He is 101 which means that he's been around for awhile. We need to consider his ideas, such as The Nature of the Firm, and to re-look at the earlier posts (Corporation, Corporation II) here in which we considered, briefly, the entity whose person-hood was established by the Supreme Court. As well, his take on quantification's grip, and the other than beneficial effects from the grip, does correspond, somewhat, with my own: Quants, et al.
07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh). By the way, if the company is a person, how do we jail it?
12/15/2012 -- We need to get back to thinking about the firm. It's given some type of "divine right" by some views (to wit, the Supreme Court's decision concerning the corporation as citizen). Kings took that notion (we'll have to look at this, to boot) for themselves. Evidently, the CEO represents the corporation, as if all is embodied in his/her self (sarcasm). Consider (partly motivated by reading about Thomas J, the slave owner, who allowed mistreatment, yet had his head in the clouds -- thank God he was not the first president as we would still have a king -- we cannot thank George enough for stepping down, --- the modern economic situation abounds in indentured slavery (oh yes, couched otherwise) -- and, Thomas would not listen to Lafayette on the matter):
- Firms have an evolutionary, social nature and purpose. The people who work for any firm (yes, the rank and file) have as much right as do those in whose hands are all of the decisions and the assets (yes, including stockholders). It's the workers who provide the value (that sight morphed to idiocy in the latter part of the 20th century). ... Hence, getting to the basics, corporations (a type of firm) ought to have serious civil, social impediments against ill-behavior (such as, indentured slavery, bullying, ..., pollution, ..., out and out juvenile behavior, ..., et al) that are actively enforced. And, the whole thing would be coordinated across national boundaries (how?, ... ). Remember, people, capitalism built itself upon the backs of slaves and other workers (then claimed that some invisible hand was its chum - silly, indeed).
Aside: Thomas, evidently, had kids by slaves. Then, he sold them off. Can anyone tell me any reason that we ought to hold this guy in any type of homage? Oh, great writer? We're still arguing about the issues. Kings, of course, had their illegitimate offspring (one example). Yet. many people today (even royals) descend from these folks who were, many times - not always, acknowledged by their sire as their progeny. We also know that people in economic stress sell off their kids ("sell off" has a general meaning, to boot, putting them out to hard labor, etc. -- our culture tries to get away from that, made a lot of progress at the turn of the 20th century), and we can cringe as we think of this type of behavior (by the way, farm labor on private farms is not, by definition or necessity, this type of thing). What was Thomas' excuse?
Aside: We could argue that any accumulation of people spawns some entity (of course, the CEO thinks that he/she represents/manifests this?) that ought to have types of rights. And, these may even, in the accumulation, be more than is allowed to any individual (except, again, the star CEO?). But, science denies such types of things, as of yet. The legal profession may hint at something that needs attention (of course, the theory (and a very rational basis for such) behind such phenomena is not outside our preview, folks).
12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.