∞∞∞ wrote:kalm wrote:
The government is captured at the detriment to competition and democracy which blows a mile wide hole in Friedman’s theories.
Not more refs, just better refs and zero influence.
Funny 'cause the founding fathers and early state legislatures absolutely hated corporations, and saw them as threats to democracy and freedom. We talk about the Revolution being an uprising for individual rights, but it was strongly tied to economics too...with the East India Company controlling world trade and with it, British government and an empire abroad.
For almost 100 years, in the US, corporate charters were only given to companies which could prove they provide a public service, the charter was generally limited to 10 years, and it could only be renewed if the company proved it helped the public and will continue to do so.
Rockefeller lobbied hard to change that and the gilded age quickly followed, which was only ended by progressive policies and later, the New Deal.
Then Friedman (Baldy's hero) won the Noble Peace Prize in '76 with the idea that corporations should do whatever they can in order to maximize profits, leading to rapid growth of global corporations who inserted executives in political positions all over the world. Then they hire armies of lobbyists and marketers, and promise communities to locate their facilities there, or threaten to remove them.
In doing so, corporations today have elevated themselves to positions of influence power all over the world; the East India Company would be in awe today.
Your CS stepdaddy will be proud of this post.
Get it right, Tripz: Friedman won the *Nobel Prize in Economics for theoretical work that challenged the prevailing Keynesian dogma of the day. Yes, corporations have evolved significantly over the years, but they share a few basic characteristics: limited liability, shareholder ownership, continuity of life (in most states, corporations have perpetual existence), and double taxation (income taxed once at the entity level, and a second time at the shareholder level via dividends). Yes, corporations are formed to create wealth for their owners, and the vast majority of them are small businesses. As the self-appointed guardian of the little guy on this board, Tripz, you should favor this business form. As for your hyperventilated executive summary of economic history, there were differences of opinion between certain founders — between Madison and Hamilton, for example, in connection with the Bank of the United States — about the proper extent of corporate power and an alleged tendency toward monopoly, but those concerns did not find their way into the Constitution. Indeed, as corporation codes vary widely among the 50 states, they provide a perfect example of federalism at work, properly understood.
The big theoretical debate now in the corporate and legal world is between the classical concept of corporations, pursuant to which corporations exist for the benefit of their shareholders, and a more recent theory that obligates corporations to serve the interests of multiple additional constituencies ( employees, communities, etc.). Actually, the debate is not altogether new, as Berle and Means argued almost 90 years ago when discussing the issue of the separation of corporate ownership from control. The “sustainability” movement in business crystallizes the opposition of those two conceptual paradigms. It’s too early to predict how this debate will turn out, but it is clear that the more recent theory would require the imposition of new regulations on corporations and corporate governance.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
