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

[Harshaw]

Especially innovative business.

Headline:

Amazon Isn’t Interested in Making the World a Better Place

Subheadline:

New Yorkers who expected better bought into the myth that tech companies are more than just self-interested businesses.

Opinion | Amazon Isn’t Interested in Making the World a Better Place - The New York Times

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.

If they didn't, no one would give them their money.

It's especially true of tech innovators who find way to do things differently, and if they're successful, better, than anyone's done it before.

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.

So, seeking to make the world a better place is indeed a core component of what Amazon built itself on.

To contend that Amazon hasn't made the world a better, more convenient, more enjoyable place is just idiocy on stilts. Of course they have. And it wasn't by accident.

 

[Jetboogieman]

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.

All other things aside, this, massively blanket statement, is simply not true, just because a business is successful, doesn't mean it has made the world a better place, or what it has done is good.

That is just... Well it's just wrong.

 

[Harshaw]

All other things aside, this, massively blanket statement, is simply not true, just because a business is successful, doesn't mean it has made the world a better place, or what it has done is good.

That is just... Well it's just wrong.

No one would give any business their money unless they offered something that makes their life better. If it's done on a large scale, then it's true for a lot of people.

Can you name any exceptions to that?

 

[Jetboogieman]

No one would give any business their money unless they offered something that makes their life better.

Can you name any exceptions to that?

Now I know you're going to hit back and say "well... Um... I meant legitimate businesses".

But shall we start with... The Cocaine Trade?

But, let's back track to what is part of the mainstream US economy, HMO's are a good example, well the entire healthcare industry really, bankrupting people left right and center, perpetuating a system that continues to drain the entire US economy whilst providing worse and worse returns as things go on, whilst other industrialized nations provide better outcomes for a fraction of the cost.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No one would give any business their money unless they offered something that makes their life better. If it's done on a large scale, then it's true for a lot of people.

Can you name any exceptions to that?

You're comparing individual value with net value for society. If theoretical company A dramatically helped person 1 but in the process of doing so screwed over 100 other people, that's not a net benefit to society. You're right that it's not the goal of business, but it is the goal of governance and regulation.

While Amazon is really convenient, they have destroyed a LOT more jobs than they've created. It's not all good.

 

[Harshaw]

You're comparing individual value with net value for society. If theoretical company A dramatically helped person 1 but in the process of doing so screwed over 100 other people, that's not a net benefit to society. You're right that it's not the goal of business, but it is the goal of governance and regulation.

No, I'm referring to the aggregate benefit of all the customers of a business, not just a single customer.

While Amazon is really convenient, they have destroyed a LOT more jobs than they've created. It's not all good.

I didn't claim it was "all" good, and the ways Amazon has made the world a better place isn't about the jobs it created (though it has done plenty of that, and in ways you're probably not counting, such as small businesses which are able to be IN business because they have Amazon storefronts). It has made the world a better place because of its convenience and comparatively low pricing.

 

[Harshaw]

Now I know you're going to hit back and say "well... Um... I meant legitimate businesses".

But shall we start with... The Cocaine Trade?

The damage the cocaine trade has done stems almost entirely from it being illegal.

The same was true of alcohol when it was illegal.

But, let's back track to what is part of the mainstream US economy, HMO's are a good example, well the entire healthcare industry really, bankrupting people left right and center, perpetuating a system that continues to drain the entire US economy whilst providing worse and worse returns as things go on, whilst other industrialized nations provide better outcomes for a fraction of the cost.

If that were true of HMOs, they wouldn't exist, because no one would use them.

 

[Jetboogieman]

No one would give any business their money unless they offered something that makes their life better. If it's done on a large scale, then it's true for a lot of people.

Can you name any exceptions to that?

Actually here's another example I like.

McDonalds.

One could make the argument, devil advocate, that McDonalds was able to create a company that was able to deliver food at an unprecedented cheapness and convenience and shaped the course of food output and consumption forever.

On the flip-side, the food is delivered and the industry it fostered created a obesity epidemic that has ended up killing more people than smoking, not to mention the way all this food makes its way into its stores has had an ecological impact that is incredibly destructive among a whole host of other negatives it produced.

 

[Jetboogieman]

The damage the cocaine trade has done stems almost entirely from it being illegal.

The same was true of alcohol when it was illegal.

That is ****ing crazy, are you saying that alcohol did not continue to be damaging after it was made legal (again)?

If that were true of HMOs, they wouldn't exist, because no one would use them.

We have been over this before, I can't reason with someone who when I went on to critique the American Healthcare System, one you described as "freedom", you said I was trying to make "freedom" sound ugly.

The American system is what it is, HMO's have a strangehold over the industry and the political system to ensure it cannot be reformed and alternative ways of healthcare delivery could be fostered, your point is clueless.

 

[Harshaw]

Actually here's another example I like.

McDonalds.

One could make the argument, devil advocate, that McDonalds was able to create a company that was able to deliver food at an unprecedented cheapness and convenience and shaped the course of food output and consumption forever.

Yes, they did.

On the flip-side, the food is delivered and the industry it fostered created a obesity epidemic that has ended up killing more people than smoking, not to mention the way all this food makes its way into its stores has had an ecological impact that is incredibly destructive among a whole host of other negatives it produced.

McDonald's didn't do that. People did that to themselves. They didn't have to.

(And why people blame obesity ENTIRELY on McDonald's has always baffled me.)

 

[Harshaw]

That is ****ing crazy, are you saying that alcohol did not continue to be damaging after it was made legal (again)?

No, I'm saying the most damaging things about alcohol -- the crime, the gangs, the racketeering, the destroyed communities -- pretty much disappeared when prohibition ended.

As would be the same if drugs were legalized. The violence and corruption involved in the cocaine trade would end.

You seem to be veering rather close to saying that if there's any problem with a business, it doesn't make the world a better place.

I'd really like for you to run a poll to see if people think they'd rather live in a world that has or doesn't have alcohol widely available.

We have been over this before,

We have? When?

I can't reason with someone who when I went on to critique the American Healthcare System, one you described as "freedom", you said I was trying to make "freedom" sound ugly.

I have no recollection of that. I will need a link.

The American system is what it is, HMO's have a strangehold over the industry and the political system to ensure it cannot be reformed and alternative ways of healthcare delivery could be fostered, your point is clueless.

I made no arguments about any of that. You said that HMOs "bankrupt people left, right, and center." That simply isn't true. And if it were, people would not use them.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No, I'm referring to the aggregate benefit of all the customers of a business, not just a single customer.



I didn't claim it was "all" good, and the ways Amazon has made the world a better place isn't about the jobs it created (though it has done plenty of that, and in ways you're probably not counting, such as small businesses which are able to be IN business because they have Amazon storefronts). It has made the world a better place because of its convenience and comparatively low pricing.

No, I'm saying the most damaging things about alcohol -- the crime, the gangs, the racketeering, the destroyed communities -- pretty much disappeared when prohibition ended.

As would be the same if drugs were legalized. The violence and corruption involved in the cocaine trade would end.

You seem to be veering rather close to saying that if there's any problem with a business, it doesn't make the world a better place.

I'd really like for you to run a poll to see if people think they'd rather live in a world that has or doesn't have alcohol widely available.





We have? When?



I have no recollection of that. I will need a link.



I made no arguments about any of that. You said that HMOs "bankrupt people left, right, and center." That simply isn't true. And if it were, people would not use them.

The core argument of the article is that Amazon does not care about making the world a better place and that is absolutely the truth. We live in a capitalistic economy where the only priority is profit. The benefit to society is rarely if ever even considered. There are plenty of successful businesses that are net negative for society even if they're profitable. Being profitable does not automatically mean they're a net benefit to society nor even a net, benefit to their customers.

Multi level marketing schemes are wildly profitable and some "customer entrepreneurs" get rich, but many more gets screwed. Your claim that a business wouldn't exist if it wasn't a net benefit to the customers is false.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No one would give any business their money unless they offered something that makes their life better. If it's done on a large scale, then it's true for a lot of people.

Can you name any exceptions to that?

Satisfying the demand of a few at the expense of (many?) others does not necessarily make life better for society. Folks made money by selling DDT, asbestos shingles and very addictive drugs - are those not exceptions?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Yes, they did.

But at a cost benefit to consumers and the planet?

History will tell.

McDonald's didn't do that. People did that to themselves. They didn't have to.

(And why people blame obesity ENTIRELY on McDonald's has always baffled me.)

I didn't do that in fact, as I also added the industry they helped foster into existence, yes to a certain extent there is consumer choice but that goes back to the fundamental problem with your whole idea, that consumers always make rational choices and so, by extension, making businesses successful through their choices, makes them good, that simply isn't true and especially in the case of the fast food industry, I do not, at all discount consumer responsibility in this matter, but that doesn't make the companies good by extension, or having made the world a better place.

 

[Harshaw]

The core argument of the article is that Amazon does not care about making the world a better place and that is absolutely the truth. We live in a capitalistic economy where the only priority is profit. The benefit to society is rarely if ever even considered. There are plenty of successful businesses that are net negative for society even if they're profitable. Being profitable does not automatically mean they're a net benefit to society nor even a net, benefit to their customers.

I addressed ALL of that in the first post.

Multi level marketing schemes are wildly profitable and some "customer entrepreneurs" get rich, but many more gets screwed.

Who?

Your claim that a business wouldn't exist if it wasn't a net benefit to the customers is false.

That was not my claim.

But in what way is Amazon NOT a net benefit to its customers?

 

[Jetboogieman]

No, I'm saying the most damaging things about alcohol -- the crime, the gangs, the racketeering, the destroyed communities -- pretty much disappeared when prohibition ended.

No they didn't, they just didn't have alcohol as a revenue stream anymore, but that did continue.

The Mafia and other illegal groups didn't disappear in 1933.

As would be the same if drugs were legalized. The violence and corruption involved in the cocaine trade would end.

But not other aspects, such as its health and social affects, something alcohol, is by far the most destructive drug in society.

You seem to be veering rather close to saying that if there's any problem with a business, it doesn't make the world a better place.

Your delusions are your own.

I'd really like for you to run a poll to see if people think they'd rather live in a world that has or doesn't have alcohol widely available.

I wouldn't either, but alcohol hasn't really made the world a better place to live, hasn't really made it more convenient and really hasn't made it more enjoyable... I know for some it might seem like it has and I am for people making their own choices so I'm not for banning it, but actually, really, it doesn't hit your three criteria, really, in reality it causes disease, broken homes, violence and a whole host of other social problems as well as casual enjoyment for most but make no mistake, your entire argument is based on the idea that consumers make rational decisions... They don't.

I have first hand had to grapple with the effects of this drug (alcohol), both personally and with family as most of us have and, after all I witnessed with this drug, the good times and the bad, I cannot see it as a net positive for society regardless of how I believe people should be free to consume it.

We have? When?


I have no recollection of that. I will need a link.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...l-net-neutrality-rules-24.html#post1067952738

I made no arguments about any of that. You said that HMOs "bankrupt people left, right, and center." That simply isn't true. And if it were, people would not use them.

You're just being silly now.

 

[Harshaw]

But at a cost benefit to consumers and the planet?

History will tell.

Again, you seem to be arguing that if there's any downside, then the world isn't made better.

I'd like you do another poll to see if people would rather live in a world with convenient, prepared food options, or without them.

I didn't do that in fact, as I also added the industry they helped foster into existence, yes to a certain extent there is consumer choice but that goes back to the fundamental problem with your whole idea, that consumers always make rational choices and so, by extension, making businesses successful through their choices, makes them good, that simply isn't true and especially in the case of the fast food industry, I do not, at all discount consumer responsibility in this matter, but that doesn't make the companies good by extension, or having made the world a better place.

I never claimed any such thing.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I addressed ALL of that in the first post.
Who?
That was not my claim.

But in what way is Amazon NOT a net benefit to its customers?

Wtf do you mean who? Do you want names of the victims of multi-level marketing?

And Amazon has switched to largely providing cheap chinese crap and has destroyed many businesses. I still shop there, but their net benefit to society is questionable and their prioritizing of profits over the net benefit to society is unquestionable. Yes that was your argument and yes it's incorrect. A profitable business existing does not mean that it is a net benefit to its customers, much less society. Trump University existed many years, made lots of money and didn't help anybody.

 

[ecofarm]

Won't someone think of the children??

 

[Harshaw]

No they didn't, they just didn't have alcohol as a revenue stream anymore, but that did continue.

Not because of alcohol.

The Mafia and other illegal groups didn't disappear in 1933.

They can only do this if they deal in products that people want, but are illegal.

But not other aspects, such as its health and social affects, something alcohol, is by far the most destructive drug in society.



Your delusions are your own.



I wouldn't either, but alcohol hasn't really made the world a better place to live, hasn't really made it more convenient and really hasn't made it more enjoyable...

Then why wouldn't you prefer a world without it?

I know for some it might seem like it has and I am for people making their own choices so I'm not for banning it, but actually, really, it doesn't hit your three criteria, really, in reality it causes disease, broken homes,

Not for most people, it doesn't.

violence and a whole host of other social problems as well as casual enjoyment

Most people consume alcohol with none of these problems.

for most but make no mistake, your entire argument is based on the idea that consumers make rational decisions... They don't.

It in no way is based on that. It is based on the idea that people are willing to pay for things which they want, and are not for things they don't want.

I have first hand had to grapple with the effects of this drug (alcohol), both personally and with family as most of us have and, after all I witnessed with this drug, the good times and the bad, I cannot see it as a net positive for society regardless of how I believe people should be free to consume it.

That is unfortunate for you, but that is anecdotal.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...l-net-neutrality-rules-24.html#post1067952738

I stand by everything I said in that thread.

You're just being silly now.

Just because you wish to believe that HMOs "bankrupt people left, right, and center" -- by which I take you mean "in great numbers" -- it doesn't make it true. It's not.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Again, you seem to be arguing that if there's any downside, then the world isn't made better.

That is your delusion and your inability to understand what is being said.

I'd like you do another poll to see if people would rather live in a world with convenient, prepared food options, or without them.

Your first try at this line didn't work, second time lucky, I don't think so.

I am an occasional consumer of fast food, I enjoy it, I am not for getting rid of it, or saying that people can't have it, but I am capable of understanding that its not good and that does make me a hypocrite but that's not what we're arguing here, we're not arguing whether anyone should personally stop using services that are bad for them, we're arguing it at a more meta-level that they may not be good just because they are a successful business and you don't really seem capable of having that discussion even though you began it.

I never claimed any such thing.

But you are, because the basis of what you're saying is:

No one would give any business their money unless they offered something that makes their life better.

That, simply is not true, I know its extremely inconvenient that you did say that, because it allowed me to drive a metaphorical truck through your arguments, but it is the argument you're making, that there is no way, any person, would give money to businesses unless it made their life better?

Um... Harshaw...

 

[Harshaw]

Wtf do you mean who? Do you want names of the victims of multi-level marketing?

No, I wish you to name those who have been destroyed by utilizing Amazon's storefronts.

And Amazon has switched to largely providing cheap chinese crap and has destroyed many businesses.

Is green energy a bad thing because it's going to destroy many businesses?

I still shop there, but their net benefit to society is questionable and their prioritizing of profits over the net benefit to society is unquestionable. Yes that was your argument and yes it's incorrect.

My argument that they're driven by profit is incorrect?

A profitable business existing does not mean that it is a net benefit to its customers, much less society. Trump University existed many years, made lots of money and didn't help anybody.

Fraud is fraud, and is a crime. Amazon isn't fraudulent.

 

[Harshaw]

That is your delusion and your inability to understand what is being said.



Your first try at this line didn't work, second time lucky, I don't think so.

I am an occasional consumer of fast food, I enjoy it, I am not for getting rid of it, or saying that people can't have it, but I am capable of understanding that its not good and that does make me a hypocrite but that's not what we're arguing here, we're not arguing whether anyone should personally stop using services that are bad for them, we're arguing it at a more meta-level that they may not be good just because they are a successful business and you don't really seem capable of having that discussion even though you began it.

You keep using your anecdotes as though they are evidence.

Again, I'd like to see if people think the world is a better place with alcohol in it, or with convenient prepared food options in it, than without.

You say that "doesn't work," but I think you know what the answers will be.

If people think they'd rather have the world where these things are in it -- and I have no doubt they do -- then they think it makes the world a better place. Your personal objections to that are irrelevant.

But you are, because the basis of what you're saying is:

The problem you're having is that you think people should look at what makes life better the same way you do.

But not everyone does.

That, simply is not true, I know its extremely inconvenient that you did say that, because it allowed me to drive a metaphorical truck through your arguments, but it is the argument you're making, that there is no way, any person, would give money to businesses unless it made their life better?

Um... Harshaw...

People smoke for the pleasure of it, or for social benefits, which they apparently think outweighs the risks.

 

[Greenbeard]

I like Amazon's product. I do not, do not, do not want them headquartered in my metropolitan area or anywhere close to it. These aren't incompatible impulses.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No, I wish you to name those who have been destroyed by utilizing Amazon's storefronts.

[quote[And Amazon has switched to largely providing cheap chinese crap and has destroyed many businesses.

Is green energy a bad thing because it's going to destroy many businesses?



My argument that they're driven by profit is incorrect?




Fraud is fraud, and is a crime. Amazon isn't fraudulent.

Your argument is that this journalist is incorrect because he said Amazon does not care about the net benefit to society or its customers, only profit. He is 100% correct.

If green energy did more harm than good, it would not be a net benefit to society. Green energy (or anything) simply being profitable does not mean it's not a net negative thing for society. The better example is that green energy would be a large net positive for society but because it's not as profitable as fossile fuels (for now) it still lags behind. Profit, not customer or societal benefit drives all business in capitalism.