:up:

What a wild and baseless generalisation! There are businesses that do a great deal of good. Don't make the fight against exploitative multinationals and businesses that ruthlessly exploit externalities look ridiculous by casting your accusations so widely. All you achieve by that is to support the Koch brothers and Murdochs of the world.

he action of business creates a profit by underpaying these large populations — Bloginton Blakley

Oh those evil businessmen.

Far better not to have a business or salary in the first place at all!

Yep, then the World is saved.

You don't address the article at all, instead you take flight in fancy.

Business people are by nature greedy and unconcerned with the consequences of their actions. These actions have resulted in climate change, endless war, and the notion that all the world belongs to business people.

I'm guessing you don't have any available defense for these behaviors and are simply posing a ridiculous straw man as a way of avoiding that fact.

The ultimate balance is against business, which is what I was pointing out. Are you avoiding the actual substance of the article for a reason>?

If the substance of the article is that business is bad, I am rejecting it, which is not avoiding it. You are tarring all business with the same brush. To be taken seriously you need to acknowledge that business is a tool and, like most tools, it can be used for good or evil.

If you want to argue for certain restrictions on business, or that certain types of business should be forbidden, then by all means do that. You'll likely find a much more sympathetic audience.

I didn't say business is bad, I said it's not profitable.

Why are you so defensive, are you a business owner or something?

Being in denial is not making an argument my friend. I've given data... your response...

"Nuh-uh"

Sorry but it's not convincing.

business is a tool and, like most tools, it can be used for good or evil. — andrewk

You keep missing the point. Any good that business does has to be weighed against the consequences of doing business.

In the case I'm presenting the main driving consequence is climate change.

How is business good if it destroys the ecosystem?

You aren't a human caused climate change denier are you?

You'll likely find a much more sympathetic audience. — andrewk

Are you the judge of audiences or something? Gosh no one told me.

I've given data. — Bloginton Blakley

No you haven't. You've linked to an article that criticises governments for not charging for greenhouse gas emissions. It provides no support whatsoever for your claim that "business is a con game".

Hysterical claims like that are the worst enemy of those that are campaigning for governments to meaningfully address climate change. They are even more helpful to the big polluters than handing out 'Vote Trump' flyers.

Any good that business does has to be weighed against the consequences of doing business. — Bloginton Blakley

Most business in the world is small business - farmers managing small, rural lots, streetside fruit and vegetable sellers, cafe and corner shop operators. Without that business, most people would starve to death. That is the consequence of not doing business.

"Most business in the world is small business - farmers managing small, rural lots, streetside fruit and vegetable sellers, cafe and corner shop operators. Without that business, most people would starve to death."

Most businesses are small businesses... So what? Business is driving climate change... does it matter if it's Boeing or a lot of smaller businesses?

Business owners need people to do their work for them. Labor needs have always driven business. So you are putting the cart before the horse. The needs of business created the large human population we have. And business could care less about feeding the world... Business cares about profit.

If the goal of business was to feed the world then food providers wouldn't be demanding a profit... that profit could be used to feed more people.

Right?

So don't get it twisted.

Agriculture is the reason we have such large populations. Before agriculture human population doubled every ten thousand years. In the last ten thousand years, since the adoption of an agrarian lifestyle, human population has gone from 5-10 million to over 7 billion. This ridiculous growth rate is the result of adopting an unsustainable way of life.

Agriculture.

And the evidence for this is literally all around you.

Business grew from the adoption of agriculture. Business demands growth, and bigger human populations for labor, needing more and more cropland...

And these demands that businesses make and do not pay for are driving climate change, war, inequality, etc.

How is business better than surviving... even if surviving means wandering around looking for nuts...

I'd much rather do that, than die... wouldn't you?

You've linked to an article that criticises governments for not charging for greenhouse gas emissions. — andrewk

The article also points to business, my friend.

"IMF says energy subsidized by $5.3 trillion worldwide"

So you can say it's government's fault for not charging business for the damage business does, but that does NOT address the fact that it is business that is actually doing that damage not the government.

Why is it that business people always forget the part business people play in influencing and setting up governments? It's like they think we don't understand that businesses buy off government officials... or that government itself was set up to create a stable business environment... at least here in the USA.

The needs of business created the large human population we have. — Bloginton Blakley

It could have just as well been the needs of men that created our large human population. Maybe testicles are actually responsible for the human population.

What is business anyway? And what isn't business? Please tell us in so many words.

It could have just as well been the needs of men that created our large human population. Maybe testicles are actually responsible for the human population. — Nils Loc

This is a bit silly. Humanity is 200,000 years old... as far as I know men have had testicles the entire time. In the first 190,000 years of human history human population grew to around 5-10 million. Since we adopted an agrarian lifestyle human population has sky rocketed.

10 million in the first 190,000 years... 7 plus billion in the last 10,000 years.

Are you positing a dramatic increase in testicle size and/or sperm production to account for this population growth?

Business is the action of creating and trading property usually for the purpose of generating an alleged surplus. But if you don't like that definition quote one you like better.

"Please tell us."

How many people are you?

Are you positing a dramatic increase in testicle size and/or sperm production to account for this population growth? — Bloginton Blakely

No, just the fact of sexual reproduction alone is enough to account for population growth. If we just got rid of men there might be less problems you ascribe to business. (This is silly)

Business is the action of creating and trading property usually for the purpose of generating an alleged surplus. — Bloginton Blakley

It could be about trading property to maintain life. An alleged surplus might be relative to what one needs or wants.

Since we adopted an agrarian lifestyle human population has sky rocketed. — Bloginton Blakley

I started reading a book some time ago called 'Against the Grain' which makes the claim that people had to be forced into an agrarian lifestyle, and that they were much happier, healthier, had much more free time, and were generally better off as hunter-gatherers.

The article also points to business, my friend.

"IMF says energy subsidized by $5.3 trillion worldwide" — Bloginton Blakley

That is not pointing to business. It's pointing to governments. The word 'business' does not occur anywhere in the article. Nor does 'profit' or 'company(ies)'.

The article is concerned about the relationship between governments and consumers of power, most of whom are individual people, not companies - see ref to China's "more than 1 billion consumers".

From the rest of your post it appears you would like to see agriculture abolished, and humans to revert to a hunter-gatherer existence. That is an extreme proposition, but it is coherent. It would be good if that had been stated as your position in the OP.

Can you confirm or correct the impression that what you are proposing is actually a dismantlement of civilisation and a return to a hunter-gatherer model of existence by all humans?

How do you define "profitable"?

"That is not pointing to business."

Then where is the 5.3 trillion in damage coming from?

You might also address the actual point of my article... that business isn't profitable. You seem to be running away from that idea by propping up a series of strawmen.

From the rest of your post it appears you would like to see agriculture abolished, and humans to revert to a hunter-gatherer existence. — andrewk

I would? Are you sure? Would you mind quoting me... or admit that you are making a huge assumption?

No, just the fact of sexual reproduction alone is enough to account for population growth. If we just got rid of men there might be less problems you ascribe to business. (This is silly) — Nils Loc

No sexual reproduction is not enough to account for population growth. People can have lots of babies but if there is no food the population will not grow.

You really weren't aware of this?

How do you define "profitable"? — Judaka

Unearned income remaining after an incomplete set of costs are figured.

Then where is the 5.3 trillion in damage coming from? — Bloginton Blakley

Mostly from households. People using energy to keep their houses warm, cook, heat water for baths etc.

Are you sure? Would you mind quoting me... or admit that you are making a huge assumption? — Bloginton Blakley

Of course I'm not sure, and I am assuming nothing! That's why I said 'it appears', and then directly asked you to confirm or correct the hypothesis. Honestly, if you can't be bothered to read carefully and try to comprehend posts before you respond, your discussions will never get anywhere!

Getting back to my question then: are you advocating that all humans should revert to hunter-gathering? If not, what are you advocating?

I started reading a book some time ago called 'Against the Grain' which makes the claim that people had to be forced into an agrarian lifestyle, and that they were much happier, healthier, had much more free time, and were generally better off as hunter-gatherers. — praxis

I'm not making any claims at all about the hunter gatherer lifestyle except that that lifestyle was obviously more sustainable than the agrarian model.

Not sure why everyone then assumes that I think we can support 7.5 billion people using the hunter gatherer lifestyle.

I'm simply pointing out that business itself is not actually profitable once you figure all the costs of doing business, and that agriculture set up a bunch of demands that led to the dead end we are in now... and the destruction that comes with this dead end is caused by the activity of business.

Mostly from households. People using energy to keep their houses warm, cook, heat water for baths etc. — andrewk

Oh I see, so you are claiming that the governments of the world are giving people money to buy fossil fuels to keep their houses warm, cook and heat water. To the tune of 5.3 trillion...

Hmm. why aren't I receiving a check for my energy bills if that's the case?

Could you also explain how people get the actual energy? I mean where does it come from? I'm not digging oil wells in my yard. I don't have a power plant in my bedroom.

So where is the energy coming from, andrew?

Of course I'm not sure, and I am assuming nothing! That's why I said 'it appears', and then directly asked you to confirm or correct the hypothesis — andrewk

But I didn't make the hypothesis... you did. Can't figure out why I'm supposed to correct your assumptions?

The point of this article is that business is not profitable once you figure all the costs.

Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the article and instead want to discuss your proposed return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles?

It could be about trading property to maintain life. An alleged surplus might be relative to what one needs or wants. — Nils Loc

This isn't really saying anything other than a surplus is extra in some way.

Yup. that's right... a surplus is extra.

And it is the goal of business to produce a surplus... Generally we call it a profit... same thing.

Unearned income remaining after an incomplete set of costs are figured. — Bloginton Blakley

What is unearned income? And unprofitable from who's perspective?

Judaka

What is unearned income? — Judaka

Poorly figured profit. I already told you.

Did you know that you can search for definitions using the internet. It's pretty awesome. Let me know if you need some help figuring this process out.

And unprofitable from who's perspective? — Judaka

From the perspective of all the costs of doing business.

You have shown no interest in discussion, only in lecturing others, hectoring them with questions and ignoring the questions they ask you.

I'll leave you to enjoy your thread on your own.

You have shown no interest in discussion, only in lecturing others, hectoring them with questions and ignoring the questions they ask you. — andrewk

The discussion is about the unprofitably of business. This is easy to confirm from the title.

You are unwilling to discuss the topic and have attempted to derail the discussion onto a path you proposed. Now your butt is hurt because I wanted to talk about the topic of the article I wrote.

Next time if you don't want to discuss the article being presented... maybe you should just find some other article to comment on?

Where does the energy come from andrew... that is why you are bugging out... to avoid that question.