market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Market Farming
List archive
RE: new terminology, was tone and substance/NY Times
- From: "GlobalCirclenet" <webmaster AT globalcircle.net>
- To: market-farming AT franklin.oit.unc.edu
- Subject: RE: new terminology, was tone and substance/NY Times
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 22:24:34 -0600
Of course not. Obviously, the problem with corporations is not proprietary
control, which all organizations must exercise if they are to focus
resources on a specific purpose. The crux of the problem with corporations
is, state-granted corporate charters relieve owners, the stockholders, of
personal liability for the misbehavior and bad debts of the corporation,
which sets up a disconnect between ownership and responsibility--the very
opposite of a true free market. Cooperatives however are usually meant to
make customers also function as the owners and investors, combining day to
day authority and responsibility. In essence, a company's customers own the
company and control it, without outside investors. Outside investors would
want the highest return on their money, regardless of service or cost to
customers. There are many areas of modern commerce that could benefit from
running as cooperatives instead of corporations.
paul & barb - on the continental divide
http://globalcircle.net
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/15/2002 at 10:34 PM Rick Williams wrote:
>Wouldn't cooperatives be too much like corporations in that they want
>proprietary control. A GPL is nearly the antithesis of such control and is
>more like public domain but still maintaining integrity and standards.
>
-
Re: new terminology, was tone and substance/NY Times,
GlobalCirclenet, 10/15/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- RE: new terminology, was tone and substance/NY Times, GlobalCirclenet, 10/16/2002
- RE: new terminology, was tone and substance/NY Times, GlobalCirclenet, 10/16/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.