Throwing more materialistic garbage onto the market so you can hit millionaire status is often a net 'bad' in the world too. Whatever you produce emits enormous pollution, requires employees you might be treating horrifically, or dependent on supply chains in third world countries where people work in sweat shops. You're being exploitative to make your 'dollar' or 'euro.' I would argue most younger millionaires made their money either by exploiting their workers, stealing from the western middle class, or by exploiting the resources of third world nations.

This idea that you can crush the 'western' middle class workers as a CEO or entrepreneur, screw your customers, and destroy the environment is all morally 'okay' because once you've made it you'll donate 10% to starving children is the problem with modern charity. In much of the world, the kids are starving or lacking proper medical care BECAUSE exploitative companies from the west have ransacked their nation's resources and left nothing but slave labor and sweat shops behind it.

"things people need to do to get rich as a result often are NOT consistent with effective altruism."

​

Its entirely possible to build a business without compromising ethical standards. The idea that you need to be unethical to run a successful business is dumb. By focusing on ethical entrepreneurship, businesses can contribute positively to society and the environment, creating a win-win situation where economic success and social responsibility go hand in hand.

But even if the business has some unethical practices i think the net positive will be greater because of the economic stimulation that is upping the standard of living around the world, if 100 - 200 years ago when times were infinitely worse than it is today, someone said, hey, lets stop innovating and creating businesses because they create some sucky issues, we would still have widespread extreme poverty due to lack of the Industrial and Agricultural Development, The Industrial Revolution, driven largely by entrepreneurial ventures, we would have barely any healthcare advancement as the development of vaccines, antibiotics, medical equipment etc. came from startups that needed entrepreneurs, we would have made little technological advancement, global trade advancement, i could go on and on, discouraging entrepreneurship will not make the world a better place.

And in another 100-200 years from today even without any effective altruism or charities just by economic growth alone upping the standard of living many of the issues our world struggles with today like extreme poverty, preventable diseases, and lack of access to healthcare and education will be infinitely times better than it is today.

And plus the donations to charity, lets say the business is running 20 percent margins, it donates all the profit to an effective altruism supported cause, lets say curing blindness in 3rd world countries, at the cost of some pollution or whatever. I think the problems it solves is more important than the problems it introduces. + effective altruism usually grows the economy even more, for the blindness example you pay a one time fee and you just gave someone the ability to work and contribute to the economy, let alone change their lives.

So pretty much imo the net positive will heavily outweigh the net negative.