5 ms·
Not to be curt, but this is one of the most naive things I've read on this website. 90% of the time, people start companies to make money, not to "efficiently
by aqme28 5y ago
Not to be curt, but this is one of the most naive things I've read on this website.
90% of the time, people start companies to make money, not to "efficiently distribute wealth through the community."
- kwhitefoot 5y agoHe or she said: > We have companies to help efficiently distribute wealth through the community to maximise the probability of social needs being filled. We here presumably means society in general. We set rules and give privileges to people to run companies in order to better society. In a capitalist system this is done through the medium of 'enlightened self interest' so yes, one starts a company to make money but that is not the reason we have companies. You are arguing against a point he didn't make.
- awillen 5y ago"so yes, one starts a company to make money but that is not the reason we have companies." I don't understand this at all. The reason people create companies is the reason that companies exist. They're by definition the same thing - companies don't exist without people creating them. So if people start companies to make money, the reason companies exist is to make the people who start them money.
- nojokes 5y agoYou can't just create a company - you need a legal framework for a company to exists.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> You can't just create a company - you need a legal framework for a company to exists. Not really, because “company” is a generic term for any organization of people with a common business purpose independent of whether it has a distinct recognized legal recognition, existence, or treatment separate from the constituent individuals. A corporation, LLC, or other legally recognized business entity requires a legal framework.
- squiggleblaz 5y ago> Not really, because “company” is a generic term for any organization of people with a common business purpose independent of whether it has a distinct recognized legal recognition, existence, or treatment separate from the constituent individuals. This isn't really true. A company doesn't include the employees of the company, not the way I used it and not the way the parent used it. So it doesn't refer to a generic term for any organisation of people with a common business purpose. It really only refers to those which have some category of legal framework.
- awillen 5y agoNo, this logic is circular. You're defining a company as a thing that we've legally defined as a company, ergo you must have legally defined something as a company for a company to exist. That's not true, though - the non-legal definition of a company is "a commercial business." You can absolutely have a commercial business without a legal framework for it. People engaged in work and trade well before anyone wrote up a legal framework for companies.
- aqme28 5y agoI think you overestimate the extent to which our economy is planned. Companies sprouted up because people wanted to create them, not because society decided they were efficient.
- squiggleblaz 5y agoI appreciate your curtness, but I don't think I was naive. Can you answer my question: So why do they bother producing valuable goods? Why don't we adopt more efficient means of transferring wealth from those without spare capital to those who have it?