Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: corporations

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "jay gee" <jgj23 AT mindspring.com>
  • To: "Market Farming" <market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: corporations
  • Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 12:37:49 +0000


Rick,

You wrote:

>>>> I don't what it is that causes some of you folks on the other side of the
spectrum to take the position that a corporations purpose is not to "provide
needed good or services as well as a decent livelihood for its works, rather
than "only profits." <<<<

The truth is, aside from non-profits, the sole purpose for a corporation
to exist is to channel profits, from earnings, to its shareholders. If a
corporation fails to make profits in greater sums than its losses, it goes
out of business (assuming the losses are not "paper induced").
If the discussion is changed to, "what about limiting liability?" the
answer is the same. Limiting liability is protecting profits and assets
from attachment by third parties. No profits, no assets, no need for
corporate structure or shareholders.

In the past, many have promoted the concept that corporations
should be vast engines of social support and change by employing
unemployables, maintaining large payrolls, providing cradle to grave
services to employees, etc. Like Communism and Socialism, these
are nice ideas on the drawing board -- but fail in the execution.

>>>> Surely you understand that the main purpose of any business, corporation
>>>> or
otherwise, is to provide goods and/or services that consumers want. The
profits only come about if you can do this in a successful manner. This is
true of all businesses. Just becoming a corporation (and many farms are
doing that now) doesn't somehow make any change in the way you do business.
We have a number of corporations that are actually in the red.<<<<

Don't confuse being in business with being incorporated. Until you came
along, no one on this list seemed to have a problem with the lexicon used
here. The use of the terms "corporation and corporations" here has almost
always been in the context of large, anonymously owned businesses, and
no one has ever complained before that this was not understood.

And don't confuse being in the red with profitability. There are plenty of
corporate entities in this country that show losses for tax purposes and
to their shareholders but continue to accumulate cash from operating
surpluses. Thanks to special interest tax loopholes and the like it is
done legally. The oil business is one of those cases if you need an
example.

>>>> The main criticism that I have is that we are so focused on the short
>>>> term
and put pressure on our leaders and executives to get results now, today,
and do not reward them well for longer term accomplishments. There may be
some changes on that score with the current economic climate. So that is a
very healthy thing.<<<<

It actually looks like it is going the other way. As large corporations
and global enterprises accumulate financial and political power
through the corruption of local systems -- long run views will be
ever more "undesirable" for the effect they have on shareholders
and keeping the stock price high.

>>>> Our elected officials need to represent the people in their district.
>>>> Ours
certainly do a good job. Do you know your legislators? Especially your state
representative and senator? I certainly do. Do you really get involved in
the political system through your farm organization or other organziation? I
certainly do. In fact, our state rep is "offended" if we don't invite him to
our local Farm Bureau annual and multi-county board of directors
meetings.<<<<

Elected officials represent their own interests and those of their
constituencies when it suits their purposes. Go to the next
fundraiser put on by your elected representatives in your state
capitol or the D.C. You are not going to find very many
interested citizens in attendance. Why, because most
politicos don't want outsiders looking in on what really
happens.

>>>> On a final note, we have to be very careful about eroding our basic
>>>> rights
under the Constitution with too many limits of financial support of
candidates for office. Under today's rules, you could no longer have a Gene
McCarthy challenge the Presidency because what was done then would now be
illegal since one benefactor could not give that much money for one
candidate. There are always unintended consequences for our actions.<<<<

Aside from decreasing the average congressional district size to 30,000
active registered voters, no single thing will better serve the People of the
United States than reducing the amount of money individuals, PACs and
corporations may legally contribute to any campaign. The more transparency,
the better.

Gene McCarthy lost. It doesn't matter who runs for President. What matters
is who wins the office. Same goes for all other elected offices. What is
likely to get this country in better shape is a serious third party which
regularly
gains offices because people want and do not fear change.

Fortunately, the time is coming.


Jay Gee
not a farmer -- but interested in farming









Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page