bpwoodworking
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2023
- Messages
- 254
I’ll be vague as possible to avoid running to close to the no politics rule. If I’m flying to close to the sun here let me know.
Typically it is the balancing act of competing interests that keep any entity in check. A look through history provides that when those interests can be subdued, the effect is that it exaggerates the pursuit of the remaining interests.
This seems to work better than a centralized planning system, where the ‘good’ is determined by a planning board rather than by competing interests. This sort of thing appeals to many but has proven itself more easily corruptible to weight the benefits to a few.
A corporations main obligation is to its shareholders because the shareholders own the company. Why should it be that the board would determine what good causes they would like to use the shareholders money for outside of those which create value.
This narrows the scope of the goals of a corporation to that of their stated purpose. Otherwise you may find that they’re using your shareholder money to pursue ‘good causes’ which may heavily conflict with your good causes. Rather most would prefer to benefit from ownership in the corporation and use those benefits to support the good cause of your desire.
Job creation is an outgrowth of the pursuit of financial reward. It’s not a means to and ends in and of itself. When job growth is the priority entities often become incapable of competing because the cost of existing becomes incredibly high. If they can force the consumer to spend more in order for them to accomplish their secondary goal, then they will do so but if they cannot then they are destined to fail.
In the private sector, a bloated behemoth fails on its own weight, thereby ending the benefits it once provided and destroying any value to the ownership. In the public sector, the cost is passed onto the taxpayer, raising the basic cost of living either through direct taxation or through inflation.
Typically it is the balancing act of competing interests that keep any entity in check. A look through history provides that when those interests can be subdued, the effect is that it exaggerates the pursuit of the remaining interests.
This seems to work better than a centralized planning system, where the ‘good’ is determined by a planning board rather than by competing interests. This sort of thing appeals to many but has proven itself more easily corruptible to weight the benefits to a few.
A corporations main obligation is to its shareholders because the shareholders own the company. Why should it be that the board would determine what good causes they would like to use the shareholders money for outside of those which create value.
This narrows the scope of the goals of a corporation to that of their stated purpose. Otherwise you may find that they’re using your shareholder money to pursue ‘good causes’ which may heavily conflict with your good causes. Rather most would prefer to benefit from ownership in the corporation and use those benefits to support the good cause of your desire.
Job creation is an outgrowth of the pursuit of financial reward. It’s not a means to and ends in and of itself. When job growth is the priority entities often become incapable of competing because the cost of existing becomes incredibly high. If they can force the consumer to spend more in order for them to accomplish their secondary goal, then they will do so but if they cannot then they are destined to fail.
In the private sector, a bloated behemoth fails on its own weight, thereby ending the benefits it once provided and destroying any value to the ownership. In the public sector, the cost is passed onto the taxpayer, raising the basic cost of living either through direct taxation or through inflation.
Last edited:
.
