Abolish the Corporations?

[techs]

I just wonder how people who claim to be "Capitalists" and "Free Marketers" justify the idea of Corporations?
The Corporatins violate nearly all the rules of Capitalism. They say the investors are not liable for any loss the company occurs. So it eliminates risk.
So how can Capitalists support the idea of Corporations?
Easy they are really Socialists.
Agree?

(I am not questioning the need for Corporations. I am just showing how people who support them are really Socialists)

 

[dmcowen674]

Good post.

There was some need for the Corporate charter but it has obviously gotten out of hand and needs a serious slapping.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Investors have the risk of losing their investments. The bad thing about corporations currently is that the decision makers have too little liability. They can run a company into the ground, ruining investors and employess, and still retire with millions and millions.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Investors have the risk of losing their investments. The bad thing about corporations currently is that the decision makers have too little liability. They can run a company into the ground, ruining investors and employess, and still retire with millions and millions.

But investors are not liable for a corporations losses. Unlike you or I in our private life or businesses. Absolutely the most socialist idea to ever come about.

 

[her209]

Are you talking about limited liability that corporations provide for their investors/owners, i.e., if the company gets sued, there is no liability to the investor/owners themselves?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Investors have the risk of losing their investments. The bad thing about corporations currently is that the decision makers have too little liability. They can run a company into the ground, ruining investors and employess, and still retire with millions and millions.

But investors are not liable for a corporations losses. Unlike you or I in our private life or businesses. Absolutely the most socialist idea to ever come about.

Their liability is limited to the size of their investment, but that can still be a considerable liability.

 

[Dashel]

Originally posted by: techs
I just wonder how people who claim to be "Capitalists" and "Free Marketers" justify the idea of Corporations?
The Corporatins violate nearly all the rules of Capitalism. They say the investors are not liable for any loss the company occurs. So it eliminates risk.
So how can Capitalists support the idea of Corporations?
Easy they are really Socialists.
Agree?

(I am not questioning the need for Corporations. I am just showing how people who support them are really Socialists)

Wha?

Investors buy stock. If the company tanks the stock devalues. I'm missing your point here.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Dashel

Originally posted by: techs
I just wonder how people who claim to be "Capitalists" and "Free Marketers" justify the idea of Corporations?
The Corporatins violate nearly all the rules of Capitalism. They say the investors are not liable for any loss the company occurs. So it eliminates risk.
So how can Capitalists support the idea of Corporations?
Easy they are really Socialists.
Agree?

(I am not questioning the need for Corporations. I am just showing how people who support them are really Socialists)

Wha?

Investors buy stock. If the company tanks the stock devalues. I'm missing your point here.

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses? Socialist, 100 percent.
The corporation puts out a defective product, kills people, the investors are not held responsible financially? Thats the most Anti-Capitalistic idea ever invented.

Corporations are the greatest Socialist invention ever.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Investors' liability is limited because their influence on the company is limited. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be socialist.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Investors' liability is limited because their influence on the company is limited. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be socialist.

wtf you talking about. Try and make a coherent idea. The stockholders have complete control of a corporation. And should each owe the companies debts to the proportion they own the company, i.e. the amount of stock they own.
Are you really that much of a Socialist you want corporate stock owners to be less responsible than other people? Or are you just a Socialist in wanting to protect Corporations?

I must admit the Socialist propaganda seems to have worked so well that people actually think Corporations are Capitalist.

 

[Aisengard]

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses?

Aren't the investors only liable for however much money they put into the company? I don't see what you're getting at here.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses?

Aren't the investors only liable for however much money they put into the company? I don't see what you're getting at here.

Exactly my point. If I borrow money, or I make a bad product or do bad job in my business I responsible. When I borrow money to run my company (my company, is NOT a corporation) I am responsible for my debts. I can be sued and I will have to give away my personal wealth(most of it). Yet the Corporations owners (stockholders) are not personally responsible?
Thats not Capitialism, thats Socialism.

Perhaps it will help for you to think of it this way. Its a Socialist idea for the State to create an artificial type of business with different rules than than the free market.
Therefore Corporations are a Socialist entity.

and btw bankruptcy laws are Socialist also.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Dashel

Originally posted by: techs
I just wonder how people who claim to be "Capitalists" and "Free Marketers" justify the idea of Corporations?
The Corporatins violate nearly all the rules of Capitalism. They say the investors are not liable for any loss the company occurs. So it eliminates risk.
So how can Capitalists support the idea of Corporations?
Easy they are really Socialists.
Agree?

(I am not questioning the need for Corporations. I am just showing how people who support them are really Socialists)

Wha?

Investors buy stock. If the company tanks the stock devalues. I'm missing your point here.

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses? Socialist, 100 percent.
The corporation puts out a defective product, kills people, the investors are not held responsible financially? Thats the most Anti-Capitalistic idea ever invented.

Corporations are the greatest Socialist invention ever.

Look, there's nothing wrong or socialist about a passive investor having his/her losses limited to the amount of their investment.

In the large corporations that you rail against, 99.99% of the investors own far less than even 1% of the stock. It's impractical to conceptualize a system wherein they could be personally sued for the actions of a corporation they have no control over.

What are you, a frustrated trial lawyer?

In contemporary socialism, the state controls the means of production and distribution. Private company != state. The concpet of private ownership (whether held by a single individual or a group - corporation - of individuals) is the antithesis of socialism.

Profits are shared, not based on need or "equally", but rather according to how much one puts in. The greater the investment, the greater the share of income (or loss). "He who has the most, makes the most". And if you're rich enough, like Kirk K., you can actually "push" a company around (and other investors).

The concept of corporations is a great facilitator to capitalism. The ability to team with others to pool money and ideas in pursuit of profit has been very effective economically.

BTW: We do now plenty of rules on the books to keep exec's responsible. Enforcement is about all that is required. One problem I do see is that these rules are so complicated a "jury" of our peers is unlikely qualified to adequately comprehend and render good judgement in all cases.

Fern

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Dashel

Originally posted by: techs
I just wonder how people who claim to be "Capitalists" and "Free Marketers" justify the idea of Corporations?
The Corporatins violate nearly all the rules of Capitalism. They say the investors are not liable for any loss the company occurs. So it eliminates risk.
So how can Capitalists support the idea of Corporations?
Easy they are really Socialists.
Agree?

(I am not questioning the need for Corporations. I am just showing how people who support them are really Socialists)

Wha?

Investors buy stock. If the company tanks the stock devalues. I'm missing your point here.

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses? Socialist, 100 percent.
The corporation puts out a defective product, kills people, the investors are not held responsible financially? Thats the most Anti-Capitalistic idea ever invented.

Corporations are the greatest Socialist invention ever.

Look, there's nothing wrong or socialist about a passive investor having his/her losses limited to the amount of their investment.

In the large corporations that you rail against, 99.99% of the investors own far less than even 1% of the stock. It's impractical to conceptualize a system wherein they could be personally sued for the actions of a corporation they have no control over.

What are you, a frustrated trial lawyer?

In contemporary socialism, the state controls the means of production and distribution. Private company != state. The concpet of private ownership (whether held by a single individual or a group - corporation - of individuals) is the antithesis of socialism.

Profits are shared, not based on need or "equally", but rather according to how much one puts in. The greater the investment, the greater the share of income (or loss). "He who has the most, makes the most". And if you're rich enough, like Kirk K., you can actually "push" a company around (and other investors).

The concept of corporations is a great facilitator to capitalism. The ability to team with others to pool money and ideas in pursuit of profit has been very effective economically.

BTW: We do now plenty of rules on the books to keep exec's responsible. Enforcement is about all that is required. One problem I do see is that these rules are so complicated a "jury" of our peers is unlikely qualified to adequately comprehend and render good judgement in all cases.

Fern

Perhaps it will help for you to think of it this way. Its a Socialist idea for the State to create an artificial type of business entity with different rules than than the free market.
Therefore Corporations are a Socialist entity.

 

[Dashel]

Originally posted by: techs

Exactly my point. If I borrow money, or I make a bad product or do bad job in my business I responsible. When I borrow money to run my company (my company, is NOT a corporation) I am responsible for my debts. I can be sued and I will have to give away my personal wealth(most of it). Yet the Corporations owners (stockholders) are not personally responsible?
Thats not Capitialism, thats Socialism.

and btw bankruptcy laws are Socialist also.

Are you one of these Ron Paul people or something?

Anyway yes, if YOU borrow money for YOUR company, YOU are responsible. NOT the bank lending you money. Go try and sue the bank who gave you a business loan when you fail heh.

Stock investors are analogous to a lending institution that profits as corporations make money, or loses if they fail. It's limited risk and limited reward. Stock owners do not make company decisions or control the company fate, they merely invest for the prospect of gaining....

Why am I even bothering.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses?

Aren't the investors only liable for however much money they put into the company? I don't see what you're getting at here.

Exactly my point. If I borrow money, or I make a bad product or do bad job in my business I responsible. When I borrow money to run my company I am responsible for my debts. I can be sued and I will have to give away my personal wealth(most of it). Yet the Corporations owners (stockholders) are not personally responsible?
Thats not Capitialism, thats Socialism.

Weak. Investors are glorified lenders. They dont and shouldnt have any responsibility about what a company does. Why? Because they have such limited powers.

Decent analogy would be parents and children. Parents have the authority but can only do so much. They cant control their kids 100%.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
[Decent analogy would be parents and children. Parents have the authority but can only do so much. They cant control their kids 100%.

Can they be held responsible if their kid sets a neighbor's house on fire?

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: techs
I just wonder how people who claim to be "Capitalists" and "Free Marketers" justify the idea of Corporations?
The Corporatins violate nearly all the rules of Capitalism. They say the investors are not liable for any loss the company occurs. So it eliminates risk.
So how can Capitalists support the idea of Corporations?
Easy they are really Socialists.
Agree?

(I am not questioning the need for Corporations. I am just showing how people who support them are really Socialists)

Actually, it's more of a fascist idea than a socialist idea in my opinion.

That guy who write rich dad/poor dad (even though I think he is a con artist) mentions this topic in his book. Corporations were basically just an idea for the rich to avoid the law.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Mardeth
Decent analogy would be parents and children. Parents have the authority but can only do so much. They cant control their kids 100%.

Can they be held responsible if their kid sets a neighbor's house on fire?

Said decent. Not completely the same thing. Dont take it too literally. The point is that investors cant control what the companies do and thus shouldnt be responsible. The bigger the company the more apparent this becomes.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Aisengard

The corporation borrows money, the company tanks, the investors are not liable for the losses?

Aren't the investors only liable for however much money they put into the company? I don't see what you're getting at here.

Exactly my point. If I borrow money, or I make a bad product or do bad job in my business I responsible. When I borrow money to run my company (my company, is NOT a corporation) I am responsible for my debts. I can be sued and I will have to give away my personal wealth(most of it). Yet the Corporations owners (stockholders) are not personally responsible?
Thats not Capitialism, thats Socialism.

Perhaps it will help for you to think of it this way. Its a Socialist idea for the State to create an artificial type of business with different rules than than the free market.
Therefore Corporations are a Socialist entity.

and btw bankruptcy laws are Socialist also.

The investor don't run the company and make decisions, the managers and CEO do. There is this whole issue of corporate governance that try to align CEO/Management behavior with investor expectation, it is an ongoing battle. If you understand this, you would understand why when Enron fall, the management go the jail and not the investor.

 

[techs]

People, you are missing my point. A Corporation is a government created and controlled economic entity with different rules than those of Capitialism in order meet a State desired end.
Therefore Corporations are a Socialist entity.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian
Investors have the risk of losing their investments. The bad thing about corporations currently is that the decision makers have too little liability. They can run a company into the ground, ruining investors and employess, and still retire with millions and millions.

But investors are not liable for a corporations losses. Unlike you or I in our private life or businesses. Absolutely the most socialist idea to ever come about.

Their liability is limited to the size of their investment, but that can still be a considerable liability.

Not really, with diversification. It allows for the sorts of reckless investments and behaviors we see today that harm society with little accontability.

Zepyrprime:

Actually, it's more of a fascist idea than a socialist idea in my opinion.

That guy who write rich dad/poor dad (even though I think he is a con artist) mentions this topic in his book. Corporations were basically just an idea for the rich to avoid the law.

I think you are on the right track.

The movie 'The Corporation' explained pretty well the 'inherently sociopathic' structure of corporations.

They work ok when they are well overseen by an elected government watching out for the public interest. That's not the case much of the time now.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: techs

Perhaps it will help for you to think of it this way. Its a Socialist idea for the State to create an artificial type of business entity with different rules than than the free market.
Therefore Corporations are a Socialist entity.

What are these "different rules" you keep refering to?

Fern

 

[JS80]

This thread makes me cry.

 

[Darwin333]

If something at my home is not safe and a kid gets hurt because of it should my bank be held liable as well for any lawsuit? Since my bank is the one who invested in my home and they still own most of it.