3 ms·

While I'd like to believe the article, it doesn't entirely jibe with my B.A. degree's understanding of good economic policy, of which the fundamental tenet is t

While I'd like to believe the article, it doesn't entirely jibe with my B.A. degree's understanding of good economic policy, of which the fundamental tenet is to ensure a marketplace that is both fair and stable. Eliminating corporations would destabilize many sectors of the economy(particularly infrastructure-oriented ones), and it wouldn't make those sectors more fair than before. The point made for human health in the Middle Ages can be interpreted as a factor of the lower number of people around at that time. The difference is that we now support a large population via improved disease treatment and engineered methods of increasing calorie count. We probably still don't get the same kind of nutrition per person as the people in the Middle Ages. Alternative currencies are worth considering(for example, the scrip used in Germany and Austria historically.) in isolation as a means of balancing local economies with national ones.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> ensure a marketplace that is ... stable. Punctuated equilibrium is a feature of markets. Creative destruction and all that. Stability is bad. You want upheaval and reformation. Unfortunately, things are playing out exactly as Schumpeter warned: the wealthy players are using political power to achieve "stability" and keep themselves dominant.
cturner 18y ago
Eliminating corporations would destabilize many sectors of the economy(particularly infrastructure- oriented ones), and it wouldn't make those sectors more fair than before. Instability needn't be a bad thing. Newspapers are destabilised by the internet. This doesn't indicate that the internet is a bad thing. I knew a guy who ripped the guts out of a regional beef market cartel with a simple program on an Apple II. There was lots of instability there and it was definitely a good thing. It's interesting that you identify stability and low risk as being a strength of corporations - the only strong argument I've ever heard in favour of the idea of creating a structure with an individual's rights but without its responsibilities is that the limited liability of a corporation gives people the opportunity to take risks they otherwise wouldn't, and that the net effect on the system is positive. I'm dubious about this too. We probably still don't get the same kind of nutrition per person as the people in the Middle Ages. The improvement to quality of life, health, friends, freedom, and opportunity for self-actualisation in general is profound. We support a large population and anyone in regular employment has an opportunity to access education, food and resources that are so luxurious to people of the middle ages that many would be incomprehensible to the people of that setting.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago

> ensure a marketplace that is ... stable. Punctuated equilibrium is a feature of markets. Creative destruction and all that. Stability is bad. You want upheaval and reformation. Unfortunately, things are playing out exactly as Schumpeter warned: the wealthy players are using political power to achieve "stability" and keep themselves dominant.

cturner 18y ago

Eliminating corporations would destabilize many sectors of the economy(particularly infrastructure- oriented ones), and it wouldn't make those sectors more fair than before. Instability needn't be a bad thing. Newspapers are destabilised by the internet. This doesn't indicate that the internet is a bad thing. I knew a guy who ripped the guts out of a regional beef market cartel with a simple program on an Apple II. There was lots of instability there and it was definitely a good thing. It's interesting that you identify stability and low risk as being a strength of corporations - the only strong argument I've ever heard in favour of the idea of creating a structure with an individual's rights but without its responsibilities is that the limited liability of a corporation gives people the opportunity to take risks they otherwise wouldn't, and that the net effect on the system is positive. I'm dubious about this too. We probably still don't get the same kind of nutrition per person as the people in the Middle Ages. The improvement to quality of life, health, friends, freedom, and opportunity for self-actualisation in general is profound. We support a large population and anyone in regular employment has an opportunity to access education, food and resources that are so luxurious to people of the middle ages that many would be incomprehensible to the people of that setting.