4 ms·

Companies are creatures of the state, created for the public good and protected by the laws of the land by the citizens of the state. Companies are permitted to

Companies are creatures of the state, created for the public good and protected by the laws of the land by the citizens of the state. Companies are permitted to take advantage of the legal and regulatory mechanisms put in place to encourage growth and innovation. Companies are permitted to employ members of the population, who are often educated based upon the good will of public funding. Companies don't have to worry about employees after they are "used up" and are broken or too old to work or are problematic. All of these items are provided as the environment for the company, and the citizens of the state collectively are the ones who have made it possible. Therefore, first and foremost, Companies must serve the public good. The rights/interest of investors can be seen as a secondary interest. Not that private interests aren't crucially important; however, out of the gate there is a balance of public/private interests -- presenting it otherwise isn't correct.

kgwgk 9y ago
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TzYmnHgCskoJ:https://www.economist.com/news/business/21646742-old-debate-about-what-companies-are-has-been-revived-business-business+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TzYmnH... (...) Darrell West of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, notes the decline of the idea that companies are creatures of the state, given the privilege of incorporation in return for pursuing a broad public purpose. This all sounds very enlightened. But who will decide whether new companies are likely to serve the public good? Will a committee of the great and the good interrogate young app designers about the social benefits of their inventions? Will foreign competitors who are not required to pass a public-interest test be barred from the market? Or domestic entrepreneurs who choose to incorporate abroad? (...) As for Mr West and the supposed virtues of companies as creatures of the state, the one-word response to that is: Petrobras.

kgwgk 9y ago

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TzYmnHgCskoJ:https://www.economist.com/news/business/21646742-old-debate-about-what-companies-are-has-been-revived-business-business+ https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TzYmnH... (...) Darrell West of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, notes the decline of the idea that companies are creatures of the state, given the privilege of incorporation in return for pursuing a broad public purpose. This all sounds very enlightened. But who will decide whether new companies are likely to serve the public good? Will a committee of the great and the good interrogate young app designers about the social benefits of their inventions? Will foreign competitors who are not required to pass a public-interest test be barred from the market? Or domestic entrepreneurs who choose to incorporate abroad? (...) As for Mr West and the supposed virtues of companies as creatures of the state, the one-word response to that is: Petrobras.