Corporations +/-

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5057
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
04 April 2019 00:39
 

In my opinion.

Pro:

Ability to mass produce goods and services increasing supply and lowering costs.
Ability to offer certain workers benefits because of large labor pool.
Research and development that would be impractical for smaller business entities.
Retail corporations can compliment democratic structures in the sense that they generally try to adapt to popular market demand.
Can reduce provincial military conflict by marrying the economic and cultural interests of nations.
Streamlined mass production tends to allow more leisure time.

Con:

Disproportionate legal and political influence is a detriment to democratic society when corporate interests are given precedence over the individual.
A tendency to waste natural resources.
Corporations with too much leverage tend to disregard social contracts.
Manufactured demand.
Greed culture.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2705
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
04 April 2019 03:29
 

The point of the LLC is to reduce the consequences for failure in business, and therefore make it easier to learn from mistakes.
In a society with a guaranteed basic income, LLCs might be redundant.

When it comes to size, as always, you can’t have a working market if there are dominant market participants. In such cases, governments have a duty to help level the playing field, in the interst of preserving the market and undo the distortion.
For a smooth economy, it is necessary that no market participant ever becomes too large to fail.

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  826
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
06 April 2019 05:37
 

Another plus: incorporation simplifies legal liability.  By making the corporation, not individuals, liable, who to sue is simplified.  On the same token, how much one can expect to win is both simplified and increased, since compensation comes from the corporation as such and its resources, not any individual(s) and his or her resources.

Con to this: corporations have comparatively endless resources to defend against lawsuits, while plaintiffs have, individually, hardly any.

This simplification is important as company ownership diversifies and potential harms companies can cause increases proportional to their size.

[ Edited: 06 April 2019 06:09 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7425
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
06 April 2019 08:47
 

Brick - pretty good lists. Although I think that if we don’t rein them in a bit, the cons are proving to outweigh the pros. I also think the you’ve understated the nature of some of the cons.

For example you say “waste natural resources”. This seems to somewhat soften the, perhaps society ending, degree to which they are consuming essential resources at rates that we cannot come close to renewing. When I say “essential” I mean things like fresh water, and topsoil. I understand the perspective that corporations are simply fulfilling demand. But by their nature, they are not compassionate or far sighted. I think the “seventh generation” perspective is one that we all must start using to drive our behaviors. This perspective is one that boards of directors would seem to be uniquely ILL-EQUIPPED to support.

So, I’m all for rewarding innovation and invention. I think that some form of a free market is the way to go. But we have to rethink some fundamental aspects of corporations.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5057
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
06 April 2019 23:57
 
icehorse - 06 April 2019 08:47 AM

Brick - pretty good lists. Although I think that if we don’t rein them in a bit, the cons are proving to outweigh the pros. I also think the you’ve understated the nature of some of the cons.

For example you say “waste natural resources”. This seems to somewhat soften the, perhaps society ending, degree to which they are consuming essential resources at rates that we cannot come close to renewing. When I say “essential” I mean things like fresh water, and topsoil. I understand the perspective that corporations are simply fulfilling demand. But by their nature, they are not compassionate or far sighted. I think the “seventh generation” perspective is one that we all must start using to drive our behaviors. This perspective is one that boards of directors would seem to be uniquely ILL-EQUIPPED to support.

So, I’m all for rewarding innovation and invention. I think that some form of a free market is the way to go. But we have to rethink some fundamental aspects of corporations.

Mmm. Sorta. I am not convinced that man made ecological catastrophes are primarily due to a flaw in the formal structure of corporations. I think I’d rather say that irresponsible use of natural resources and habitats are a cultural deficit that some corporations exploit and profit from. Things like garbage barges, oil spills, land fills, clear cuts, over fishing et cetera are most definitely perpetrated by corporate arms but they are done to serve some public demand and occur with at least tacit public permission. I think that if individual citizens rally around the idea of ecological responsibility and hold corporate entities responsible for a better ethic the corporations would respond as they respond to most any form of steady market pressure. This is a complicated mixed bag of course and a much higher degree of public awareness is necessary.

I believe we’ve seen working models for this recently with energy, local grocers, fair trade imports, some recycling… corporations will respond to the proper incentives. They will sell whatever we decide to buy.

I do agree about the gravity of the issue though. I don’t mean to minimize anything.