Does the corporate model of profit motivation go against human nature?
This makes sense to me. I'd read about money not working as an incentive for cognitive performance, but hadn't made the connection to corporate structure.
Law schools teach that one benefit of the corporate form is that it protects decision makers from personal responsibility for their actions. People harmed by the decisions of corporate leaders sue the corporation, not the people who made the decisions. The so-called "corporate veil" doesn't protect them in every circumstance; certain kinds of actions can result in "piercing the corporate veil" and holding the decision makers responsible.
The idea that corporations are persons is a legal fiction (google it); it lets corporations own property and do certain other things that natural persons can do. Early in 2010, the US Supreme Court gave a clerical note in a late 1800s case the status of law, which advantages corporations and disadvantages real people. The Court, even if it gives still more advantages to corporations, probably won't rule that they may vote.
PS. I studied business law and most of the above can be found in law dictionaries.
Profit motive? My dad owned an unincorporated business. His motive was to provide for his family. To do that, his business had to show a profit.
hello tom, im a retired businessman and i've done some research into this. it seems that around 1870 or '80 the supreme court ruled the corporations were protected under the emancipation amendment. until this time, it seems the incorporating body, the city or state that approved the creation of the corporation retained control over it. it seems that this control was removed.
i live and i worked in japan. here we have limited liability companies, but they remain under the control of the incorporating body. i was the boss and every time i branched out into a new business, for instance, my company was incorporated as an importing company. after some years we decided to invest in a manufacturing plant and so we applied for permission to do manufacturing. likewise when we decided to open a few restaurants.
sometimes they wont give permission. if i wanted to open a new university, i'd be turned down, because in my local area we have too many.
of course individual real people can open universitys or any business anywhere as an individual or a partnership with no restriction, but to do this they are fully liable.
btwim not saying japans way is better, i happen to think that corporations haveway too much power over us and have effectively made us all into slaves. this is true here in japan and in my countr, america aswell.
i believe we need to keep corporations entirely out of politics and government.
tom ive got a question for you. is it true that an american company that is owned by chinese companys can donate to american politicians
I've read part of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision but not enough to conclude that. I've heard commentators on the leftie MSNBC channel news shows say any company, whoever owns it, can bribe politicians, or politicians can extort money from them. Unregulated campaign financing has long been a bribery/extortion activity.
I'd be interested to hear the answer to this question
Companies don't have to shovel the funds directly out of their corporate account into a politician's reelection campaign, as US based companies can now do legally thanks to Citizens United. They can still have board members, officers, and employees make "private" contributions or use an intermediary such as The Chamber of Commerce.
In Texas, which is cutting education and other essential services due to Rick Perry's budget crisis, under the pretense of job creation the Texas Enterprise Fund handed out $2 million of public funds to Motiva Enterprises, a joint venture of Shell Oil and the Saudi-Arabian oil company Aramco. The stated purpose was an incentive to create 300 jobs by expanding Motiva's Port Arthur refinery, but Motiva was rolling in dough and would have expanded the refinery without a public incentive. In 2009, 66% of the corporate grant recipients did not fulfill the job creation obligations in their contract with Texas. When that happens the state usually quietly rewrites the contract. [source: The Washington Spectator, Sept 1,2011]
Time and innovation has created money, which has created greed. The interesting part to think about is where the motivation started... why do the majority of people strive to have money instead of striving to be good people and treat everyone with respect? Although there are many wealthy atheists, I personally believe that the manipulation about image and money started in the church, mostly through Christianity and Catholicism. Have you been to the Vatican? That's the most shocking and SAD experience I've ever had.... the gold and greed bleed out of the walls. Since the majority of the world is religious, Albert Einstein said it best, "Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear, and greed." These are all things organized religion has used to retain its followers, as well as capture more. Stupidity may be a harsh term, but any intelligent person wouldn't let the "fairytale story" of the Virgin Mary hold true anywhere in their lives, fear because religion markets salvation which is something no one can prove, and greed... clearly because of money, image, and power... all things the Catholic Church strives for everyday.
Back to the main point, although I think innovation has structured people's thinking towards money, the idea building and business development is really the reward in creating new and easier ways to do things. Money that comes from it is simply the bonus. Religion doesn't necessarily teach you to learn how to do anything. In fact, it shelters you so that you ONLY BELIEVE what they want you to believe, but you should always look good and never lend a dollar (even though they preach it). Meanwhile, the Vatican works with the Mafia to control the entire world....through money.... tell me if I'm wrong here...