>some people look at business as making money for the sake of making money. However other people look at making money as a means to better society.

if the two sides you describe agree on those definitions as mutually exclusive but in union describing the universal set of people, then they are both wrong.

as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin. you give somebody your money in exchange for something you want and would rather have: this creates happiness out of thin air.

if you think a better society is a happier society, then going into business to make money is the same as going into business to make society better.

▲

HKH2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Society depends on long-term 'happiness'. Short-term 'happiness' often makes society worse.

▲

mindslight 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin

That is a big if which is straightforwardly false. This idea of market participants' choices being entirely free rests on the efficient market fallacy [0]. Whereas the reality is that even the structure of a market itself creates friction. One of the main points of business schools is learning how to recognize and take advantage of this structural friction, which business people then conveniently forget when it's time to assuage their own egos regarding their counterparties.

[0] which is basically in the realm of asserting P == NP. The supreme irony is that if the efficient market fallacy were true, then central planning would also work as well!

▲

fsckboy an hour ago | parent [-]

>This idea of market participants' choices being entirely free rests on the efficient market fallacy

in an inefficient market, you can still choose to transact or not, and you will only do so if you feel you will benefit.

in an efficient market, the net benefit across society will be higher, but nothing in what I said requires an efficient market.

so you are simply wrong.

▲

mindslight 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

No, you cannot necessarily to choose whether to transact or not. For life's necessities (eg food, shelter) this is straightforwardly obvious. And you are making this claim in the context of the employment market, which is one step removed from that.

But even in the general case your argument still does not make sense. When we talk of a business providing societal utility, we don't include the business owner themselves in the integral. For example your assertion lets you conclude things like a casino owner who has made a pile of money but impoverished the community has made society better.

	▲	fsckboy 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>No, you cannot necessarily to choose whether to transact or not. I didn't say you could, pay closer attention or you will not be able to understand arguments or learn anything. What I said was, "as long as people engaged in a market make their own choices, then money is a direct measure of happiness on the margin." however, your mistake does contain a germ of reinforcement to what I said: if you cannot choose to participate in a transaction, you will be less happy, i.e. allowing sellers to offer choices and buyers to make choices will increase happiness in every type of market. before you make another mistake and go shooting off, I didnt say people will be happy, I said they will be happier.