Tags for This Article:

Government (2714)  History (994)  State (897)  Corporations (816)  History (727)  Capitalism (403)  Markets (311)  Ideas (281)  Ideology (174)  Corporations Pharmaceuticals (115)  Corporations Transnational (113)  Corporation Halliburton (57)  Corporations Agriculture (36)  Corporations Mercenaries-Security (36)  Corporation Mercenaries (27)  Corporations Insurance (23)  Corporations Automotive (12)  Corporations Non-Profit (9)  Corporations Entertainment (6) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
December 24, 2007 at 16:43:06

Reforming the "Private-Benefit" Corporation

by Paul Rye     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

(0.0 from 0 ratings) View Ratings | Rate It

In “Promoting the Common Good: There's Only One Reason to Grant a Corporate Charter”, David Korten does a good job of explaining the concept of the private benefit corporation, what it is, and why it is so destructive to society and the environment. When reading his account, it is important to note that he uses the common conception of capitalism defined as rule by financial capital, not the fundamental conception defined as re-investment of savings to improve production or engage in innovation. Many people will intuitively grasp what David is talking about, but unfortunately very few are aware that it hasn’t always been this way.

Jonathan Rowe, in Corporations and the Public Interest, delves into the history of corporations, the original purpose of corporate charters, and traces the evolution of corporate charters from public good corporations, to public/private corporations, to private benefit corporations. Reading and understanding this article would go a long way toward helping anyone who wishes to intelligently discuss corporations and free markets.

The modern corporation did not exist when the founders established the scheme of checks and balances in the Constitution. And, individual enterprises – family farms, farmer’s markets, flea markets, family stores, fishing boats, etc – were what Adam Smith meant when he wrote about free markets in the Wealth of Nations in the 1700's. He did not envision the huge corporate agglomerations of capital that modern corporations would become when he worked out his notion of a “benign mechanism that harmonizes the activities of individuals pursuing their own entrepreneurial ends."

But the Industrial Revolution wrought great changes in industry and commerce.  By the mid-1800s, incredible growth in the nation’s economy caused corporations to come under political attack, not to reign them in or to reinforce the original “public good” bargain, but to extend the privileges of incorporation to everyone who want to get in on the action.

Consequently, by the late 1800’s, “free incorporation laws” unshackled corporations from specific activities that served the public. Market ideology based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Adam Smith trumpeted the idea that simply seeking gain would, under the “invisible hand”, serve the public good. The fact that Adam Smith envisioned individual enterprises and not the modern corporation was lost in the clamor.

The modern corporation was thus unleashed with all its attendant problems. Socialists believe the solution is to use the power of government to reign in the power of corporations by re-distributing income. But, that is a foolish course. It was government itself that created the modern corporation, in response to public demand to participate in the economy. Who in their right mind thinks that demand no longer exists, or to kill it would be a good idea?

No, the answer is to restructure corporations in such a way that people can still participate in the economy, but tips the balance of power back toward individual enterprises and requires that larger organizations serve some public benefit. Read David Rowe. He has a few ideas, but I’m sure they are not the last word. Ask yourself which candidate for president would provide the best chance bring about the needed changes. I tout no particular candidate here. Although I support Ron Paul for other reasons, I think he is weak on this issue.

 

Skin diver, spear fisher, trash collector, roughneck, scuba diver, football player, tennis player, mechanical engineer, aerospace engineer, husband, father, math teacher, fisherman.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 comments

 

1 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

"Welcome, Rich White Oligarchs!" --Daily Show Billboard Greets Republicans In Minnesota Posted by Rob Kall

Why I Won't Vote for John McCain by Phillip Butler

Carville is a Spy for Bush Posted by Josh Mitteldorf

Virgo New Moon, August 30, 2008 by C.L. Pagano

Howard Zinn's Advice to Obama by Rob Kall

McCrash: McCain's Military Record Revisited by Hill Kemp

The Slow Death of Democracy and the Rise of the Corporate Hydra by Siv O'Neall

Got a Traffic Ticket in the Mail for a Right on Red at an Automated Enforcement Light? by Tumerica

The Rise and Fall of the US Dollar as the The World Reserve by John Little

"Now, This!" by Stephen Pizzo

Popularity Navigation
Control Panel:

Select Time
6 hrs 12 hrs
1 Day 2 Days
3 Days 1 Week
2 Weeks 1 Month
2 Months 3 Months
6 Months Last Year
Select Content
Articles Diaries
Polls Events
All Op-Eds
News Life/Arts/Science
Select Popularity
Page Views
# of Comments
Recommend Emails
  

Go To Top 50 Most Popular