Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
Corporations as a concept are neither good or bad. We often
hear all sorts of commentary about corporations. But they are merely
a tool for organizing an economic activity. People necessarily get
together to do things. They have done so since the dawn of time.
Corporations have existed since the beginning of time. The moment
a few people in one town got together to make a communal oven, or
dig a well, or build a boat, or a barn, a religious structure, they
necessarily formed a "corporation." They each had "stock" in the
company. There was a "board of directors," a "president," a
"secretary," and a "treasurer." And just as surely there were people
who said the corporation was doing something wrong. There was
corruption, chicanery, greed, credit claimed when none was due,
lies, and even all the good things of cooperation" fealty, concern,
honesty. All these things are basic parts of people and they have
been inescapable since the dawn of time.
But what they formed to get things done that they couldn't do
individually were "corporations." The terminology might have been
different, but the underlying principles were the same. They had to
be, it's the way people are. The technology was different for sure,
what the projects were is certainly different. A communal well dug,
even today, in a village in India, is no less a corporation than
Microsoft is. They are organized on the same principles. They work
in the same way at their core.
Modern corporations, what are more typically the multinationals,
are merely the primitive cooperative ventures grown more complex.
The complexity is simply the product of the development of man.
Whether you consider this development good or bad it is the
collective efforts of millions of people, which without any real
control, have wrought the world today.
Without the corporation there would be no tungsten in the light
bulbs for the anti-corporation people to sit up all night dreaming
about the elimination of the corporation.
The government is really a corporation. That's why the city limits
are often referred to as the "corporate limits," and many times the
city's attorney is called the "Corporation Counsel." The state owned
enterprise is no more or less a corporation than the privately owned
corporation. They must function under the exact same basic math
and organizing principles. Not a government in the world hides the
fact that their state owned enterprises are really corporations.
If you dislike large corporations why would you want the
government to be the owner of an even larger monopolistic
corporation? Often people who are against monopolies are the first
ones to call for the government to take over the monopolies so that
it can be run for "the people." All they will create is a bigger
corporation facing the exact same issue of minimizing inputs while
maximizing out puts. At best a public corporation could equalize
inputs and outputs, but even a privately owned corporation could do
that too. For instance, a worker owned corporation would not have a
separate profit per se, but it would still have to profit. It is only that
the profits would be distributed to the workers as owners rather the
non-worker individuals as owners. But the problem is that
government run corporations want to operate on the assumption that
you can put in any amount of inputs and come out with any amounts
of output, and it doesn't make a difference, for the taxpayer will
make up the difference. If a company pays out more than it takes in
it can not long survive, no matter who owns it. If it is privately
owned, whether by capitalists or workers, then it would fall quicker,
but with less damage to society as a whole. But politicians have
every interest in continuing the mathematical absurdity because they
can obtain money outside of the price structure, namely through
taxes and grants of those taxes to the corporation. This corporation is
a failure, and is similar to putting a dead person on a machine to
keep the heart pumping. It is not viable in the long run. Private
owners are quick to get out from under such a conundrum, but
politicians have an incentive to keep it afloat, for if it failed visibly,
they might lose their jobs, so they allow it to fail in a hidden way
and that corporation pretends to be alive, but it is not.
hear all sorts of commentary about corporations. But they are merely
a tool for organizing an economic activity. People necessarily get
together to do things. They have done so since the dawn of time.
Corporations have existed since the beginning of time. The moment
a few people in one town got together to make a communal oven, or
dig a well, or build a boat, or a barn, a religious structure, they
necessarily formed a "corporation." They each had "stock" in the
company. There was a "board of directors," a "president," a
"secretary," and a "treasurer." And just as surely there were people
who said the corporation was doing something wrong. There was
corruption, chicanery, greed, credit claimed when none was due,
lies, and even all the good things of cooperation" fealty, concern,
honesty. All these things are basic parts of people and they have
been inescapable since the dawn of time.
But what they formed to get things done that they couldn't do
individually were "corporations." The terminology might have been
different, but the underlying principles were the same. They had to
be, it's the way people are. The technology was different for sure,
what the projects were is certainly different. A communal well dug,
even today, in a village in India, is no less a corporation than
Microsoft is. They are organized on the same principles. They work
in the same way at their core.
Modern corporations, what are more typically the multinationals,
are merely the primitive cooperative ventures grown more complex.
The complexity is simply the product of the development of man.
Whether you consider this development good or bad it is the
collective efforts of millions of people, which without any real
control, have wrought the world today.
Without the corporation there would be no tungsten in the light
bulbs for the anti-corporation people to sit up all night dreaming
about the elimination of the corporation.
The government is really a corporation. That's why the city limits
are often referred to as the "corporate limits," and many times the
city's attorney is called the "Corporation Counsel." The state owned
enterprise is no more or less a corporation than the privately owned
corporation. They must function under the exact same basic math
and organizing principles. Not a government in the world hides the
fact that their state owned enterprises are really corporations.
If you dislike large corporations why would you want the
government to be the owner of an even larger monopolistic
corporation? Often people who are against monopolies are the first
ones to call for the government to take over the monopolies so that
it can be run for "the people." All they will create is a bigger
corporation facing the exact same issue of minimizing inputs while
maximizing out puts. At best a public corporation could equalize
inputs and outputs, but even a privately owned corporation could do
that too. For instance, a worker owned corporation would not have a
separate profit per se, but it would still have to profit. It is only that
the profits would be distributed to the workers as owners rather the
non-worker individuals as owners. But the problem is that
government run corporations want to operate on the assumption that
you can put in any amount of inputs and come out with any amounts
of output, and it doesn't make a difference, for the taxpayer will
make up the difference. If a company pays out more than it takes in
it can not long survive, no matter who owns it. If it is privately
owned, whether by capitalists or workers, then it would fall quicker,
but with less damage to society as a whole. But politicians have
every interest in continuing the mathematical absurdity because they
can obtain money outside of the price structure, namely through
taxes and grants of those taxes to the corporation. This corporation is
a failure, and is similar to putting a dead person on a machine to
keep the heart pumping. It is not viable in the long run. Private
owners are quick to get out from under such a conundrum, but
politicians have an incentive to keep it afloat, for if it failed visibly,
they might lose their jobs, so they allow it to fail in a hidden way
and that corporation pretends to be alive, but it is not.