4 ms·

Companies are simply a tool that helps a group of people to make a profit. If you remove the group of people then what would be the point?

by 314 11y ago

ZenoArrow 11y ago
Not-for-profit companies shouldn't exist then?
- Decade 11y ago
  Most nonprofits are still profitable for the staff. Sometimes immensely profitable, for the CEOs at least. However, most companies provide value to customers. This article proposes companies that do so without any staff or owners. I don't think that's very realistic, but it is intriguing.
  - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
    A non-profit which isn't profitable for the staff, i.e. pays salary, isn't going to be around for long, if it isn't primarily volunteer work and then the money to operate is subsidised through other means. Which is ok, but not sustainable in many contexts. (Attacking non-profits CEOs feels like a straw man in this context, and doesn't really add anything.)
bjelkeman-again 11y ago
In some contexts we have nearly removed all the people in this equation already. 85 people own as much as about half the world's population [1]. So, capitalism in the form we have it today, which includes companies, are simply a way to concentrate wealth among the few. Some of these few use the money IMO vicely, but a more equitable system would probably work better. I say this after having lived and worked in the US and the UK (less equal) compared to Sweden and Netherlands (more equal). [1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-ric... Edit: clearer argument
- icebraining 11y ago
  Well, Norway, a country with a population of the size of Colorado, also has more money than half of the world. Does the fact that their society is more equal in itself actually help with the problem you're describe regard worldwide inequality? I don't see the mechanism.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  You seem to be using a definition of equality that you haven't fully explained. Do you mean more equal in terms of ownership? If so, how is that valuable?
  - bjelkeman-again 11y ago
    The way I think of it is more equal access to: schooling, healthcare, basic income, nature, and things like: equality between the sexes, less racial or other discrimination, functional democratic political system, practical equality when confronted with the law.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt. I personally have more wealth than about half the world in my wallet - I've got about $150 in there, and billions of people have negative net worth. Global inequality is actually declining, by the way, so can't modern capitalism get some credit for that? http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
  - phaemon 11y ago
    No, you don't. The report makes clear that you need wealth of USD 3,650 to be in the top 50% in the world, and USD 77,000 to be in the top 10%. https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...
rorykoehler 11y ago
Maybe the definition and purpose of a company is not so set in stone. Of course I can see how you could have come to this conclusion and often you are probably correct in the assumption but it would also be possible to say: Companies are simply a tool for creating value for humans by allowing us to exchange money for convenience. Just because the running of the Ethereum mobility company (for example) is completely automated doesn't mean that people won't be able to get from A to B using it.

Companies are simply a tool that helps a group of people to make a profit. If you remove the group of people then what would be the point?

by 314 11y ago

Companies are simply a tool that helps a group of people to make a profit. If you remove the group of people then what would be the point?

ZenoArrow 11y ago

Not-for-profit companies shouldn't exist then?

Decade 11y ago
Most nonprofits are still profitable for the staff. Sometimes immensely profitable, for the CEOs at least. However, most companies provide value to customers. This article proposes companies that do so without any staff or owners. I don't think that's very realistic, but it is intriguing.
- bjelkeman-again 11y ago
  A non-profit which isn't profitable for the staff, i.e. pays salary, isn't going to be around for long, if it isn't primarily volunteer work and then the money to operate is subsidised through other means. Which is ok, but not sustainable in many contexts. (Attacking non-profits CEOs feels like a straw man in this context, and doesn't really add anything.)

bjelkeman-again 11y ago

In some contexts we have nearly removed all the people in this equation already. 85 people own as much as about half the world's population [1]. So, capitalism in the form we have it today, which includes companies, are simply a way to concentrate wealth among the few. Some of these few use the money IMO vicely, but a more equitable system would probably work better. I say this after having lived and worked in the US and the UK (less equal) compared to Sweden and Netherlands (more equal). [1] http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-ric... Edit: clearer argument

icebraining 11y ago
Well, Norway, a country with a population of the size of Colorado, also has more money than half of the world. Does the fact that their society is more equal in itself actually help with the problem you're describe regard worldwide inequality? I don't see the mechanism.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
oldmanjay 11y ago
You seem to be using a definition of equality that you haven't fully explained. Do you mean more equal in terms of ownership? If so, how is that valuable?
- bjelkeman-again 11y ago
  The way I think of it is more equal access to: schooling, healthcare, basic income, nature, and things like: equality between the sexes, less racial or other discrimination, functional democratic political system, practical equality when confronted with the law.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
All that statistics says is a lot of people have debt. I personally have more wealth than about half the world in my wallet - I've got about $150 in there, and billions of people have negative net worth. Global inequality is actually declining, by the way, so can't modern capitalism get some credit for that? http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ http://www.maxroser.com/economic-world-history-in-one-chart/ https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/2014/Where14.pdf https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/P...
- phaemon 11y ago
  No, you don't. The report makes clear that you need wealth of USD 3,650 to be in the top 50% in the world, and USD 77,000 to be in the top 10%. https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4 https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi...

rorykoehler 11y ago

Maybe the definition and purpose of a company is not so set in stone. Of course I can see how you could have come to this conclusion and often you are probably correct in the assumption but it would also be possible to say: Companies are simply a tool for creating value for humans by allowing us to exchange money for convenience. Just because the running of the Ethereum mobility company (for example) is completely automated doesn't mean that people won't be able to get from A to B using it.