Just because somebody isn't a serial murderer doesn't mean they are beneficial to society. Ruthless businessmen and politicians can cause far more damage than Ted Bundy ever did.
Unless these ruthless business men tortured, raped and murder people, then no, they did not do more damage than either of these two serial killers.
I get where you're coming from the moral relativism is going overboard.
That's what he's getting at. Of course, there's also the question of whether there are businessmen who have done such a harm, and whether they have done so intentionally, the measure of their blame for it, etc.
Easy. Next question?
To take your comment at face value -- it's as if the question at the core of thousands of years of philosophy, public policy, and politics has suddenly been resolved. Much more likely that you are unaware of the nuance, and also unaware of your own unawareness. Thus you feel perfectly comfortable making bold, sweeping statements like this as if nobody has ever considered before today the matter at hand.
The truth is that there are many valid ways to measure the good/badness in a thing.
They may not have done so themselves but they paid people who did. Look at all the rape, torture and murder going on in places like Central African Republic. The place is loaded with mineral resources and yet the population starves and has to flee for their lives from press gangs and militias. Behind all of this you will find businessmen and politicians profiting immensely.