> Most of the time, huh? Look at the Forbes 500 list and point to all the companies that aren't there to benefit us.
Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument.
Providing shit services at inflated prices while pocketing all the money for yourself isn't the same as service the public interest. But for the most part - I'm ok with that. Companies are not charities. However what I'm not ok with is companies influencing politics because there's a clear conflict of interest there.
You don't grow to the size of an international corporation by being nice. It takes a degree of ruthlessness that flies in the face of the general public's best interest.
> And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to.
So you're a shareholder of every single company that you are impacted by? I very much doubt you are. You'd have shares in Disney, Sony and all the other conglomerates that's crippling copyright law. You'd need shares in Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and all the other companies who abuse patent laws. Including companies who's shares are dropping because their business is failing and patents are their last stand. You'd also need shares in tobacco companies, drugs companies and every other business that lobbies with the government. For your argument that we have shares in companies as an excuse for immoral business practices benefiting the population, you'd also need shares in patent trolls.
The fact is, you get screwed over by more business than you profit from. And that's with someone like you who does have shares; most of the developed world's population don't play the stock market.
> Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:
That's a dumb argument because the two are the one and the same in the context of this discussion. You can't run a company without having people within them to run it. So it's quite blatantly obvious that we're talking about the tiny minority of the population who are heading those companies (and I even categorically stated that previously). Since their position is vastly different from the average person, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss them separately - which is why they're referred to in the general sense as "companies" and "shareholders" (note that with the latter definition when used in this context it's generally used to refer to those with more than just a tiny percentage of a share)
That all said, it should be noted that individuals do perform actions they wouldn't normally agree with but do so because it's part of the companies strategy / policy. Sometimes a persons principles are sidelined by their desire to stay employed. Which is why it often makes sense to talk about a 'company' as a culture rather than a group of individuals.
Companies that aren't out to serve the public are few and far between, and go out of business. What a ridiculous argument.
Providing shit services at inflated prices while pocketing all the money for yourself isn't the same as service the public interest. But for the most part - I'm ok with that. Companies are not charities. However what I'm not ok with is companies influencing politics because there's a clear conflict of interest there.
You don't grow to the size of an international corporation by being nice. It takes a degree of ruthlessness that flies in the face of the general public's best interest.
> And who are the shareholders? Some unknown entity? How is it that you separate "our" and "shareholder"? I'm a shareholder, and you probably are to.
So you're a shareholder of every single company that you are impacted by? I very much doubt you are. You'd have shares in Disney, Sony and all the other conglomerates that's crippling copyright law. You'd need shares in Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and all the other companies who abuse patent laws. Including companies who's shares are dropping because their business is failing and patents are their last stand. You'd also need shares in tobacco companies, drugs companies and every other business that lobbies with the government. For your argument that we have shares in companies as an excuse for immoral business practices benefiting the population, you'd also need shares in patent trolls.
The fact is, you get screwed over by more business than you profit from. And that's with someone like you who does have shares; most of the developed world's population don't play the stock market.
> Corporations don't; the people within them do. Don't believe me? Try the following thought experiment:
That's a dumb argument because the two are the one and the same in the context of this discussion. You can't run a company without having people within them to run it. So it's quite blatantly obvious that we're talking about the tiny minority of the population who are heading those companies (and I even categorically stated that previously). Since their position is vastly different from the average person, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss them separately - which is why they're referred to in the general sense as "companies" and "shareholders" (note that with the latter definition when used in this context it's generally used to refer to those with more than just a tiny percentage of a share)
That all said, it should be noted that individuals do perform actions they wouldn't normally agree with but do so because it's part of the companies strategy / policy. Sometimes a persons principles are sidelined by their desire to stay employed. Which is why it often makes sense to talk about a 'company' as a culture rather than a group of individuals.