3 ms·

Perhaps the grandparent isn't making that great of an argument. But at the same time, I don't see you doing anything but arguing. And yet, I have no idea what

by j_baker 15y ago

Perhaps the grandparent isn't making that great of an argument. But at the same time, I don't see you doing anything but arguing. And yet, I have no idea what you're arguing for. I assume that you're making the case that companies need to be more focused on collective action, but I don't really see any alternative vision compared to the grandparent. That said, I don't think collectivism and individuality are mutually exclusive. If a company can be individualistic in a way that benefits society, what's the problem? Clearly there need to be some limits to what company owners can get away with. That's why society has laws. But it's especially naive to think that companies can be structures that act solely for the good of society with no benefit to the people that have invested in and work for them. Clearly, there needs to be some level of individualism granted to the people who make a company work. Otherwise, you'll have companies that spend so much time focusing on the good of everyone that they end up delivering for no one.

barrkel 15y ago
In a single term: stakeholder theory. I do think there needs to be some balance; not necessarily along collectivist lines, but rather with some thought applied to the kind of society we want to live in, and the kind of fairness and justice we want to see in our lives and the lives of our children. So I am hostile to absolutist approaches to ownership and the firm, particularly since we are all only here temporarily, and everything we think we own, we are just renting. In my view, capitalism is justified in so far as it motivates value creation and production that leaves everyone better off, in a just way, rather than as something which follows from underlying principles around ownership and control of capital. That is, capitalism is a means to an end, not an end in itself; and when this means turns out to be unjust, it should be changed and regulated, rather than treated as sacred.

by j_baker 15y ago

barrkel 15y ago

In a single term: stakeholder theory. I do think there needs to be some balance; not necessarily along collectivist lines, but rather with some thought applied to the kind of society we want to live in, and the kind of fairness and justice we want to see in our lives and the lives of our children. So I am hostile to absolutist approaches to ownership and the firm, particularly since we are all only here temporarily, and everything we think we own, we are just renting. In my view, capitalism is justified in so far as it motivates value creation and production that leaves everyone better off, in a just way, rather than as something which follows from underlying principles around ownership and control of capital. That is, capitalism is a means to an end, not an end in itself; and when this means turns out to be unjust, it should be changed and regulated, rather than treated as sacred.