31–40 of 40 posts
Free trade benefits both parties by definition - otherwise the 2 parties would say "Salud" and part ways. "The world" is usually defined so as to include those 2 parties, whoever they are. So I'd say all companies are at least trying to do this.
*in a perfect world with no monopolies, no information asymmetry and probably a dozen other caveats.
Separately, there are also companies that try to do good alongside making a profit, usually through a mixture of both corporate values (eg sustainability); legal ownership differences (co-ops, ESOPs, Benefit Corporations, etc.) that try to distribute ownership with the people who work there or enshrine other priorities into their charter; and also third party certifications (Fair Trade, B Corp, organic, Rainforest Alliance, etc.) Casually, they're sometimes called triple bottom line or "three P" companies (people, planet, profit).
There's lots of organizations in both categories working every day to try to advance some cause or work on some issue. Whether that's making the world "better" depends on your values and the organization's effectiveness, but they are certainly trying.
Are you interested in any issue in particular?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think part of the complication is that perhaps different people have different definitions for "better". For example, I posted about an organization that is working to eradicate a hideous disease that harms poor people in developing parts of the world and it was downvoted. (It’s ok, I take no offense) Perhaps it is easier to agree that any company that helps make you wealthier is helping to make the world "better"?
Increasing wealth in general (!) is always better for the world even if only because it makes more humanitarian missions possible (you need money to help others).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increasing wealth in general (!) is always better for the world even if only because it makes more humanitarian missions possible (you need money to help others).
Not every company increases wealth though. Selling addictive poison (cigarettes) for example does not increase wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Increasing wealth in general (!) is always better for the world even if only because it makes more humanitarian missions possible (you need money to help others).
Not every company increases wealth though. Selling addictive poison (cigarettes) for example does not increase wealth.
Another one is weapons selling companies.
But even then a strong case can be made that without those companies people would still satisfy the demand via black market causing same harm bit without money benefits to society.
So still it is better with companies than without.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every company increases wealth though. Selling addictive poison (cigarettes) for example does not increase wealth.
It does increase wealth for shareholders. This is why there is so much capital allocated for opioids as well as other extralegal pharmaceuticals.
Companies that make chocolate
Chocolate contains significant quantities of heavy metals so they’re making the world better but also making it worse. (Just proving the point that in almost every case there’s a judgement call to be made about how net good something is)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does increase wealth for shareholders. This is why there is so much capital allocated for opioids as well as other extralegal pharmaceuticals.
I thought we were discussing total wealth and not wealth for some portion of the population, at the cost of somebody else's wealth (computed holistically, not just money but also health and overall wellbeing). By this logic, stealing increases wealth of the thief.
Except directly stealing - wealth is created.
For example — even if all the profits from oil on earth goes to few pockets it is still benefitial for the world.
Because those pockets still gonna spend those money one way or another and contribute to economy growth eventually.
This is how Russia was flourishing on 2000s - oil profits mostly wen to putin's gang, but ordinary people quality of life still grew substantially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chocolate contains significant quantities of heavy metals so they’re making the world better but also making it worse. (Just proving the point that in almost every case there’s a judgement call to be made about how net good something is)
What sort of chocolate are you eating?