He is saying that any company that supplies to a military has an economic incentive to make sure war happens. Seeing as they profit from the size of the military, that's not exactly far-fetched.

He’s making an enormous and baseless jump that any company that supplies the military must also be involved corruption and unethical war mongering. Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it. That’s just as senseless as saying that I’m probably a drug dealer because there’s an economic insentive for me to be. Aside from the complete lack of logic in this claim, it also doesn’t even make sense, since the military gets a budget every year, regardless of whether there’s a war to fight.

A company has only one feedback point in the long run (people leave or die over that timeframe, so you can only count on the lowest common denominator there) and that is money. If that doesn't tell you something about a company's core motivation, then I'm afraid I can't make clear to you why counting on anything but economic incentives as motivation for a company's actions is naive at best.

You’re argument is that every company _must_ be involved in corruption and law breaking, simply because there is profit to be found in doing so. This isn’t simply naive, it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

I have literally never encountered a large company that doesn't have good tax deals in some country or other. Good in the order of "pays basically no taxes". What do you want to call that? "Just good business"?

> Just because an economic insentive exists, doesn’t mean people will exploit it.

I think that this statement has been proven wrong countless times throughout history.

History has proven that every company in the world will always exploit every possible opportunity to make a profit now matter how corrupt or illegal it is? I don’t think history has proven that at all, and I don’t think you actually believe that.