2 ms·

This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be, without bothering to argue why that might be. I don't see why that would be true,

This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be, without bothering to argue why that might be. I don't see why that would be true, and abundant evidence that both large and small corporations add value to the world.

crotchfire 3y ago
This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be No, in fact, it doesn't. Please re-read the comment you're replying to. There is no cutoff, limit, or threshhold. It doesn't prescribe a naturally-right size any more than a graduated income tax "prescribes a naturally-right amount of income".
- samatman 3y ago
  Yes, in fact, it does. The objection just flies directly into the blindspot which leads you to make the proposal in the first place, which produces cognitive dissonance. You postulate, incorrectly, that "too large" is a coherent concept for corporations, and propose to "fix" your imaginary problem by punishing people who grow corporations larger than your imagined ideal.
- OJFord 3y ago
  Is a 'cap' not a 'cutoff, limit, or threshold'?
  - crotchfire 3y ago
    Please read the comment again; you have not understood it. No cap is proposed.
    - elefanten 3y ago
      No but you have to pick where and how quickly to ramp the tax schedule which will eventually lead to you having to make some “assumptions” about what size (range) is “too big”
      - crotchfire 3y ago
        you have to pick where Everywhere. and how quickly to ramp Yes, that is the one and only tuneable variable. It's a single, obvious scalar, like the interest rate set by a central bank. There's no room for favoritism or shenanighans. Of course, like central bank interest rates, it will be an object of impassioned political debate. That's expected. which will eventually lead to you having to make some “assumptions” about what size (range) is “too big” Absolutely false. You're confusing a value with its rate of change. The speed limit on the highway doesn't constrain the length of the road.
vonjuice 3y ago
Just want to highlight that the way you phrased it, someone doing 99% harm and providing 1% value can be said to be providing value.
- samatman 3y ago
  I consider it a trivial lemma of the concepts of harm and value, that something which is causing more harm than they are creating value, is producing net negative value. Although you gave me an opportunity to clarify that, which isn't nothing, I suppose.

crotchfire 3y ago

This supposes that there's some naturally-right size for a corporation to be No, in fact, it doesn't. Please re-read the comment you're replying to. There is no cutoff, limit, or threshhold. It doesn't prescribe a naturally-right size any more than a graduated income tax "prescribes a naturally-right amount of income".

samatman 3y ago
Yes, in fact, it does. The objection just flies directly into the blindspot which leads you to make the proposal in the first place, which produces cognitive dissonance. You postulate, incorrectly, that "too large" is a coherent concept for corporations, and propose to "fix" your imaginary problem by punishing people who grow corporations larger than your imagined ideal.
OJFord 3y ago
Is a 'cap' not a 'cutoff, limit, or threshold'?
- crotchfire 3y ago
  Please read the comment again; you have not understood it. No cap is proposed.
  - elefanten 3y ago
    No but you have to pick where and how quickly to ramp the tax schedule which will eventually lead to you having to make some “assumptions” about what size (range) is “too big”
    - crotchfire 3y ago
      you have to pick where Everywhere. and how quickly to ramp Yes, that is the one and only tuneable variable. It's a single, obvious scalar, like the interest rate set by a central bank. There's no room for favoritism or shenanighans. Of course, like central bank interest rates, it will be an object of impassioned political debate. That's expected. which will eventually lead to you having to make some “assumptions” about what size (range) is “too big” Absolutely false. You're confusing a value with its rate of change. The speed limit on the highway doesn't constrain the length of the road.

vonjuice 3y ago

Just want to highlight that the way you phrased it, someone doing 99% harm and providing 1% value can be said to be providing value.

samatman 3y ago
I consider it a trivial lemma of the concepts of harm and value, that something which is causing more harm than they are creating value, is producing net negative value. Although you gave me an opportunity to clarify that, which isn't nothing, I suppose.