5 ms·

Who decided what the end is? It would seem that when society accepted the legal construct of the corporation, it was not because the man in the street felt that

Who decided what the end is? It would seem that when society accepted the legal construct of the corporation, it was not because the man in the street felt that there had to be a way for capitalists to get even richer. And still to this day, if you ask the man in the street why we have corporations, I don’t think the answer will be that. But you are right, many executives tend to agree with your point of view. That’s probably the single largest problem in society today.

kardianos 6y ago
Literally the owner(s) of the company decide.
ramphastidae 6y ago
The purpose of a business is to make money. Corporations are a type of business with basically the same goal. I think this is pretty well understood by the general public.
- neolog 6y ago
  > The purpose of a business is to make money. A business does a lot of things. No need to restrict the "purpose" to just one thing.
bradleyjg 6y ago
> That’s probably the single largest problem in society today. What an amazing world where the single largest problem isn’t war, famine, or pestilence. We dun good.
- neolog 6y ago
  > pestilence. We dun good.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    Grustaf thinks the idea that companies exist for the benefit of shareholders is a bigger problem.
    - Grustaf 6y ago
      No, I’m saying it LEADS to a lot of problems. In itself it’s just a fact.
    - dennis_jeeves 6y ago
      I don't know enough Grustaf to comment, but strangely many common people that I know believe this, further they believe that the company has to make a profit ( often at the expense of a poor man ) as generally defined by the textbook definition. I guess peasants will remains peasants...
fallingknife 6y ago
The company owners who pay you to be there.
true_religion 6y ago
I guess we could dig deeper and ask "what is the purpose of gaining wealth?" and "what is the purpose of money?". One answer to the first is that wealth can be used to change the world. Small scale wealth can change things for you alone, like buying a nicer house. Large scale wealth can change things for everyone around you, like supporting a political platform of your liking. In the same vein, money as a means of transaction is supposed to capture the social good that is gained within every transaction and make it abstract so we don't have to specifically barter for what we want in the present. If we accept for the sake of argument the above, then we can examine if corporations are really doing social good, because if they are not then the ought to be restructured. This line of thought is what lead to the anti-trust acts of previous eras, safety regulations, food and drug regulations, and general business regulation in the present day. We have previously acknowledged that businesses can gain wealth, and power, without adding social good and as corporations are an abstraction created by society, it's well within our rights to change them for societies betterment.
DamnYuppie 6y ago
Society didn't accept, it was enacted by the government. The thing that disheartens me is that most people today fail to realize that people have been organizing into large work entities since time immemorial to build products and offer services in the hope of making money as owners, workers, and investors. Many people in every culture have accumulated great wealth by enterprising means. Yet people act like working for someone else is some new construct that exists to oppress everyone and most of the common mans ills are because of capitalists. This to me is quite silly. The only easy things in life are complaining, procrastinating, failing and dying. Most everything else that is worth having in life takes discipline, work, and self growth. Yes some people will get more of those good things, some for less effort, so what though? As long as they are not breaking laws to do so I am fine with it. If someone breaks the law then punish them.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Large entities? Are you referring to the feudal system? Even then, the farmer would be allowed his own plot of land.
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  >The only easy things in life are complaining, procrastinating, failing and dying. Correct, things have not changed very much just because the peasants donned suits. Crows are never whiter by washing...
- deanak 6y ago
  > people have been organizing into large work entities since time immemorial Mercantilism didn't appear until the 17th Century. > Yet people act like working for someone else is some new construct that exists to oppress everyone and most of the common mans ills are because of capitalists. This to me is quite silly. Criticism of capitalism is as old as capitalism itself. Organizing a hierarchy that replicates monarchy/aristocracy carries the same problems -- mostly incompetence hidden by birthright and social status. Markets work and have existed since time immemorial. The problem is that modern capitalism is so corrupt that is has destroyed the market. All products are more or less terrible, because the executives running the company never use the products they produce, or have any real idea what their workers do on a daily basis. This reality was even recognized by Adam Smith: "The trade of a joint-stock company is always managed by a court of directors. This court, indeed, is frequently subject, in many respects, to the control of a general court of proprietors. But the greater part of these proprietors seldom pretend to understand any thing of the business of the company... The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master’s honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account, that joint-stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege; and frequently have not succeeded with one. Without an exclusive privilege, they have commonly mismanaged the trade. With an exclusive privilege, they have both mismanaged and confined it." > Most everything else that is worth having in life takes discipline, work, and self growth. Yes some people will get more of those good things, some for less effort, so what though? As long as they are not breaking laws to do so I am fine with it. If someone breaks the law then punish them. The privatized natural gas company in your town hires a lobbyist to eliminate safety regulations. The gas seeps in your home and explodes when your partner goes to light the stove. You survived the explosion, but the hospital bills emptied your bank account. Your insurance doesn't cover negligence by a third party. No law was broken. You are now bankrupt, homeless, alone, and unable to work. How is discipline, hard work, and self growth going to help you?
analog31 6y ago
Right. We accept corporations because their entitlements (such as liability limitation) and some regulations enable investment in great ventures that make society more prosperous as a whole. That's the theory. Whether it happens or not is of course a worthy matter of ongoing debate. In my view, the end of a business is whatever serves the self interests of the participants. A customer may want something different than an employee or an owner. A supplier is not obligated to offer a price that benefits the owner. Instead they are free to negotiate a price on behalf of their own interest. Likewise an employee, which is a kind of supplier. To the extent that the public are affected by the behavior of a corporation, they can demand regulations based on the public interest. The people who are actually legally or contractually obligated to serve as fiduciaries for the owners can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand. "It is not to the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker, that we appeal for our supper, but to their regard for their own self interest." -- Adam Smith
- Grustaf 6y ago
  Adam Smith tells you the exact opposite. Their self-interest is not the end, it’s the means. The end is to provide society with reasonably priced bread, beer and meat.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  In Anglo-American law employees are fiduciaries: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=724a91e1-94f1-4514-9e30-3749303c7c26 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=724a91e1-94f1...
  - analog31 6y ago
    Wow, that's interesting. Never knew it. Fortunately, I've never actually violated such principles -- I'm a much better employee than I let on. ;-)

kardianos 6y ago

Literally the owner(s) of the company decide.

ramphastidae 6y ago

The purpose of a business is to make money. Corporations are a type of business with basically the same goal. I think this is pretty well understood by the general public.

neolog 6y ago
> The purpose of a business is to make money. A business does a lot of things. No need to restrict the "purpose" to just one thing.

bradleyjg 6y ago

> That’s probably the single largest problem in society today. What an amazing world where the single largest problem isn’t war, famine, or pestilence. We dun good.

neolog 6y ago
> pestilence. We dun good.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Grustaf thinks the idea that companies exist for the benefit of shareholders is a bigger problem.
  - Grustaf 6y ago
    No, I’m saying it LEADS to a lot of problems. In itself it’s just a fact.
  - dennis_jeeves 6y ago
    I don't know enough Grustaf to comment, but strangely many common people that I know believe this, further they believe that the company has to make a profit ( often at the expense of a poor man ) as generally defined by the textbook definition. I guess peasants will remains peasants...

fallingknife 6y ago

The company owners who pay you to be there.

true_religion 6y ago

I guess we could dig deeper and ask "what is the purpose of gaining wealth?" and "what is the purpose of money?". One answer to the first is that wealth can be used to change the world. Small scale wealth can change things for you alone, like buying a nicer house. Large scale wealth can change things for everyone around you, like supporting a political platform of your liking. In the same vein, money as a means of transaction is supposed to capture the social good that is gained within every transaction and make it abstract so we don't have to specifically barter for what we want in the present. If we accept for the sake of argument the above, then we can examine if corporations are really doing social good, because if they are not then the ought to be restructured. This line of thought is what lead to the anti-trust acts of previous eras, safety regulations, food and drug regulations, and general business regulation in the present day. We have previously acknowledged that businesses can gain wealth, and power, without adding social good and as corporations are an abstraction created by society, it's well within our rights to change them for societies betterment.

DamnYuppie 6y ago

Society didn't accept, it was enacted by the government. The thing that disheartens me is that most people today fail to realize that people have been organizing into large work entities since time immemorial to build products and offer services in the hope of making money as owners, workers, and investors. Many people in every culture have accumulated great wealth by enterprising means. Yet people act like working for someone else is some new construct that exists to oppress everyone and most of the common mans ills are because of capitalists. This to me is quite silly. The only easy things in life are complaining, procrastinating, failing and dying. Most everything else that is worth having in life takes discipline, work, and self growth. Yes some people will get more of those good things, some for less effort, so what though? As long as they are not breaking laws to do so I am fine with it. If someone breaks the law then punish them.

Grustaf 6y ago
Large entities? Are you referring to the feudal system? Even then, the farmer would be allowed his own plot of land.
dennis_jeeves 6y ago
>The only easy things in life are complaining, procrastinating, failing and dying. Correct, things have not changed very much just because the peasants donned suits. Crows are never whiter by washing...
deanak 6y ago
> people have been organizing into large work entities since time immemorial Mercantilism didn't appear until the 17th Century. > Yet people act like working for someone else is some new construct that exists to oppress everyone and most of the common mans ills are because of capitalists. This to me is quite silly. Criticism of capitalism is as old as capitalism itself. Organizing a hierarchy that replicates monarchy/aristocracy carries the same problems -- mostly incompetence hidden by birthright and social status. Markets work and have existed since time immemorial. The problem is that modern capitalism is so corrupt that is has destroyed the market. All products are more or less terrible, because the executives running the company never use the products they produce, or have any real idea what their workers do on a daily basis. This reality was even recognized by Adam Smith: "The trade of a joint-stock company is always managed by a court of directors. This court, indeed, is frequently subject, in many respects, to the control of a general court of proprietors. But the greater part of these proprietors seldom pretend to understand any thing of the business of the company... The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own. Like the stewards of a rich man, they are apt to consider attention to small matters as not for their master’s honour, and very easily give themselves a dispensation from having it. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. It is upon this account, that joint-stock companies for foreign trade have seldom been able to maintain the competition against private adventurers. They have, accordingly, very seldom succeeded without an exclusive privilege; and frequently have not succeeded with one. Without an exclusive privilege, they have commonly mismanaged the trade. With an exclusive privilege, they have both mismanaged and confined it." > Most everything else that is worth having in life takes discipline, work, and self growth. Yes some people will get more of those good things, some for less effort, so what though? As long as they are not breaking laws to do so I am fine with it. If someone breaks the law then punish them. The privatized natural gas company in your town hires a lobbyist to eliminate safety regulations. The gas seeps in your home and explodes when your partner goes to light the stove. You survived the explosion, but the hospital bills emptied your bank account. Your insurance doesn't cover negligence by a third party. No law was broken. You are now bankrupt, homeless, alone, and unable to work. How is discipline, hard work, and self growth going to help you?

analog31 6y ago

Right. We accept corporations because their entitlements (such as liability limitation) and some regulations enable investment in great ventures that make society more prosperous as a whole. That's the theory. Whether it happens or not is of course a worthy matter of ongoing debate. In my view, the end of a business is whatever serves the self interests of the participants. A customer may want something different than an employee or an owner. A supplier is not obligated to offer a price that benefits the owner. Instead they are free to negotiate a price on behalf of their own interest. Likewise an employee, which is a kind of supplier. To the extent that the public are affected by the behavior of a corporation, they can demand regulations based on the public interest. The people who are actually legally or contractually obligated to serve as fiduciaries for the owners can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand. "It is not to the benevolence of the butcher, brewer, or baker, that we appeal for our supper, but to their regard for their own self interest." -- Adam Smith

Grustaf 6y ago
Adam Smith tells you the exact opposite. Their self-interest is not the end, it’s the means. The end is to provide society with reasonably priced bread, beer and meat.
bradleyjg 6y ago
In Anglo-American law employees are fiduciaries: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=724a91e1-94f1-4514-9e30-3749303c7c26 https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=724a91e1-94f1...
- analog31 6y ago
  Wow, that's interesting. Never knew it. Fortunately, I've never actually violated such principles -- I'm a much better employee than I let on. ;-)