's no end game in sight for the "perfect system", it's all experimentation and we ought to take into account the results of these experiments after 20-40 years, and be rational about what works and what doesn't. Whatever was the world in the 1980s when this era of hyperfinancialisation started is not the world in 2026, whomever was the winner of that change wants to keep the status quo because it benefits them while we do see fractures and issues arising from that. There's a balance to be made, and it will always go against the interests of past winners who will try to pitch the world as it is as the best it can be, and that more of whatever was done to make them winners is the only way forward.