Would we be better off with or without corporations?

[BitVyper]

Corporations have a lot of good points; they allow people to pool resources into a single entity and by making that entity prosper, prosper themselves. However, we've also seen that whole concept - especially the corporation's existence as a separate legal being - abused quite a bit. When things like that happen, a lot of people who had nothing to do with whatever occurred can end up taking the hit. They're also pretty big and powerful, putting the power of a mob behind a puppet, and then choosing a smaller elite group to pull the strings. That can obviously do a whole lot for better or worse.

My questions are:

1. Are corporations a generally positive or negative thing? I mean this both in terms of their direct consequences, and their influence on society.

2. Is the current system for handling corporations acceptable? How would you change it if you could? What do you think about Limited Liability, and the Corporation's treatment as a separate entity?

3. Could we accomplish the things we have without corporate law? What would be different?

Just some things I was thinking about, anyway.

[Sifright]

There is a Simple way to stop some of the abuses that companies can do when they are very powerful but I doubt it would ever be done. IF one company has a controling stake in the other ie 51% of shares, then they have to assume financial liability for it should it go bankrupt.

[Jagos]

Business is the engine of the American economy. The benefactors are the American people. We would be worse off if we didn't have corporations competing for dollars.

[Si Civa]

1. Corporations goal is to make money.
2. Nowadays those who own more money than others usually rule.
3. Politicians are affraid of/loyal to them or are themselves part of corporations. Thus it's not that democratic. (Silvio Berlusconi is the greatest example of this I think)
4. Arms industry's goal is to make money. Some corporations work on this field.
5. Some say that one reason to wars is that those who are part of this industry want wars so they can sell more they products.
6. I think that we can agree that war is bad thing.

Then there are these human rights. Having children labour or paying little money to workers in poor countries isn't that nice. Of course the currency is subjective thing you know. Amount of money don't change but in different parts in the world you don't need that much cash to buy important stuff like food.

It's not as black and white as this but well, in some cases it can be just like this.
Ethics though. When your priority is money, I really don't see you being that nice fellow. And many of those who are the leaders of corporations tend to see money as their priority. You are more likely to allow certain unethical ways to make yourself richer.
Not all work this way and I certainly hope that I'm just exacerbating much.

[Mannix]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Business is the engine of the American economy. The benefactors are the American people. We would be worse off if we didn't have corporations competing for dollars.

Why is that? What do corporations do that a several small to medium size businesses are incapable of doing? The products and innovations that are generally the source of income for large corporations are usually the work of a handful of researchers that would still be employed and doing what they do if corporations didn't exist. The only thing a corporation is capable of doing that a normal business isn't is making a few anonymous board members obscenely wealthy at the expense of the general population.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Business is the engine of the American economy. The benefactors are the American people. We would be worse off if we didn't have corporations competing for dollars.

No, we wouldn't. Scientists research stuff for the sake of science all the time. People tinker with things because they can. If anything, getting rid of the expectation of profit would let research that couldn't be justified except by government funding go on.

I don't benefit from corporations exploiting workers. I don't benefit from them manipulating the government so they can make money and hoard it away. I don't benefit from them keeping things patented so they can sell it to me, my kids, and their kids. I don't benefit from them abusing tax loopholes, denying funding to the government. I don't benefit from them analyzing every possible way to make money off me. I don't benefit from them controlling the vast majority of media that I access. The only benefit I tangentially get from corps is when they donate to charities and frankly they wouldn't do that if they weren't given an incentive to do so.

Oh, and competition is only necessary when there's not enough resources for everyone. There is now.

1) Negative. See above why.

2) No, I don't. I don't believe anything besides living flesh and blood beings should have any rights- that is, a person. Corporations are entities, not people, and shouldn't be protected anywhere near the level a person is.

3) Societally we have yet to really advance. It's sort of like someone who's not very nice but's trying to change- we know the flaws and we need to watch for them in order to stop doing it.

[Jagos]

-Edit- Odjn posted while I was posting. Changing...

Bigger corporations have more resources to pull from. And they all compete for money which makes things better off for all of us. True, there's always going to be smaller companies that are highly localized. But I can think of a few corporations that benefit from being big:

Sony
Panasonic
WalMart

Sony competes against the likes of Panasonic for our money on receivers and DVD players. This competition helps to keep the prices and features of each one competitive and always advancing. Without that, if we had only a few big boys in the field, it would be too expensive for those types of products.

Walmart, in general, continues to compete for low prices, expanding into newer areas all the time such as medicines which is in their best interest for, again, the dollars. Not that I agree with all of their practices, but as a corporation, their resources are far larger than Kmart. Why not expand their market?

No, we wouldn't. Scientists research stuff for the sake of science all the time. People tinker with things because they can. If anything, getting rid of the expectation of profit would let research that couldn't be justified except by government funding go on.

Ok, who finances scientists? The government. But individual tinkerers, or even scientists of the private sector, are you leaving them out to dry? Not everything the government touches is gold. And they'll only fund so many different projects. And when the money runs out, I'm pretty sure that the scientists will find a way to get more grants. Speaking of which, if you can get good at writing grants, the government will give you any amount you want.

I don't benefit from corporations exploiting workers. I don't benefit from them manipulating the government so they can make money and hoard it away. I don't benefit from them keeping things patented so they can sell it to me, my kids, and their kids. I don't benefit from them abusing tax loopholes, denying funding to the government. I don't benefit from them analyzing every possible way to make money off me. I don't benefit from them controlling the vast majority of media that I access. The only benefit I tangentially get from corps is when they donate to charities and frankly they wouldn't do that if they weren't given an incentive to do so

So strong property laws are something you don't want? How would the US being doing better than Mexico then?Let's get away from certain things. If a corporation is successful it spawns more or itself. To say that a corp. is manipulating the government and hoarding money? That's kinda a falsehood. Money is used to produce similar stores or continue investing in newer products. We may not see all the money but it helps most of us in the end. Loopholes, if it's there and Congress would stop passing laws that were vague and indirect and didn't need lawyers to interpret, would make everything easier. EX: Chevron asks for a subsidy on their taxes so they can do offshore drilling, which has never been done before. Are you saying that's a bad thing? What if they fail? Who soaks up the cost? Eventually, we, the taxpayers do if they're hit hard enough.

Having children labour or paying little money to workers in poor countries isn't that nice.

True, but which is a better alternative? A child that is going to school while his family starves or a child working to help his family? If I remember, some parts of Brazil have a tax credit for poor families. If a child goes to school, his family gets ~30 for oil, peanuts, and a few necessities. Personally, I can't necessarily look at other countries and say "This is wrong/good" without looking into why it's happening.

I think that we can agree that war is bad thing.

Yes, but a lot can be learned from wars. Penicillin is a good thing. So is not taxing the daylights out of a country because of wanting to punish the loser (WWII Germany) and causing hyperinflation. So long as WWIII doesn't happen soon, I'll be happy.

[BitVyper]

Business is the engine of the American economy.

Corporations are only one form of business. Business, even big business, existed long before corporations. There are many other ways of conducting business, not all of them defined by law.

[Odjn]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Bigger corporations have more resources to pull from. And they all compete for money which makes things better off for all of us. True, there's always going to be smaller companies that are highly localized. But I can think of a few corporations that benefit from being big:

Sony
Panasonic
WalMart

Sony competes against the likes of Panasonic for our money on receivers and DVD players. This competition helps to keep the prices and features of each one competitive and always advancing. Without that, if we had only a few big boys in the field, it would be too expensive for those types of products.

Walmart, in general, continues to compete for low prices, expanding into newer areas all the time such as medicines which is in their best interest for, again, the dollars. Not that I agree with all of their practices, but as a corporation, their resources are far larger than Kmart. Why not expand their market?

Bigger corporations have more resources they keep to make profits and keep out of the hands of the people they're supposedly helping. In addition to this they are responsible for the 99% wealth in the 1% population and continually have that raising, making everyone else poor by default. Adding in all of those companies sell mostly overpriced goods that you don't need. Sony for example sells laptops. Laptops that are generally inferior to what you can have someone else build online at stores like newegg.com or local stores for less overall and less you spend on maintenance. And you might say they also sell radios and TVs but you don't really need those anymore with a good laptop. So, they sell luxuries that you can replace by doing it yourself.

Wal Mart replaces local jobs with lower paying alternatives, taking more money from people and putting it into their bank and then paying out less.

Generally speaking, yes, you might get a good bargain short term, but in the long term resources that would've been yours have been funneled into the rich's pockets with a lot of money that's already there and isn't going to go away. That money will be used to make even more money, furthering class division.

Originally Posted by Jagos

True, but which is a better alternative? A child that is going to school while his family starves or a child working to help his family? If I remember, some parts of Brazil have a tax credit for poor families. If a child goes to school, his family gets ~30 for oil, peanuts, and a few necessities. Personally, I can't necessarily look at other countries and say "This is wrong/good" without looking into why it's happening.

Except that child who is working is doomed to repeat the same position while others with better lots in life repeatedly use him. Corporations don't give people better lives but only encourage people to not improve their station by paying sub standard wages to poor people. The government there is doing the right thing by distributing resources for free to encourage the student's desires rather than force him to choose a course that would pretty much stick him in a slot for the rest of his life, and the corporation wrong to seek to profit off someone's misfortune.

Originally Posted by Jagos

Yes, but a lot can be learned from wars. Penicillin is a good thing. So is not taxing the daylights out of a country because of wanting to punish the loser (WWII Germany) and causing hyperinflation. So long as WWIII doesn't happen soon, I'll be happy.

Pencillin was discovered by accident by a guy who was trying to grow bacteria and something kept killing it. While it was widely used in that war, without it would've caught on anyway since doctors like using stuff that works. If a doctor went to the army and proved the stuff work, the army would've made it itself without corporations. The corporation in this case is an unneeded, unwanted middleman who raises prices for all involved.

And whatever we learn from wars is not worth the human life wasted in a generally senseless conflict often based on senseless decisions.

[Jagos]

Corporations are only one form of business. Business, even big business, existed long before corporations. There are many other ways of conducting business, not all of them defined by law.

What I mean is that this is one of the main things that allow the US to function as a superpower. There are less regulations in law and more people who get up to form companies (big and small) which is something that seems almost frowned upon in other countries. Seeing the things that were around 30 years ago and the things that we have in this day and age, it's uncanny that people who look into their own self interest can benefit the country so much. So yes, I see the glass as "half-full".

Except that child who is working is doomed to repeat the same position while others with better lots in life repeatedly use him. Corporations don't give people better lives but only encourage people to not improve their station by paying sub standard wages to poor people. The government there is doing the right thing by distributing resources for free to encourage the student's desires rather than force him to choose a course that would pretty much stick him in a slot for the rest of his life, and the corporation wrong to seek to profit off someone's misfortune.

Odds are, if this person is working and poor, they would tend to be in a farming society, not necessarily a town or city. So more than likely, they'd be working on a farm, which is the allusion I was bringing in.

Sony for example sells laptops. Laptops that are generally inferior to what you can have someone else build online at stores like newegg.com or local stores for less overall and less you spend on maintenance. And you might say they also sell radios and TVs but you don't really need those anymore with a good laptop. So, they sell luxuries that you can replace by doing it yourself.

This seems as little speculative...

You might go to Sony for the convenience of having a built laptop that is basic. You might like another brand where you have a warranty should anything go wrong. But how many people honestly like shopping on newegg for each part as well as customizing warranties for everything rather than go to a company that pays a techie to do it for them? So long as there are people that will use a CD Rom area for a beer holder, there will be bigger corporations to take care of em.

Pencillin was discovered by accident by a guy who was trying to grow bacteria and something kept killing it. While it was widely used in that war, without it would've caught on anyway since doctors like using stuff that works. If a doctor went to the army and proved the stuff work, the army would've made it itself without corporations. The corporation in this case is an unneeded, unwanted middleman who raises prices for all involved.

I would think the Army is a very similar type of corporation only a larger complex. Still, this gets into my first point that corporations are still needed to produce and manufacture different goods on a higher scale than the local level.