Business has always been about the greater benefit. Not solely (or primarily, from the business owner's perspective) about that, of course, but that aspect is the entire reason why government puts so much time, effort, and money into supporting business activities.

If business is not at least in part about the greater benefit, then we need to stop wasting so many resources supporting it.

So when was this? When European businesses were exploiting the “new world”? When plantation owners were employing slaves? When robber barons were exploiting people and polluting the environment? The “greed is good” 80s? VCs throwing money at startups that they know will never be profitable waiting for the “greater fool”?

Before globalization, even before the industrial revolution.

The agriculture revolution has been a disaster for the human race. Or at least the individuals within it.

You mean when there was mass starvation, low life expectancy and mostly on the backs of people colonized by Europeans?

No, that was after globalization, not before. Exploiting the backs of other workers is at the core of globalism, and the core of evil (imo).

Yes, there was starvation, but if we're all starving, who cares, really? Better we all starve than to have a despot in power starving me while he eats fat. Eat his fat instead.

I mean didn't the greater European community as a whole benefit greatly by access to the materials found in the "new world" (and also Asia)?

Plantations is a bit vague but to assume Cotton; people benefited tremendously from cheaper clothes. A lot of the early industrial revolution was weaving machines which wouldn't be possible without a lot of cotton.

Robber barons is a bit vague but to assume railroads; people benefited tremendously from trade. Our cities are built with a lot of materials that aren't locally sourced.

---

Things have trade-offs but to say there were nothing positive about something that has negatives is very dishonest.

> mean didn't the greater European community as a whole benefit greatly by access to the materials found in the "new world" (and also Asia)?

At the expense of killing millions?

< Plantations is a bit vague but to assume Cotton; people benefited tremendously from cheaper clothes. A lot of the early industrial revolution was weaving machines which wouldn't be possible without a lot of cotton.

At the expense of killing and enslaving millions?

It would really help if you could identify a specific business to talk about.

Columbus wasn't a business but if you take a look at why he got funding [1] you'll see its very clearly for the greater good (of the crown). Of course, the inhabitants of the land being colonized are not taken into consideration but they're also not the one giving Columbus his funding.

I think you need to think a bit longer about this. If slavery wasn't useful economically why did so many civilizations engage in it?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbu...

It didn’t help the slaves or the people being colonized…

The government tolerates business because the alternative is so much worse.

The only reason businesses are tolerated is for the greater benefit.

If a paint company is dumping waste in the river we get them to stop. They push back and say "if you stop you won't have paint" and we work out a tradeoff.

Some businesses have hacked the system. For example finance is a service business but some people who just use it for self-enrichment have managed to persuade others that that is for the public good. That won't last forever, but certainly will take a long time (many more human lifespans I suspect, unfortunately) to damp out.

We see it now with fracking, if it only hurts the local population and benefits others, they are ignored. That’s not even to mention conflict minerals and the horrible working conditions in other countries.

Can you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments and taking HN further into generic ideological battle? Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

Fortunately it doesn't look like your comments have been dominated by this, but still, we've had to ask you this several times in the past. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23863318 (July 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21618278 (Nov 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20158037 (June 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19539635 (April 2019)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18018671 (Sept 2018)

I usually don’t respond to mods - and honestly after taking a step back, I usually begrudgingly agree. But if the purpose is to spark conversation that doesn’t devolve into tribalism, I think my posts have from the number of replies without name calling on either side and dispassionate debate it has had.

I also have gotten about as many upvotes as downvotes.

But really? Going back to 2020, 2019 and 2018?

Sure, we tend to cut people a lot of slack, especially if their comments are a mix of good ones and bad ones, and it sometimes takes us years before we ban them.

If you'd please just not post any more generic ideological comments and/or flamebait, that would be good.