[wolverine876]

People like to say something that's more harsh or cruel or greedy - almost any negative human trait - is more 'real', a sort of reactionary assertion, which assumes liberalism (used broadly) as 'unreal', fantastical, a silly dream. People like to say that about 'realist' international relations, but the truth is that countries that do good attract more allies and friends.

But the truth is that people balance interests all the time, including businesses. Every decision balances many interests, some involving profit, some involving doing good. That is just as real, just as common a trait in humans.

[xyzelement]

Yup sure and I don't disagree.

And I think the connection to "liberalism" is a good point.

The difference is "doing something virtuous rather than maximizing revenue" vs "doing things that will clearly make your business/country unsustainable"

[elefanten]

Appreciate the upthread perspectives from you both.

One thought that came to mind is that these are, in some sense, concentric frameworks that rely on each other: a society’s values, a political economy’s priorities and affordances, and how business is conducted.

Gut level, I feel that the social and political pieces circumscribe how business can viably be run. So, I can see a (perhaps very presently-rooted) perspective that we should strive to uphold and/or fight for certain goals and outcomes on the higher levels, but that pragmatically running a business within the existing (functioning, even if dysfunctional) framework may not allow the same opportunities as trying to evolve the sociopolitical.

Going further out on a limb, the higher levels evolve more slowly — often intergenerationally - and that makes it hard to see (or remember) which rules interact with which kinds of trade-offs.