Do corporations deserve to exist and why?

[bemildred]

Corporations have caused so much destruction to both our own species, other life, and the planet. Take whatever analogy you like. Perhaps you like the "corporations are a racket" theory. Perhaps you prefer "corporations are like a swarm of locusts". Either way, they may cause our own extinction because of their insatiable consumption and eventual destruction of the resources around us.

[frazzled]

1. What exactly are you suggesting?

That we return to an agrarian society? Shall we all get spinning wheels and play cards by (homemade) candlelight each night?

You wouldn't have been able to type your OP without a corporation. The issue is not "should corporations exist" but rather "what constraints should be put on corporate behavior and what sorts of regulatory schemes need to be imposed by government to insure the public good?"

Sheesh.

[nomorenomore08]

7. Meh... I took it as more of a philosophical question. Not actually suggesting we dismantle society.

Personally, I would focus on supporting smaller, locally owned businesses as much as possible. Farmer's markets etc.

[bemildred]

9. If we can consider whether humans deserve to exist, certainly the same applies to corporations.

In my view, a question long overdue.

[The Magistrate]

2. Like Fire, Sir: Good Servant, Bad Master

The basic idea, that for certain defined purposes, a group of people may be treated as a single body, can be useful. Its original purpose was to fit groups, such as towns or associations of tradesmen, into a system of feudal government, in which obligations and duties were always owed by individuals. Its later development, to serve as a vehicle for collective investment, usually in things which required too much capital for a single person to raise, or put it to more risk than a single individual would bear for any large portion of his capital, also had some social utility and could result in wide benefit.

Corporations, being wholly artificial constructs, have no inherent nature whatever: they function according the rules drawn up by governments for their creation and behavior. At least in theory, they fall under the 'what problems men create, men can solve' maxim --- the rules, both for their creation and operation, are certainly within the power of people to change....

[bemildred]

8. OK, for profit corporations then, limited liability for-profit corporations.

Should investors and corporate officers of for-profit corporations be allowed to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions?

[The Magistrate]

21. From Some Consequences, Sir, Yes, From Others, No

It has, I think, some social utility to limit an investor's liability for debts of a corporation to his or her stake invested in it. Again, I go back to the early purpose, which was to secure investment for things which had a high risk of failure, as well as potential for great profit; overseas trade in the age of sail, mining, that sort of thing. There are things it is of wide benefit to have done, which might well not be done if investors had to fear they could wind up owing sums much larger than those they had invested if an enterprise failed badly.

That said, it is clear this sort of thing is subject to abuse, with manipulations of holding companies and shell companies, which allow a corporation to shed its debts and commitments by essentially becoming itself an investor in an another corporation, to which its debts are transferred, and which then goes into bankruptcy. Such behavior amounts to deliberate fraud, and ought to be regarded as criminal.

Where actions of a corporation violate the law, there should be no limit to liability for its directing officers, and for its board. This is one of several areas in which the legal fiction of 'corporate person-hood' breaks down completely, since the corporation has of course no actual existence, no will of its own, no capacity whatsoever to carry out any action independently at all. Everything done by corporation is actually an act of its owners, its management, and its directors. It is nonesense to say, for example, Bank of America broke a law: Mr. Moynihan, or his predecessor Mr. Lewis, broke a law, or profited by the breaking of a law by their subordinates for whose actions they bear command responsibility, and the board of directors which maintained them in officer ought to bear command responsibility for their actions as well. Acts of fraud or theft by corporate officers should be treated no differently from acts of fraud or theft by any individual, save that the greater scale and scope of wrong-doing by corporate officers ought to be considered an aggravating factor at sentencing.

[bemildred]

25. Fair enough, Sir. nt

[nomorenomore08]

10. ...

[bemildred]

17. In my defense, Sir, I also want to point out that Sunday nights can be slow here. nt

[fadedrose]

3. Not under the present rules

Too many are too big, control too much where opinion-forming is concerned. They can buy presidents, senators, etc., decide who will or won't be a star, control what celebrities say and if their politics differ from that of the corporations, the celebrity finds himself out of work.

A company or corporation that has a good, useful product or service, treats their employees well, and STAYS OUT OF CONTRIBUTING EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS to politicians is a fine thing and is what capitalism used to mean to me.

Too many times they hurt us by ignoring pollution laws where water, land, air, wildlife, and by not paying their employees enough to make a living.

The way they are now is somewhat of a disgrace...

[Nye Bevan]

4. No. I want the government to control everything.

The US will be a much better place when shopping for groceries is as pleasurable an experience as renewing one's drivers license or applying for a passport.

[BlindTiresias]

5. well

My last trip to the DMV was much more pleasurable than my trips to non-costco grocery stores as they never seem to have enough people on the registers.

[bemildred]

11. Actually getting a drivers license is a picnic compared to dealing with "customer support". nt

[Agschmid]

6. Yes.

[Live and Learn]

12. I vote no. Corporations exist primarily to shield owners ans stockholders from liability.

Last edited Mon Aug 25, 2014, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Without incorporation, companies and owners would be a lot more likely to follow laws and moral codes.

[bemildred]

13. Correct. that is the question.

Personal liability is so much more motivating.

[JayhawkSD]

19. Well perhaps, but...

Without corporations, no company would be any bigger than one private person's pocket money could make it, and remember that those who are rich now are rich because corporations made them so.

As a result, we would have no mass produced automobiles, because no one could afford to build the factories that produce them. We would have no mass produced anything. We would have no refined petroleum products, because there would be no individual who could afford to build the refinery. We would have no railroads, or mass transit, because no one could have afforded to build the factories to manufacture the railcars and locomotives. The list goes on, amost endlessly.

[Live and Learn]

22. Hmm, the Carnagies, Rockafellers and others managed to do pretty darn well

without incorporating back in the day.

[JayhawkSD]

26. Wrong

They were all heads of corporations.

Rockerfeller family, for instance, made its fortune through Standard Oil and Chase Manhattan Bank, both of which were/are corporations.

Andrew Carnegie was a Scottish immigrant who built huge steel plants, all of which were incorporated.

[bemildred]

30. And generally with lots of government "support" too.

The examples of the railroad barons and the cattle barons are ones we could learn from today.

[dpibel]

29. It's not so black/white

You seem to have forgotten the existence of such things as partnerships and cooperatives. Corporations are not the only way to aggregate investment money. They're the most popular, assuredly, for the very reasons under discussion here.

[JayhawkSD]

34. Well, it's nice to think so.

But no partnership or cooperative would build Ford Motors, Standard Oil, etc. Such companies are not formed with the capital from a handful of people. They grow to the size they are because thousands, hundreds of thousands, invest in them. Bringing a new investment into a partnership is a time consuming and complex business, and attempting to engage in that half a million times in order for half a million people to invest in the business is simply outlandish to contemplate.

Our economy would be a very small fraction of what it is today without the process of incorporation, and the popular venom toward corporations as an institution is just silly. There is a good deal wrong with they way they are currently being managed, but they are not in any way inherently evil or bad for the nation.

[Kennah]

14. Homo corruptus

[joshcryer]

15. When states are accountable only to themselves, you get problems.

When corporations are accountable to the state, you can at least reign in corruption. Neither states or corporations are uncorruptable, but it's possible in a social democracy with proper regulations to reign in corruption on both sides.

[bemildred]

16. Anyone who is unaccountable can be expected to behave accordingly.

Sometimes one is pleasantly surprised, but it's not the way to bet.

[eShirl]

18. they should have to prove they deserve to exist, on a regular basis

like broadcast TV stations having to prove they've met a minimum standard of serving the public interest, to keep their license

[moondust]

20. They aren't necessary.

Privately owned companies can do anything a corporation can do. Back in the mid 80s I worked in international distribution for a privately owned California company that had foreign subsidiaries in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. The private owner was liable for whatever the company did--as it should be. No stock market involvement.

Stock markets may be the real villain as they provide enormous incentives for rapacious behavior as well as good; pretty much whatever turns maximum profit. Too much of the world ends up being owned and operated by heartless, soulless bastards for their own benefit.

As my sig line notes, as much as 200 years ago Jefferson apparently had a real problem with the existence of corporations. I don't know the whole story but I continue to wonder why he and others of like mind didn't convince enough of their peers that corporations were a bad idea and refuse to charter them. Maybe they tried and failed. ??

[Warpy]

23. corporations can be good and useful servants

but they are universally shitty masters.

We need to reverse the roles ASAP.

[BlindTiresias]

24. The problem is

This particular servant fashions themselves a master and works tirelessly to make themselves such in all countries universally, without exception.

[hifiguy]

27. They are something of a necessary evil

but my suggestions for curbing the inevitable evils they cause would include

- Renewal of charter every ten years by independent citizen boards. Renewal being granted only where there can be some significant public benefit shown to come from its continued existence.

- Absolute and permanent constitutional clarification that the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution are strictly limited to natural persons. NO MORE corporate personhood.

- Absolute ban on any corporate funds being used to lobby any government at any level or being used in any election contest at any level. As sorporations should not be considered natural persons, enacting such a change would remove this issue from First Amendment concerns.

- No more infinite corporate lifespans for any publicly traded corporation and strict scrutiny of extended lifespans for large private corporations.

- Reinstatement of meaningful corporate income taxes and elimination of tax loopholes to the greatest extent possible.

[bemildred]

31. I like the way you think. nt

[hifiguy]

33. I forgot one thing

- RIGOROUS and ENERGETIC enforcement of any and all antitrust laws and new ones if necessary.

[bemildred]

35. Yes, the laws are already there, but since we have a lawless government, they are ignored.

The laws on union activity and political expression are also good examples of the same thing. We have lots of progressive law, it's just not enforced, and the courts dissemble and refuse to apply it in practice against the powerful.

[KittyWampus]

28. You realize most mom & pop businesses are corporations? My family business is incorporated

Among other things, it helps protect us in the event someone is hurt on our property.

In return for protection from liability we have to endure yearly fire and health department inspections.

We have to meet codes set for much larger corporations.

So very often, small family businesses are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to meeting governmental requirements.

Installing fire alarms, sprinkler systems etc.

And even after you meet codes this year… they pass new requirements the next year that can be extremely expensive to meet.

We had fire inspector tell us to do XYZ around the furnace… which we did at great expense. And then some years later another fire inspector tells us it was done wrong and we need to ABC. We had to do it regardless of fact we were TOLD how to do it originally.

[bemildred]

32. I'm willing to let the little ones go.

In fact you guys should be as outraged as I am at the corruption at the top, they are screwing you too.