3 ms·

Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than indi

Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than individuals would.

fastball 6y ago
But this is only true of running the land. I feel that it would be better for land to be owned by real people (preferably citizens of whichever country it is) given that there is a finite amount of it. If corporations are better farmers, they will still be keen to rent it / run it for the owner. The alternative is probably a future where all land is owned by corporations and all people are just renting, which to me sounds like a recipe for disaster.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I guess it'd help to explain why I, Joe Farmer, would care if I'm renting land from Acme Inc or Bob Gentry. Basically, it sounds like you believe there's differnet incentives for individuals vs corporations here, and I'm not entirely sure there is.
  - fastball 6y ago
    The incentives don't need to be different, it just goes back to my underlying philosophy of business. People will always exist. Corporations do not need to. I only believe corporations / companies should exist in situations where 1. they are providing value 2. capturing a portion of that value. Basically any corporation that is managing to do 2 without first doing 1 (or is managing to capture more value in step 2 than they are creating in step 1) is a business that should not exist. As such, companies should not exist in spaces where they are not providing added value, and it is impossible for them to do so as a land-owner, because the owner is not providing any value, the land was always there. They didn't create it. Yes, Bob Gentry is not providing any value either, but again people will always exist, companies should not unless they serve a distinct purpose from what a person can. But on top of that I do actually think the incentives are different. Companies and people are fundamentally different beasts. For starters, companies are effectively amoral.

Doesn't the parent comment already anticipate this argument? They're saying that the corporation does provide value because it gets more from the land than individuals would.

fastball 6y ago

But this is only true of running the land. I feel that it would be better for land to be owned by real people (preferably citizens of whichever country it is) given that there is a finite amount of it. If corporations are better farmers, they will still be keen to rent it / run it for the owner. The alternative is probably a future where all land is owned by corporations and all people are just renting, which to me sounds like a recipe for disaster.

xxpor 6y ago
I guess it'd help to explain why I, Joe Farmer, would care if I'm renting land from Acme Inc or Bob Gentry. Basically, it sounds like you believe there's differnet incentives for individuals vs corporations here, and I'm not entirely sure there is.
- fastball 6y ago
  The incentives don't need to be different, it just goes back to my underlying philosophy of business. People will always exist. Corporations do not need to. I only believe corporations / companies should exist in situations where 1. they are providing value 2. capturing a portion of that value. Basically any corporation that is managing to do 2 without first doing 1 (or is managing to capture more value in step 2 than they are creating in step 1) is a business that should not exist. As such, companies should not exist in spaces where they are not providing added value, and it is impossible for them to do so as a land-owner, because the owner is not providing any value, the land was always there. They didn't create it. Yes, Bob Gentry is not providing any value either, but again people will always exist, companies should not unless they serve a distinct purpose from what a person can. But on top of that I do actually think the incentives are different. Companies and people are fundamentally different beasts. For starters, companies are effectively amoral.