Vaniver wrote:This is like saying "training methods are inconsequential, you just need skilled soldiers."
Except that administrative structure =/= administrative functionality.
The US military features one of the most well-cultivated business environments in the world - it is not a joint-stock corporation, even though it shares many practices with them.
Vaniver wrote:Are you including the people whose wealth was primarily tied up in the companies they were running, and thus would have lost almost all of that if the company went into bankruptcy?
Yes, stockholders go down with the ship. But with the rise in mutual funds and other asset management services (a perfectly understandable specialization, I'll admit), the people making the decisions are often no longer even the owners. I suppose the ridiculous and extreme example would be an asset management company whose owners were all also its' customers.
There's also the divestment problem, whereby stock owners will trade in and out to get a cut of high, risky growth, each acknowledging that they might be the one holding the stock when it goes down, but considering it too unlikely to want to change the company's practices. Divestment carries the illusion that it reduces risk (and arguably, in some ways it does).
Vaniver wrote:A better example would be ghost towns in mining areas, where changes in the situation turned an area from profitable to live in to unprofitable to live in.
Except it isn't, as that has nothing to do with risk. Mines are built to be emptied - most businesses
Vaniver wrote:Nice demonization! Estimate for me the percentage of people whose dreams are crushed by the world under a free enterprise system, and the percentage of people whose dreams are crushed by the world under your preferred system.
You neglect to note that the kind of system I describe exists in many economies in the industrialized world, and the question of their happiness is indeed a pertinent one. As noted in... some other thread in which we've been having a related conversation, someone noted the comparative economic mobility of various nations. The US was lower than nations closer to my ideal system.
Vaniver wrote:If you focus on genes and bodies, sure, but I'm talking about institutions and laborers. A cheetah can't change his genes, but a person can change his profession. Memetic evolution is different from genetic evolution in several important ways.
In enough ways to make your 'survival of the fittest' implications frankly silly. The only meme dying these days as a result of mechanics like that is "corporations are trustworthy and capitalism works".
Vaniver wrote:Again, the only reason this could be the case is if you have a government intervening to shield losers from their mistakes. You're not going to find me arguing for corporatist governments.
This is the case in governments which don't do that, because the corporate concept of limited liability itself shields losers from their mistakes... okay, actually, to be fair, that is
a government intervening, because LLCs are government-sanctioned constructs. If your idea of free enterprise involves fundamentally revamping the idea of the corporation, I might have less of a problem with it.
Do you want to remove the concept of limited liability? Should the owners of a corporation be considered liable for more than just the assets of their corporation if they cause more damage than the corporation can be liable for?
Vaniver wrote:You understand that history is long, right? And that you actually have to look at it to learn from it?
And filled with systems that were tanked by the people who owned them, for many varied reasons and in many varied ways.
While I agree that ownership is an incentive, and can theoretically function, it seems possible in a free enterprise system to game things so that it no longer provides a meaningful incentive, and such practices seem to be becoming more prevalent with time, despite their repeated failures in producing a healthy economy.
Vaniver wrote:Again, it makes for great rhetoric, but I don't see the evidence.
The effectiveness of lobbying and its' prevalence on our legal process? The failure of laws and measures with public support due to lobbying? The literal writing of laws
by corporate lobbyists?
function for you as evidence that corporations are abusing their power to influence government policies to a large degree?
It's obvious that corporations can't control the government completely
- the only group capable of controlling the government entirely are the people, because they carry the mandate, regardless of the type of government. That doesn't mean that problems like tyrants, despots, or corporate plutocracies can not dominate the process.
Vaniver wrote:A government which is banned from empowering rent-seekers,
Banned by what
? What keeps a corporation empowered with the ability to influence the government from simply changing this?
Vaniver wrote:and has a judiciary and populace educated on what that is, seems like it would have a chance at succeeding.
Here we come to the actual requirement for your idea. I would say that such a requirement is equivalent to the requirement needed to make a regulated system function - a people educated in the ability of corporations to abuse systems and proactive in preventing such abuses.
In fact, since this is also
required for a free market to function by producing informed and proactive consumers, my system would seem to have a lower threshold for effectivenss.
Furthermore, I would assert that the populace capable of implementing your solution would also
be able to implement my solution, as the people in your solution need to be capable of keeping corporations from influencing their government inappropriately.