Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The central concept of the "invisible hand" of the market is that it leaves both creator and consumer better off.

There's a long line of argument that free entreprise is actually more helpful than charity in many circumstances.

In a sense, building any company is a charitable act, because you leave consumers better off than they were before .



In a sense, building any company is a charitable act, because you leave consumers better off than they were before

Are you daft?

It's not a charitable act to start a for-profit company, because you get paid for providing the service that leaves the people better off. The whole point of charities is that they provide the service without getting paid.

(If your business is a startup that has deferred monetization until later, that still doesn't make you a charity; you've just chosen to turn away payment now in the hope that doing so will yield you a bigger payment down the road.)

That's not to say that starting a business is a bad thing or that businesses can't improve the world; but there's a clear line between what a business is and what a charity is, and it involves the expectation of getting paid. Which means a business is always going to be lower on the Do-Gooder Scale than a charity is.


He's right. The defining quality of a charitable act is that you help people who need help, not that you don't make money from it. E.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%20charitable


Would you consider Google or Facebook a charity, then?

Or the person at a sports event selling me beer? Are they a charity? I do want beer, and they are facilitating that...for $10/glass.

(I think that most people would not consider the beer vendor a charity, and since English is a living language, I think that the cited definition is incomplete)


Obviously I wouldn't call either "a charity" because charity used in that (comparatively recent sense) means a nonprofit.

Crazygringo's point is that there is a much older and more important sense of "charity," which simply means helping those in need. In that sense, Google is a very charitable project. In fact it is hard to imagine a nonprofit doing a better job.


See the 8 levels of charity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah#In_rabbinical_literatu...

Starting a business with someone is considered the highest level.


Interest free loan.


Yes, that is one of the options. But not the only one - starting a business with someone or finding them is job is considered just as good.

However, I'm not sure that providing someone with a service would qualify though.


He is claiming a business is a charity to its customers.


Not a charity, but generates huge consumer surplus (i.e. makes my life better by a lot more than they cost).

If Google didn't exist, my life would probably be $20k/yr worse due to search, $5-10k for maps, and $3k/yr worse due to Reader. Maybe $500/yr for News. Google Plus not existing would make my life better (since people who post would post on fb instead, where I'd actually read them).


I dunno about Google's definition, but Merriam-Webster's makes it pretty clear that "charitable" involves giving, not making a mutually beneficial exchange as one does in the marketplace: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charitable

As does Dictionary.com's: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charitable

And Wiktionary's: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charitable


> building any company is a charitable act

This is a Randian and ultimately vapid definition of charity. I am all for capitalism but let's not get crazy.

Edit: Capitalism is the opposite of charity because you earn your keep. This is always preferable for both parties IMO.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: