akasha_108 wrote:

>Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  
>
>>akasha_108 wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>B:
>
>  
>
>>No, rein them in.  Break them up.  They are too large and many 
>>corporations are really a bunch of smaller groups anymore anyway.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>...
>
>  
>
>>I would suspect that many a large corporation CEO would sigh a
>>    
>>
>relief at  having an almost impossible task of managing such a monster
>taken away from and in its place a smaller more reasonable one to manage. 
>
>A:
>It may be. But thats an opinion. Not substantiated. Regardless, it in
>itself is not a justification for breaking up a corporation.
>
>I generally favor smaller companies -- as most reseach points out -
>more innovation, higher growth etc. But Corps, who ere complying with
>laws and regulations, are in a better postition to determine that than
>you are I. And the scale of some industries is such that "larger" is
>more competitive than smaller. 
>
> 
>
>A:
>  
>
>>>I am not locked into any thinking. I do favor things which works. 
>>>      
>>>
>The capital markets (and the corporate structure enables them) are the
>drivers of technology, innovation and growth. Not perfect, refinements
>always needed. But its sad you can think of no other alternative than
>to dissolve corporations and capital markets rather than reform them.
>  
>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Well you are a little wrong there.  Since I work in the tech field I 
>>know that most of the innovation comes from small companies and 
>>startups.  Later they may be gobbled up by a larger firm.
>>    
>>
>
>You are missing my point. I was refering to capital markets being
>the drivers of technology, innovation and growth. The reference to
>corps was that it would be hard to have capital markets without
>corporations. It did not reference size of corps. I agree, studies
>show more innivation comes from smaller companies. Most of which are
>still corporations. 
> 
>  
>
>>>>Right now their batting 
>>>>average as far as the environment goes is not too good.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>And this is why they should be dissovled? Again thats a sad POV. 
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>Again I said nothing about dissolving them.
>>    
>>
>
>A:
>What are you proposing then? Limiting their size? Thus breaking them
>up into many parts? In that case, the original form is "dissolved". 
>
>
> A:
>  
>
>>Its primarily the governements fault, and ultimately the
>>    
>>
>>>voters, that such laws, regulations and incentive mechanisms are
>>>weaker than optimal. 
>>>      
>>>
> 
>  
>
>>>If you want better environmental track records by corporations, tax
>>>pollution, enact real vehicle efficiency standards -- including trucks
>>>and SUVs, tax gasoline (on the order of $2/gal), enact a BTU and
>>>carbon tax (which would affect electical, natural gas and coal
>>>production), tax the full lifescyle costs  of nuclear mining and
>>>waste, etc. In other words, incorporate the costs of pollution into
>>>the cost of things that pollute. As economists say, "Internalize
>>>      
>>>
>the>externalities". 
>
>
>  
>
>>>If the above were done, corporations would have excellent
>>>      
>>>
>environtal records. And the overall economy would be more efficient,
>cleaner, and growing at a faster rate (allowing more funding for
>things like educations and health.)
>
>  
>
>>I see nothing wrong with that idea.  However you would still have to 
>>watch over the corporate gangsters.  Just letting them run wild will 
>>plunder the planet into death.
>>    
>>
>
>We are all for law enforcement. And currently corps and CEO are
>getting prosecuted to the extent of the current law. If current law
>allows for corps to dump uncompensated costs on sociey, laws adn
>regulations should be made stronger. Again, the problem is not
>primarily a particular business structure or its size, but its a
>problem of inadequate legislation and regulation to prevent "cost
>dumping" / externalities dumping on society.
>
>  
>
No offense but you sound like an armchair economist because I know 
several economists and they don't talk this way. ;-)  You sound more 
like someone who has bought into some kind of libertarian thinking.

We'll have to agree to disagree.  :)





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




Reply via email to