quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

thompsonx: Did somebody do something bad to you from  there? I understand your POV, but you're talking to a college Business major with an almost-MBA. I see it as having some advantages, myself. I realize there is crime, since it is run by human beings, and that CEOs are overpaid as a lot. I also think it's helped to ensure many in this counry totally avoid poverty - it's just that nobody ever talk about that part.

- Susan  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

thompsonx: Did somebody do something bad to you from  there? I understand your POV, but you're talking to a college Business major with an almost-MBA. I see it as having some advantages, myself. I realize there is crime, since it is run by human beings, and that CEOs are overpaid as a lot. I also think it's helped to ensure many in this counry totally avoid poverty - it's just that nobody ever talk about that part.

- Susan  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

thompsonx: Did somebody do something bad to you from there? I understand your POV, but you're talking to a college Business major with an almost-MBA. I see it as having some advantages, myself. I realize there is crime, since it is run by human beings, and that CEOs are overpaid as a lot. I also think it's helped to ensure many in this counry totally avoid poverty - it's just that nobody ever talk about that part.

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Wow, that's pretty good, I'd say.
If they only sold Koi, too.....sigh (sorry, just trying to stick w/the thread topic). [;)][:)]

- Susan

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

thompsonx: Did somebody do something bad to you from there? I understand your POV, but you're talking to a college Business major with an almost-MBA. I see it as having some advantages, myself. I realize there is crime, since it is run by human beings, and that CEOs are overpaid as a lot. I also think it's helped to ensure many in this counry totally avoid poverty - it's just that nobody ever talk about that part.

- Susan

There is nothing a REAL PERSON cannot do which an Artificial Legal Entity can do.

I have no problems with PEOPLE conducting business and being successful, but when a PERSON gives up their rights for the privilege of creating an Artificial Legal Entity, The People MUST derive a direct benefit, or why give a person the option of creating an ALE in the first place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO

Aren't ya'll stockholders? I sure as heck am. 
No I am not a stockholder.

Here is my feeble attempt to communicate my thoughts -

fargle bargle (and whoever else): Corporations get sued all the time. Look at Phillip-Morris, as one example, and a few pharmacuetical companies, as another. People win huge judgments. Of course they can be liable. Why do you think companies have boards of directors?
Would you please tell me the name of the person or persons who were held personally responsible for the damage for which these corporations were found guilty?
If you intentionally do something that causes someones death you are guilty of murder at some level and will go to prison for it.
If you accidently do something that causes someones death you are guilty of manslaughter and will most likely go to prison for it.
The reason for this is because you are held to be personaly responsible for your actions.
Corporations shield the responsibile parties.  This is the point I am making.

If you dont like the system's results as far as this goes, talk to the Supreme court and the circuit courts, don't simply blame it all on Corporate America. 
You do not seem to have been paying atention in your civics class.  The supreme court does not have primary jurisdiction in any legal proceeding.  The circuit court does not make laws.
I blame corporate amerika because they are the culprit.

As for why the notion of incorporation was created, I imagine there are more than a few folks who don't want to risk their life savings, homes, and kids' college funds if their business fails, or to start one.
That is what starting a business is.  It is a risk.  If you do not choose to risk your assets then take a job as a lunch bucket carrying employee of someone who does risk their assets to start a business.

This is wrong? Or unusual? They can still get sued, fined, and CEO and other suit-types imprisoned - it happens, and more than occasionally, it's just that the liability is spread out.
Perhaps you might tell me the names of the CEO's and other suit-types  who have gone to prison in the past one hundred years and for how much time and for what crimes.  I assure you the list is quite short.
How many of them were prosecuted for conspiracy to commit fraud, lying to congress. manslaughter,etc.

Frankly I think the notion of incorporation (and partnerships) has caused people's lives (in terms of material wealth) to thrive, more often than to fail.
I am not talking about partnerships, only corporations.  As a MBA candidate I am sure you are aware of the difference so why do you include partnerships?

Of course there are problems and failures. I live in the real world. Utopia isn't going to occur. It's been tried, and it didn't succeed. Humans will always screw things up. I'm not excusing it, just sayin'... 
We are not talking about problems and failures here we are talking about personal responsibilitiy for ones actions.  Corporations shield the individual from personal responsibility.  You do believe in being responsible don't you?

I'm not upset or offended, and it's really off-topic (sorry OP, truly - gosh, just 1 day ago we were discussing Koi, and the turn of events is a little unreal, even for me) but, since we're already here - I have noted that nobody really answered my queston, which was:

*Are ya'll planning to make Capitalism and all of the retirement portfolios wrapped up in the securities markets just disappear - or what? What will you be replacing them with?
This question was asked by you and answered by me in my last post.  The answer is free enterprise.  I am sure that as a MBA candidate that you are aware of the different forms that a business can take besides a corporation, sole propriator, partnership etc.

These consistent threads, where people don't seem to realize they can't have things both ways, and that there is no such thing as a perfect economic system are curious to me, really. 
Again I am not proporting to profess any perfect economic system.  I have only pointed out that corporations act as a shield to prevent business owners from being held responsible  for their actions


Please nix the talk of the Enron-type evil-doers, that's not the question. Accountability is/has been also a significant problem in economies like communist China, and socialist countries (ask the citizens, look at history)
I really do not care where the corporation exist.  It serves the same purpose no matter where it exists.
You are the only one who has brought up Enron.

Why? IMO, they're run by some greedy, as well as well-intentioned, humans. 

The question also is/was:

*What is your better alternative for the US, and why is it better?
Plus, how do you plan to implement it? 
The alternative is to outlaw corporations.  This would be better because it would make business owners personally responsible for thier actions.  I would implement it by outlawing corporations.

*I am seriously sorry for whatever it is that happened to you, thompsonx (really). 
Your sympathy is deeply appreciated...thank you very much.
thompson

- Susan