• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This NYT writer doesn't understand what business is for.

Cramer said:
Ok...
To stay on point of your OP, define "better".
Oh wait, you cannot....something "better" is incredibly subjective.
Click to expand...

"Better" being the benefit the people buying the service or product receive, which they would otherwise be without. And yes, it's subjective, entirely from the point of view of the people paying for the benefit. Which is why I've been objecting to the people who think "better" is defined ONLY the way THEY see it, all the way through this thread.



Are we "better" because of Facebook and Twitter?

Walmart?
Click to expand...

The people who use them think their lives are better for it, and that's a great, great many people.



Your OP is just an opinion, backed up, by feelings and emotion.
Click to expand...

I gave objective measures. It's not my emotions or opinions in play here; it's that of all the people who buy what a successful business sells.

People don't buy things because they think the world is worse for it.


I wasted my time trying to have an intelligent conversation.
Click to expand...

Dude, it is not my fault you were wanting to talk about something other than the topic of this thread.
 
Harshaw said:
"Better" being the benefit the people buying the service or product receive, which they would otherwise be without. And yes, it's subjective, entirely from the point of view of the people paying for the benefit. Which is why I've been objecting to the people who think "better" is defined ONLY the way THEY see it, all the way through this thread.
Click to expand...
Most of the things people buy are necessities. WIth multiple choices in the market to choose from,no one is better because they bought gas from company A, when there are 12 more places to buy it. What creates that market, is rules and regulations, to achieve competitive pricing and innovative products.

An educated public is needed as well, and we collectively provide that as a society.

We also provide the infrastructure to support all of these businesses.

To give credit to only businesses, is very short sighted...one could even say myopic.

The NY writer may not understand businesses....but it appears you do not understand how economies work.
 
Cramer said:
Most of the things people buy are necessities. WIth multiple choices in the market to choose from,no one is better because they bought gas from company A, when there are 12 more places to buy it. What creates that market, is rules and regulations, to achieve competitive pricing and innovative products.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about people buying gas from specific companies.

I'm worried about them buying gas. They buy it because their life is better with it.

I really don't think you're following my point at all yet.


An educated public is needed as well, and we collectively provide that as a society.

We also provide the infrastructure to support all of these businesses.

To give credit to only businesses, is very short sighted...one could even say myopic.

The NY writer may not understand businesses....but it appears you do not understand how economies work.
Click to expand...

OK, you're way off-topic again.
 
Harshaw said:
I'm not worried about people buying gas from specific companies.

I'm worried about them buying gas. They buy it because their life is better with it.

I really don't think you're following my point at all yet.




OK, you're way off-topic again.
Click to expand...

It appears, you do not have a point.

Have a good day.
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe, but that's not at all my point.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. Further, I generally agree with your point. It gets at the core of why free markets work—businesses create value, and value improves our lives. Basic free market economics. Perhaps what people are getting at in counter-point is in regard to “externalities” that market theory ignores. Noam Chomsky discusses this in the following:

“Markets have well-known inherent inefficiencies. They’re very destructive. The obvious one, in a market system, in a really functioning one, whoever’s making the decisions doesn’t pay attention to what are called externalities, effects on others. I sell you a car, if our eyes are open we’ll make a good deal for ourselves but we’re not asking how it’s going to affect her [over there.] It will, there’ll be more congestion, gas prices will go up, there will be environmental effects and that multiplies over the whole population. Well, that’s very serious.”

“Take a look at the financial crisis. Ever since the New Deal regulation was essentially dismantled, there have been regular financial crises and one of the fundamental reasons, it’s understood, is that the CEO of Goldman Sachs or CitiGroup does not pay attention to what’s called systemic risk. Maybe you make a risky transaction and you cover your own potential losses, but you don’t take into account the fact that if it crashes it may crash the entire system. Which is what a financial crash is.”

The much more serious example of this is environmental impacts. In the case of financial institutions when they crash, the taxpayer comes to the rescue, but if you destroy the environment no one is going to come to the rescue”.
 
Harshaw said:
And I'm not saying this because the point of business is profit, not altruism, or anything like that (though it's true).

I'm saying it because any successful business makes the world a better place. A better, more convenient, more enjoyable place.
.
Click to expand...

I'm sure those living in Bhopal in 1984 would agree. And hey, isn't Phillip Morris just a wonderful company....

:roll:





Basically, that was a completely idiotic statement.
 
MauiMan said:
Yes, I understand. Further, I generally agree with your point. It gets at the core of why free markets work—businesses create value, and value improves our lives. Basic free market economics. Perhaps what people are getting at in counter-point is in regard to “externalities” that market theory ignores. Noam Chomsky discusses this in the following:

“Markets have well-known inherent inefficiencies. They’re very destructive. The obvious one, in a market system, in a really functioning one, whoever’s making the decisions doesn’t pay attention to what are called externalities, effects on others. I sell you a car, if our eyes are open we’ll make a good deal for ourselves but we’re not asking how it’s going to affect her [over there.] It will, there’ll be more congestion, gas prices will go up, there will be environmental effects and that multiplies over the whole population. Well, that’s very serious.”

“Take a look at the financial crisis. Ever since the New Deal regulation was essentially dismantled, there have been regular financial crises and one of the fundamental reasons, it’s understood, is that the CEO of Goldman Sachs or CitiGroup does not pay attention to what’s called systemic risk. Maybe you make a risky transaction and you cover your own potential losses, but you don’t take into account the fact that if it crashes it may crash the entire system. Which is what a financial crash is.”

The much more serious example of this is environmental impacts. In the case of financial institutions when they crash, the taxpayer comes to the rescue, but if you destroy the environment no one is going to come to the rescue”.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but no one* doubts that the world is better with automobiles in it than without, despite the problems. Problems have a way of being worked out over time, on the same basis as I said -- people tend to choose better options. Or, if the problems really do outweigh the benefits, then that particular thing ends up abandoned. Either way, it's people choosing the things which make things better.



*With almost 8 billion people, you'll find a few exceptions who think there shouldn't be any cars.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Multi level marketing schemes are wildly profitable and some "customer entrepreneurs" get rich, but many more gets screwed.
Click to expand...

Anyway, now that I'm not being bombarded with ten posts a minute, I want to come back to this.

You said this in response to my comment about Amazon storefronts enabling some small businesses to exist.

Amazon storefronts are not "multi-level marketing." It's not Amway.

Businesses (or individuals) list their products on Amazon, and people buy them from the Amazon site, directly from those sellers.

Amazon takes a percentage (usually 15%) of the sale, but the rest goes to the seller. Amazon itself tells you to figure that into your selling price.

Many people take advantage of Amazon's reach to sell their products far and wide to customers they'd never reach otherwise. Indeed, some are only able to be in business at all because of it.

You seem to think it's some kind of scam which hurts people. Tell me, how does anyone get "screwed" in this arrangement?
 
Harshaw said:
Anyway, now that I'm not being bombarded with ten posts a minute, I want to come back to this.
You said this in response to my comment about Amazon storefronts enabling some small businesses to exist.
Amazon storefronts are not "multi-level marketing." It's not Amway.
Businesses (or individuals) list their products on Amazon, and people buy them from the Amazon site, directly from those sellers.
Amazon takes a percentage (usually 15%) of the sale, but the rest goes to the seller. Amazon itself tells you to figure that into your selling price.
Many people take advantage of Amazon's reach to sell their products far and wide to customers they'd never reach otherwise. Indeed, some are only able to be in business at all because of it.
You seem to think it's some kind of scam which hurts people. Tell me, how does anyone get "screwed" in this arrangement?
Click to expand...

Your thesis in this thread has been that ALL successful businesses fundamentally make the world a better place, when that absolutely isn't the case. I used MLM as an obvious example. MLMs are profitable and they have lots of customers that do willingly hand them money, but that doesn't mean that the business makes the world a better place. Trump University was a very profitable business that offered a "product" their customers who gladly paid it, but it also absolutely did not make the world a better place.

There are also plenty of businesses that make their customers' lives better while still being a net harm to humanity as a whole. Amazon might be one of those. I think they're wildly convenient, but they've crushed a lot of other businesses in their path, consolidated their power by absorbing other companies, played with prices based on harvested customer data, and many other shady practices. While your or my lives might be better with Amazon, humanity as a whole may not be. Amazon is one of a million companies that could go either way. A profitable business is not always a net benefit to humanity and people will still give their money to companies that neither benefit humanity nor them.

The author is 100% correct. Amazon is NOT interested in what's best for humanity, only what makes them the most money, and those two things are not necessarily equal, as you claimed.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Your thesis in this thread has been that ALL successful businesses fundamentally make the world a better place, when that absolutely isn't the case.
Click to expand...

No. My thesis in the thread, which I explained fully, is that people give a business money because they get something back which makes their lives better.

If many, many people are willing to give a business money, then it's because many, many people think their lives are better getting what the business sells.

Successful businesses find a way to give a lot of people something they think makes their lives better.

In which case, they are making the world a better and more enjoyable place for many, many people.


I used MLM as an obvious example. MLMs are profitable and they have lots of customers that do willingly hand them money, but that doesn't mean that the business makes the world a better place.
Click to expand...

If I agree with you that MLMs are shady businesses, it doesn't negate my premise, as single or anecdotal exceptions do not, nor have I ever said that outright frauds are part of my premise. Quite the opposite.



Trump University was a very profitable business that offered a "product" their customers who gladly paid it, but it also absolutely did not make the world a better place.
Click to expand...

I've already dealt with Trump University numerous times in this thread. Not only was Trump University a fraud, it wasn't even a successful business. It lasted less than 5 years and had fewer than 8,000 customers.


There are also plenty of businesses that make their customers' lives better while still being a net harm to humanity as a whole. Amazon might be one of those. I think they're wildly convenient, but they've crushed a lot of other businesses in their path, consolidated their power by absorbing other companies, played with prices based on harvested customer data, and many other shady practices. While your or my lives might be better with Amazon, humanity as a whole may not be. Amazon is one of a million companies that could go either way. A profitable business is not always a net benefit to humanity and people will still give their money to companies that neither benefit humanity nor them.
Click to expand...

Do you think most people want Amazon to go away?
 
Harshaw said:
No. My thesis in the thread, which I explained fully, is that people give a business money because they get something back which makes their lives better.

If many, many people are willing to give a business money, then it's because many, many people think their lives are better getting what the business sells.

Successful businesses find a way to give a lot of people something they think makes their lives better.

In which case, they are making the world a better and more enjoyable place for many, many people.




If I agree with you that MLMs are shady businesses, it doesn't negate my premise, as single or anecdotal exceptions do not, nor have I ever said that outright frauds are part of my premise. Quite the opposite.





I've already dealt with Trump University numerous times in this thread. Not only was Trump University a fraud, it wasn't even a successful business. It lasted less than 5 years and had fewer than 8,000 customers.




Do you think most people want Amazon to go away?
Click to expand...

The author is 100% correct. Amazon is NOT interested in what's best for humanity, only what makes them the most money, and those two things are not necessarily equal, as you claimed.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The author is 100% correct. Amazon is NOT interested in what's best for humanity, only what makes them the most money, and those two things are not necessarily equal, as you claimed.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't claim that, either.

I said they looked for and found a better, vastly more convenient way of doing things so that they could capitalize and profit on it, and in so doing made the world a better place.
 
Harshaw said:
Maybe so, but no one* doubts that the world is better with automobiles in it than without, despite the problems. Problems have a way of being worked out over time, on the same basis as I said -- people tend to choose better options. Or, if the problems really do outweigh the benefits, then that particular thing ends up abandoned. Either way, it's people choosing the things which make things better.



*With almost 8 billion people, you'll find a few exceptions who think there shouldn't be any cars.
Click to expand...

So, under your argument, there should never have been any legislation to reduce automobile emissions. Over time, people would prefer cleaner cars because their tired of breathing bad air. Do you think 19th century patent medicines would ever be forced to disclose their contents if not forced to do so? They worked, and people chose them. If big tobacco was not forced to admit the health issues of tobacco use, would people have chosen a better option?

Also, your response did not even address this issue of the vicissitudes of capitalism I put forward. Do you wish for the Great Depression to be repeated?
 
Harshaw said:
No, I didn't claim that, either.

I said they looked for and found a better, vastly more convenient way of doing things so that they could capitalize and profit on it, and in so doing made the world a better place.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. Your thread title is "NYT writer doesn't understand business" and added nutty lines like:

Harshaw said:
I'm saying it because any successful business makes the world a better place. A better, more convenient, more enjoyable place.
If they didn't, no one would give them their money.
And that, of course, is the whole point of going into that business -- to do something better, and to make money because it's better.
Click to expand...

All because she said Amazon isn't interested in making the world a better place, which is a fact. They are interested in making a profit. You've been unable to prove that all businesses that make a profit automatically make the world a better place. Ridiculously false. There are tons of successful businesses that people give money to that make the world a net worse place.

It's obvious you do not understand the purpose of business: profit.

MauiMan said:
So, under your argument, there should never have been any legislation to reduce automobile emissions. Over time, people would prefer cleaner cars because their tired of breathing bad air. Do you think 19th century patent medicines would ever be forced to disclose their contents if not forced to do so? They worked, and people chose them. If big tobacco was not forced to admit the health issues of tobacco use, would people have chosen a better option?

Also, your response did not even address this issue of the vicissitudes of capitalism I put forward. Do you wish for the Great Depression to be repeated?
Click to expand...

According to Harshaw their profitability alone means the tobacco companies make the world a better place. Millions die yearly from tobacco use around the world, but their profit makes them noble so they're a net good.
 
Last edited:
RabidAlpaca said:
Yes you did. Your thread title is "NYT writer doesn't understand business" and added nutty lines like:



All because she said Amazon isn't interested in making the world a better place, which is a fact. They are interested in making a profit. You've been unable to prove that all businesses that make a profit automatically make the world a better place. Ridiculously false. There are tons of successful businesses that people give money to that make the world a net worse place.

It's obvious you do not understand the purpose of business: profit.


According to Harshaw their profitability alone means the tobacco companies make the world a better place. Millions die yearly from tobacco use around the world, but their profit makes them noble so they're a net good.
Click to expand...

Apparently the words that I wrote were too much for you. As such, there is no point in repeating them.
 
Harshaw said:
Apparently the words that I wrote were too much for you. As such, there is no point in repeating them.
Click to expand...

Of course there's no reason to, I quoted what you wrote and even made it big and red so you could see it again. We've already named half a dozen industries that are wildly profitable while having a net negative impact on society. Sounds like you're completely full of **** as usual.

Profitable =/= Definitely good for mankind
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Of course there's no reason to, I quoted what you wrote and even made it big and red so you could see it again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the part you didn't put in bold is the part which matched what I said in the post you were replying to, a symmetry which you did not grasp.

Because the point, even though it was stated as plainly as possible in the written English language, eluded you entirely.

Rage on. It's pretty much all you do these days, as I've pointed out many, many times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom