Jump to content

Talk:Corporation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 178.197.230.175 (talk) at 20:36, 29 October 2019 (→Picures). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Delete Each Bad Point

I plan to delete each bad point, sentence by sentence. This is the first one. "Modern company law Due to the late 18th century abandonment of mercantilist economic theory and the rise of classical liberalism and laissez-faire economic theory due to a revolution in economics led by Adam Smith and other economists, corporations transitioned from being government or guild affiliated entities to being public and private economic entities free of governmental directions.[26]"

Reasons to delete this sentence: 1. It is unrelated to "Modern Company Law," whatever that is. 2. the cite is weak and non-academic. 3. what is the evidence that "a revolution in economics was led by Adam Smith"? 4. corporation did not transition from government or guild as these organizations were still corporations. What happened is that those were first, along with churches, then ppl started forming companies with trusts. The crown didn't like that and allowed for general charters. 5. corporations did not transition to being "free from governmental directions." This is pure bs. The government creates the corporation, allowing it to act in its own name and specifies disclosure rules and other requirements need to incorporation. I'm going to delete this sentence. If you revert the sentence, please explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next up for deletion: "Adam Smith wrote in his 1776 work The Wealth of Nations that mass corporate activity could not match private entrepreneurship, because people in charge of others' money would not exercise as much care as they would with their own.[26]." This is a decent paraphrasing of Smith. However, this has nothing to do with "modern corporate law" . Corporate laws were not very modern in 1776, were they? They didn't even have general charters or limited liability until the mid-1800s, so who is this part of "MODERN" corporate law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long do I need to wait until I can make my deletion?

You can make your deletion when you obtain a consensus in favor of the changes to be made. I would oppose these changes, however, as they would remove elements of the history of the topic. I have clarified the header for that section. I have suggested before that you create a draft for what you think the article should look like at Draft:Corporation, and propose that here as a replacement for the existing page. That would be the best course of action for a complete overhaul of the page. bd2412 T 20:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, the first sentence is incorrect and I explained exactly why, point by point. How does removing the first sentence, "remove elements of the history" if the sentence is incorrect? Please be specific. Or better yet, let's go item by item. For example, being "free from governmental directions" Can we agree that the government creates the corporation specifying the rules to incorporate and then taxes it? Can we delete that part of the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN========================================== The end of the sentence reads that the corporation is: "free from governmental directions" Can we agree that the government creates the corporation specifying the rules to incorporate, gives regulations, and then taxes it? Can we delete that part of the sentence?

=====================================
  • It is true that government both provides the corporate form, and imposes numerous obligations on corporations, including (depending on their size) substantial reporting requirements regarding their activities, requirements for how they treat shareholders, antitrust limitations, and taxes on profits. However, at the same time, the government generally doesn't tell the corporation which products to produce, which lines of business to enter or abandon, how to structure its operations, or where to do its manufacturing, and so forth. The sentence could be clarified to say that these are "free from governmental directions with respect to their internal decision-making processes". bd2412 T 18:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The government provides subsidies that prescribes production to agricultural corporations and where oil companies place their lines, etc. Also, taxes, regulations impact internal decision-making. It is true the gov't does it indirectly, but it impacts decision-making. I think the problem is whether something is free must be relative to something else. I'm pretty sure this line came from a comparison of specific and general charters, where corporate purpose became more of a private matter. But ultimately, I think it is best to drop a phrases like, "free from gov't directions" and simply explain what is going on. That is, explain the exact laws that changed. In conclusion, I agree with all you said, but I disagree with the suggested edit. The reason is because there needs to be a benchmark--free compared to what?
      • Perhaps we would have a better answer if the question was directed the other way. What is it that corporations are able to do, without government interference? bd2412 T 02:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per Ciepley 2013: "The primary rights of a corporation thus have nothing to do with business per se. They are three in number: (1) the right to own property, make contracts, and sue and be sued, as a unitary entity (a legal “person”); (2) the right to centralized management of this property; and (3) the right to establish and enforce rules within its jurisdiction beyond those of the laws of the land—such as the monastic Regula Benedicti, town ordinances, bylaws, and work rules. A modern corporation receives additional privileges, such as perpetual existence, which allows it to accumulate property forever, but without the previous three rights, a corporation is not a corporation, but either a partnership or a trust fund." http://surplus-value.org/readings/supply-chains/ciepley-corporations.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Owning property and making contracts are a pretty big deal, though. I wrote a substantial piece once on the nexus of contracts theory of corporations, which suggests that all they are is a web of contracts. I happen to disagree with that theory, since the corporation doesn't contract to have government-imposed shareholder rights, unless you count that as an adhesive contract with the government itself. Nevertheless, those are at the crux of everything every corporation is actually able to do. bd2412 T 22:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I misread your question and did not post what the corporation can do WITHOUT gov't interference. I don't think the corporation can exist without the gov't as Ciepley explains. What I posted is what corporations can do, period--as you noted. I agree about the rejection of coase and jensen and meckling and this is what williamson et al. did, anyway. Rejecting the nexus of contract theory also rejects coase's argument the corporation is just private contracts and instead is a creation of the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Even so, the fact that I argued against that theory doesn't remove it from being an important theory about the nature of corporations. The thing to do is present arguments that have been made on both sides. bd2412 T 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading these arguments, they appear unfinished. What happened to the argument about mercantilism? It doesn't seem to fit and there is no argument for why it should be on the page related to corporations. Reading more...it seems that the article is being protected and that those that question it are banned. Am I not understanding this? Can someone in charge of the page explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.198.195 (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is this statement justifying locking down the page, "The Corporation article is on lock down since it's really good and doesn't need improvement." Who is it that believes this article is "really good." I'm trying to write a report on corporations and I don't feel this article is helpful or academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.198.195 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I simply cannot get away with this sloppy writing. I will provide one example and sign off. The introduction states, "A corporation is a company, a group of people or an organization authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law." This begs the question, what is a "company"? How is this definition different from a partnership or a city? This is not the defining feature of a corporation.

Next, "Early incorporated entities were established by charter (i.e. by an ad hoc act granted by a monarch or passed by a parliament or legislature). Most jurisdictions now allow the creation of new corporations through registration." First, why not "corporations" rather than "incorporated entities"? Also, the sentence implies that later corporations are not established by government charter, which is false.

Next, "Corporations enjoy limited liability for their investors, which can lead to losses being externalized from investors to the government or general public." First, "enjoy" is a poor choice of word. Second, it's false. Corporations in CA did not have limited liability until 1931. Just Google it. LL relates to torts and debts. How exactly is LL for corporate debts externalize costs on society? Another falsehood or the externality is very indirect.

I think I could go line by line and find more false statements and implications. Someone needs to realize that this is NOT a "really good article." Okay, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.198.195 (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that you create a draft of what you think the article should look like, and then propose to replace the article with that draft. bd2412 T 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Good luck with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3024:1DF2:0:4873:53D9:D94C:66A (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the authority on editing this page because I would like to make some changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph should discuss the different types of corporations as in non-profit, gov't, and business. It should not assume all corps are business corps. Does anyone with an education disagree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator:bd2412 just reverted a change I made that was absolutely appropriate. What should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC) BD2412 reverted my edit that stated corporations were a creation of the state. This is a friking fact. This guy BD2412 has done this over and over. S/he controls this article, but won't discuss anything and clearly has zero expertise on the subject. AS A USER WHO WANTS TO EDIT, WHAT SHOULD I DO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC) The corporation does not need to be an organization. Come on, man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) If the corporation is authorized by the state, it is in law!!! Delete the last part of the sentence, please.[reply]

Regarding the corporation as a person: "The legal make-believe that the corporation is a person, the ingenuities by which it has been fitted out with a domicile, the elaborate web of "as-ifs" which the courts have woven,-have put corporate affairs pretty largely out of reach of the regulations we decree. . . . "The corporation" . . . has no anatomical parts to be kicked or consigned to calaboose; no conscience to keep it awake all night; no soul for whose salvation the parson may struggle; no body to be roasted in hell or purged for celestial enjoyment.... [We cannot lay] bodily hands upon General Motors or, Westinghouse . . . [or] incarcerate the Pennsylvania Railroad or Standard Oil (N.J.) complete with all its works." Per RICHARD EELLS & CLARENCE WALTON, CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF BUSINESS: AN OUTLINE OF THE MAJOR IDEAS SUSTAINING BUSINESS ENTERPRISE IN THE WESTERN WORLD 132, 133 (1961) (quoting Walter H. Hamilton, On the Composition of the Corporate Veil, Address Before the Brandeis Lawyers' Society (Mar. 21, 1946) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the article

This article is so f-ed up, it's hard to know where to begin. I think if BD24 wants to edit, s/he needs to read up on "entity shielding". Please read: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Kraakman_et%20al_546.pdf After that, I will make the edit and then you won't delete it. What do you say BD24? This, too: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2077298

I have made another edit. Please read so we can improve the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every time, I make an edit, BD24 reverts it. And the dude won't discuss anything. Is the corporation an artificial joint creation of private parties and the state? Yes! BD24 won't allow the change. ETC. Dibadj 2013 (MIS)CONCEPTIONS OF THE CORPORATION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the exact changes you want to make and why you think they should be made. Just complaining that another editor reverted your edits and/or posting links without explanation doesn't enlighten anyone, or allow them to comment on your suggestion. General Ization Talk 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is deleting my stuff. Let's start here: I have explained the exact change. I'll do it again: The corporation is an artificial entity. It is a creation of the state and private parties. It is privileged by the state to act as a single contracting entity. (See Dibadj 2013 (MIS)CONCEPTIONS OF THE CORPORATION). The corporation does not need to be an organization. Delete this and just say, "artificial entity".

So can I replace "organization" with "artificial entity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC) Watch how long this question sits here with zero discussion. The owner of the page refuses to discuss anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show me, please, mainstream discussions of the corporation as a concept that use the exact term "artificial entity" to define a corporation. We rely on reliable, published sources here, not the ideas or interpretations of our editors (see WP:OR), nor on academic articles that do not reflect the mainstream. Dibadj is offering a novel idea, but that paper itself states that "the artificial entity theory [has] fallen deeply out of favor". We must therefore infer that it is not a widely-held theory. Please see WP:FRINGE amd WP:UNDUE. There is no "owner" of this page, but there are experienced editors here and they can and do revert added content when it is improperly referenced, reflects other than a neutral point of view, and/or otherwise does not conform to Wikipedia policies, or if someone appears to be attempting to hijack a Wikipedia article to promote themselves or their theories. General Ization Talk 18:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My plan is to say what the corporation actual is, an artificial entity, and then to discuss the legal conceptualizations. It is obviously not a natural person, which is the current conception. Another approach is to state the various conceptions with the artificial entity theory being the first one. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, please always sign your edits on this or any Talk page. If you expect other editors to participate in the discussion, assist them in following who is speaking and when by taking a half-second of your time to sign your edits.
Secondly, I just finished pointing out that the "artificial entity theory" appears to not be widely held and has "fallen deeply out of favor" per one of your sources. Why on earth would any discussion of the corporation lead with that theory? General Ization Talk 19:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thirdly, as I requested above, please identify what published, reliable sources you would use to support the statement that "the corporation actual[ly] is ... an artificial entity ... It is obviously not a natural person, which is the current conception". General Ization Talk 19:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819):
"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities that corporations were invented and are in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lovely quote, one that should be included in the article, but it is not appropriate as a summary of what a corporation is in the lead, and does not contradict the existing definitions of a corporation in the article. Marshall was waxing philosophical in his decision, and addressing the limitations of corporations; he was not attempting to define the term. General Ization Talk 19:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you're talking about.
I am not referring to theory, yet. I am simply stating what the corporation is: an artificial entity. It's not natural; it's an entity, so how can this possibly be incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is saying the corporation is an artificial entity, which is what I want to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are the first person to take an interest in this article besides the owner. Thank you. If you really want to do it, please read: Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation by DAVID CIEPLEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually need to read any more than the title of that book to know that its purpose is to challenge the mainstream view of the corporation, not to explain it. That is not our purpose here. This is an encyclopedia, not a journal of progressive academic, political or legal thought. If you want to describe alternative views of the corporation here, you are welcome to do so, briefly, in a section so labeled, and with citations of published, reliable sources that support those alternative views; but not to hijack the article to express your opinion that those views should prevail. That means you may not replace the existing definition of a corporation here with the one you prefer based on those opinions. General Ization Talk 19:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article would serve you well. If the article is about theories of the corporations, you're right, but it's not. I asked you to read the article, so you'd be a little more educated. The point of the article, had you taken the time to read it, would show you the importance of entity shielding, which is very mainstream. This is the point that I believe needs to be explained. This article wasn't even related to the other things I was proposing. You seem paranoid. Please read and inform yourself so you can be a good editor.

And, once again, stop referring to BD2412 as the "owner" of this article. They do not own it and have never claimed to own it. See WP:OWN. However, they have the authority, as I already explained and as any editor here does, to revert edits that do not meet our requirements and/or policies, and to discuss them with you here, as they clearly attempted to do months ago. As for signing your edits, see WP:TILDE (which was linked in my comment above requesting that you always sign your edits). General Ization Talk 20:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 owns the article, sorry if you don't like me saying it.

It's hard to make edits when you want what is mainstream, but have no clue what mainstream is. Question: Is the corporation and artificial or natural entity?

Artificial, like a coffee sweetener? You are using terms that are not relevant to the lede. A corporation is no more "natural" or "artificial" than a contract, a tort, real property, a will, or a cause of action. However, we don't have language in the lede of any of those articles indicating that they are artificial things. bd2412 T 22:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's reasonable. We don't need to call it an "artificial entity". Why not a "legal entity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's already apparent from the first sentence. bd2412 T 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: "A corporation is an organization, usually a group of people or a company, authorized by the state to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law for certain purposes." Better sentence: A corporation is authorized by the state as a contracting entity. I think this is better because a corp does not need to be an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC) I think it would help if you read this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2848833 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, BD2412 I hear that wikipedia wants the mainstream pov. This article has few cites and those it has are rarely academic. If you think my posts are not mainstream, then what is the mainstream pov? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think wikipedia defines an LLC as different from a corporation. 2. limited liability is not needed for a corporation to exist and only applies to business corporations (cities, non-profits are corporations) 3. What you cite is jensen and meckling 1976, which is based on Friedman 1970, is not accepted well in Europe and is being ridiculed in the USA--See Denning from Forbes. Remember, Germany has boards with workers on them. 4. this sentence opens the question in, what is sufficient if not simply contracts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, can we delete organizations from the first sentence, please. Also, can we say that the corporation is a creation of the state with private parties as stated in Ciepley? BD2412: Sir, if you intend to control this page, I think you should read more on the topic. I am not trying to be mean, but this article is important and it's totally wrong. For example, the nexus of contract pov has two big problems: 1. it assumes the corporation is private (See Coase 1937) and 2. it assumes shareholders are the residual claimants (see Jensen and Meckling 1976). These are assumptions and naked assertions of economics who don't know f-all about corporate law and both are factually incorrect. I need you to understand that the government creates the corporation, at the initiative of private parties (although the state creates incorporated cities, so even that statement might not be completely accurate). I have incorporated a business and know that the state is necessary for 2 things: to have the corporation treated as a contracting entity and 2. entity shielding of corporate assets (see Ciepley)

Also, the article should be split: 1. for corporations and 2. for business corporations. A non-profit corporation does not have a stock market.

My suggestion is that we define the corporation for what it is and then discuss the various conceptions of the corporations (see Dibadj) The were first conceived as what they are, a creation of the state. In the late 1800s, they were re-conceived as partnerships, and then as natural ppl. The natural person and aggregate theories were both used, but aggregate theory was promoted by the nexus of contract "theory". Every time the corporation is re-conceived, its capital is re-coded--that is, laws are changed for the residual allocation (see pistor, code of capital) .

Sir, please let me know what you think. Since you are in-charge of this article, my hope is that you respond in a timely fashion. In the past, you've taken so much time to respond that I've gotten frustrated because nothing can happen without your permission. I hope you feel the article is important enough so this doesn't happen once again. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, when you take so long to respond and refuse to allow edits, anyone who might want to improve this article can get frustrated. Why not give control to someone who can address things on a more timely basis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, you reverted my edit to show that Mcdonalds is a business corporation, rather than another type of corporation. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, You got this figured out. I went on wikiHelp to ask if I could edit and they banned me. I guess all you guys work together to make this article say what it does. Nice job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In asking for help, Sir Huan or Huon said s/he has found evidence that shareholders own the corporation. S/he couldn't find the evidence because s/he was "too busy". It would be the only law journal article that explicitly argues that shareholders own the corporation. Since bd2412 believes the corporation is a natural person, then slavery still exists in America. I am very excited about Huon's forthcoming edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.27.150.168 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

Is the 1 picture of mcdonals compatible with the fundamental rules of wikipedia? Is it a bit or even too much Wikipedia:Spam¿ -'178.197.230.175 (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corporation&oldid=923636944"