[yesenadam]

> All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

Where did you learn that? I don't think it's at all true. It seems maybe you have a no-true-scotsman definition of 'exploited', so that no evidence against your claim would change your mind.

Picture a baker, who makes bread for people, who get bread, the baker gets money. Where is the necessary exploitation? I can't imagine where your confidence - "no exceptions" comes from. There are no win-win exchanges in the world, and none even possible? I'm not a huge fan of capitalism but that seems absurd.

[ben_w]

"Exploitation" has at least two (IMO very different) meanings.

Even though most of the time "exploiting an opportunity" is neutral and "exploiting our workers" is either a scam or abuse, I have seen some texts that used the word in the same sense for both cases.

[Dalewyn]

The baker is exploiting his customers' need/want for bread. The customers are exploiting the baker's need/want for money.

Another way to describe business is that all business is about ripping someone off without pissing them off (and ideally making them happy). Middlemen who make their profit off margins are the most obvious example, but as I said this applies to all forms of business.

I reiterate: All business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

[yesenadam]

I think you are using the word "exploit" in a different way than it is usually used, leading most people to misunderstand you. Or as a sibling comment suggests, the word has two meanings, and your argument uses equivocation (two different meanings in two different places) to achieve an apparently thick, substantial conclusion out of nothing.

[Dalewyn]

Let me rephrase it using simpler language, then:

All business is about taking advantage of someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

The baker is taking advantage of his customers' need/want for bread. The customers are taking advantage of the baker's need/want for money.

[josephg]

Business is about trade. Trade has an amazing property where when we trade, we can create value out of nothing. Excess apples aren’t worth much to an apple farmer. If an apple farmer gives some apples to a plumber in exchange for fixing the pipes in her bathroom, both people are better off. Value for both parties has been created out of nowhere. It’s magic. And to this day, I can pay a plumber to fix my leaky tap and we both walk away from the trade feeling like we got a good deal.

Businesses are organisations designed to systematically “exploit” trade to generate profit - which ends up in the hands of their customers (my tap got fixed), and the employees and owners in the form of money.

Healthy businesses have created all the wealth that exists. Let that sink in! Trade (usually through businesses) is the mechanism that has given us the bounty of modern life.

I also agree that capitalism is a demon we have summoned from beyond the veil that doesn’t truly care about us. Unbridled capitalism will overfish, send children into cobalt mines, and encourage bankers to commit fraud. As the economist says, we need healthy regulation to curb capitalism’s excesses.

But classifying it as entirely evil, or entirely exploitative is too much. If you really feel that way, try living without trading if you like. Sounds like a sure fire way to end up homeless. I wouldn’t last a day.

[Dalewyn]

When did I ever say business was "evil"? Nothing about business is inherently "evil".

Business is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

Trade is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

Put another way, business is about obtaining someone else's time so you don't have to use yours.

You should stop applying pre(mis)conceptions and look at what business is objectively.

[josephg]

Saying business is exploitative is pejorative - it implies wrongness. If you don’t mean to imply a moral judgement, maybe use a different word.

If you don’t mean to imply wrongness, then I’m not sure how your point of view is any different from mine. Trade is two people, mutually and consensually getting something they want from each other such that they’re both happier. If the only difference is your use of the word “exploit” but you mean it in a non-moralising way, sounds like we agree.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Trade is about exploiting someone somewhere for your benefit, no exceptions.

This is absolutely wrong, there is a whole field of economics studying trade and you should read at least about comparative advantage. In healthy economy trade is for mutual benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[colpabar]

it's communist nonsense that's used to justify the idea that walking dogs for ~25 hours a week is just too much.