We mean different things, we have different definitions. To me it seems, that you look more into structure: is it limited or unlimited liability, is it solo owned or a group owned entity, is it for profit or non-profit, is it publicly traded or privately owned etc.
I look more on the function and need this institution serves. I'd consider a local mafia as a company in this sense, it is a group of criminals conducting illicit activities to earn profit. It's legal structure is immaterial to me, companies can exist absent of state. That is my point with OPs rant about what he thinks companies should or should not do - bad luck, companies are not bitches of states, they are manifestation of underlying reality of human nature.
Also profit is necessary component to me, doing something does not cut it for practical reason. For instance banding together with your wife in order to raise children is not a company, it is a different institution - specifically that of marriage forming a family. I guess we can extend the definition if we know what we mean, there definitely is some overlap especially if there actually is family business etc. But it is unnecessary.
georgioz
2d ago
But most kids want to go to college because, pay, wages, jobs aside, it looks like a hell of a lot more fun aged 17 than becoming a bricklayer or taking up an apprenticeship as a hairdresser or plumber or carpenter or electrician, or getting a job at a warehouse, or a call center.
There are still some positions even in corporate world where you can land without university. At 18 you can land some lower-end sales job as SDR maybe with tech-sales or similar. If you are technically savvy, you can aim for presales engineer career which is pretty neat. You can land IT support position and farm certifications. These together with work history will be more valuable than some default easy college. All of these work very well especially with some referrals and recommendations.
At its core the company is an entity formed by shareholders in order to generate profit. This is intrinsic purpose of any company, be it modern LLC, East India Company a pirate crew in Caribbean with its own charter, Hanseatic guild in Baltic or mercenary company in ancient Greece. From times immemorial, people banded together and pooled labor, capital and know-how in order to generate profit for themselves.
All of those things you mentioned such as distributing goods, creating markets, creating jobs and whatnot are externalities of certain type of regulated companies. It is a result if you make it easier for strangers to put together capital and create profitable business. But it would in some form work even without that, only it would be more costly and riskier to do that in unstable environment.
I am not sure what these mythical security guarantees should be. They can be anything including ineffective guarantees for South Vietnam ("respond with full force" by Nixon) which broke within months of enacting them. Or as in case of Afghanistan, where USA simply withdrew the guarantees and just asked Taliban to behave for 14 months needed to abandon their security partner.
I am not sure why either of those scenarios cannot happen at any time. Especially if there will be multiple countries doing that - e.g. USA, France, Germany and UK being the security partner. I can imagine a new US administration asking Ukraine for mineral resources rights in exchange of guarantees in 2029 and when denied, they will just say they are withdrawing them in 2 years or some such leaving everything up to France and UK and other countries who may do their traditional Munich Agreement solution to unwanted security guarantees.
I agree, these settlements are absurd. The other thing that I recall is Alex Jones supposedly paying out $1.4 billion with court ordering to liquidate everything he owns be it InfoWars or his personal assets. Mind you there were 15 plaintiffs representing 10 victims and he had to pay from $28.8 million to $120 million. Now I am not defending Jones and his character here, but it seems excessive to me especially because of course Jones is not a billionaire and has only fraction of that money, but at the same time he cannot declare bankrupcy. So he will have to pay damages for the rest of his life. He basically became something like indentured servant to those people.
I am not sure if this is a normal practice in USA especially for verbal crime. But even for some other crime - is it normal for a criminal to be sued for billions thus becoming basically indentured servant for his victim? Surely raping or crippling somebody is much worse than ranting on internet, I guess the damages should be in trillions. It seems insane to me how arbitrary this is, but I guess this is what we get from jury system which is basically a theater where regular people can use state power for their own power trips.
Sure, but I commented on the context that the OP introduced of economic relationships. Not about people grouping together to form a bowling league or moderating Culture Wars online forum etc. That is also an intrinsic social need, but of a different kind.
More options
Context Copy link