What are your plans for capitalism?
I have no plan for capitalism: I see it evolving into a new networked open form driven by the pervasive spread of direct instantaneous 'Peer to Peer' connection. In this emerging form of open capitalism, intermediaries are unnecessary and will be bypassed.
Shareholders in obsolescent (early seventeenth century and even earlier - turbo-charged by the more recent addition of limited liability) Joint Stock Companies are unnecessary intermediaries.
Banks as credit intermediaries are also obsolescent.
I see a new form of 'Open' capitalism: a market economy operating Not for Loss and emerging simply because, and to the extent that, 'it works'.
It's not a plan - just an analysis - possibly Utopian, certainly optimistic. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
but what prevents a sizeable proportion/majority of economic agents choosing to operate For Profit?
If they do, then they will be 'out-competed' by those who do not have the overhead of a payment to unproductive(TM) shareholders. ie who benefit from the Cooperative Advantage.
So Not for Loss will out-compete For Profit in the right - partnership-based, I believe - co-operative enterprise model.
It's all about perspective.
Our current rhetoric is all from the perspective of the rentier who regards the entrepreneur he finances; the suppliers; the staff and the clients all as being 'costs' to be cut in terms of price, pay or service.
From the perspective of the entrepreneur; suppliers; staff and customers - for all of these it is the shareholder and the bank credit creators who represent 'costs' to be cut, and which are in fact 'unproductive'. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
afew: but what prevents a sizeable proportion/majority of economic agents choosing to operate For Profit?If they do, then they will be 'out-competed' by those who do not have the overhead of a payment to unproductive(TM) shareholders. ie who benefit from the Cooperative Advantage.
Just to make sure, we're in metaphor territory here, right? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
1st dimension, our conversation/relationship with ourselves
2nd... our conversations with other individuals in the group
3rd... our adding mental bricks to a cyber-construction of collective ideation, created by individuals, transmitted through the architecture of a new technology, permitting a new dimension both to individual's self-understanding, and the collaborative possibilities previously braked* by older technology.
*or co-opted, enslaved or broken. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
subset of:
Tool: "entity that interfaces between two or more domains"
3-dimensional as in:
You can't be me, I'm taken
What are the three dimensions in question?
I'll take it you have no actual idea what you're talking about here then.
Because you need at least 3D for the links not to cross except at nodes. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
And, is that lowest dimension significant? En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I think it's a 2D projection of a 3D representation
ding!
unless you have a new kind of monitor!
those points of light would have to lie extremely flat to make it 2D, lol. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Just to point out that LLCs and LLPs are, in their legal framing, For Profit structures.
Yes indeed, but that language is misleading.
They are "For Participant Profit" rather than "For Rentier Profit"
Very different.
There is no profit and loss within an LLP or LLC framework, and the wider you extend the framework the more stakeholders you bring in until you get rid of profit and loss (and the double entry book-keeping in which it is accounted) altogether and end up with shared surplus (and a 'shared transaction and title repository' accounting). "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Historical Background of the Limited Liability Company
LLCs are neither new nor strange to the business community in the civil law countries of Europe and Latin America. This business form has its origin in the 1892 German company law known as Gesellschaft mit beschrnkter Haftung (GmbH). German not only was the first civil code country to enact this legislation, but Germany's enactment became the discussional focal point for the countries which subsequently adopted this commercial enterprise. Molitor, Die Auslandisch Regelung der G.m.b.H. und die deutsch Reform, (1927); and 12 Zeitscrift fur auslandisches and internationales Privatrecht 341 (1938). Once established in Germany, the concept of the LLC had a very active and fast growth. Success in Germany soon caused the German model act to become the focus of extensive debate. Within a short period of time after enactment in Germany, the following countries joined the limited liability bandwagon: Portugal (1917); Brazil (1919); Chile (1923); France (1925); Turkey (1926); Cuba (1929); Argentina (1932); Uruguay (1933); Mexico (1934); Belgium (1935); Switzerland (1936); Italy ( 1936); Peru (1936); Columbia (1937); Costa Rica (1942); Guatemala (1942); and Honduras (1950). In France, by the late 1940's, the limited liability entity known as "societes de responsabilite limitee" was more popular than the more traditional stock corporation and comprised approximately one-third of all French societes. Eder, Limited Liability Firms Abroad, 13 Univ Pitt L Rev 193 (1952).
And of course there were non-profit associations, co-operatives, etc.
Though these diverse forms have proved popular and useful, have they transformed capitalism?
There has been nothing quite like a UK LLP, anywhere.
The Jersey LLP - which PWC and Ernst & Young apparently paid Simmons & Simmons (UK solicitors) over a million pounds to help get through the best parliament money can lobby - is technically a Partnership, but with a separate legal personality to that of its members. However, this legal personality is dependent on there being more than one Member: when the penultimate Member goes, then the LLP goes with him.
In England & Wales, however, unlike Jersey, and Scotland, come to that, a Partnership does not have a separate legal personality. Partners are jointly (collectively) and severally (bilaterally) liable, and in order to contract, to own property and so on, they must do so through individual partners as agents/trustees as the case may be.
That is why - strangely - while the UK Limited Liability Partnership may be called a partnership, it is legally a Corporate body, with a continuing legal existence independent of its members, like a Limited Company.
Unlike a Limited Company, however, there is no distinction between owners and their agents, the directors/management. So there is no "Principal/Agent" conflict in an LLP and no need for the prescriptive Company legislation which manages all of that.
A UK LLP is entirely 'open' - there is no need even for a written agreement (I doubt whether you'll find that anywhere else, least of all in Germany)- and in the absence of one, a single page of partnership-based principles applies by way of default.
A UK LLP offers people working together to do so collectively,to an agreed common purpose, like a partnership, but without the 'several' individual liability of partnership.
The LLP also offers limitation of liability, which is good from the point of view of members, but IMHO they should give back something to society in return for the protection. Jersey insisted on a £10k bond,as I recall..... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 (c. 12)
(1) For a limited liability partnership to be incorporated-- (a) two or more persons associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit must have subscribed their names to an incorporation document,
(1) For a limited liability partnership to be incorporated--
(a) two or more persons associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit must have subscribed their names to an incorporation document,
(emphasis mine)
For the LLC, I can't provide a clear reference like that. But we're talking about limited liability companies that are generally used in a for-profit frame. (see above when it's posted... :))
There's no such qualification either in states' Uniform Commercial Codes (which each determine licensure of LLC and LLP within their respective jurisdictions) or in US Tax Code. Here benefits of "limited liability" have essentially nothing to do with potential profitability of an enterprise. Rather, ordering all claims on the income, if any, of the enterprise and indemnity enjoyed by participants.
See for example Definition of Limited Partner for Self-Employment Tax Purposes (IRS) and digest of The Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act .
he LLC effectively eliminates the traditional "Hobson's" choice between possessing limited liability and possessing the passthrough tax treatment of a partnership.... An LLC is an unincorporated association that is a separate legal entity distinct from the "owners" or members and is not merely an aggregation of the members.... An LLC can be formed for any business purpose as long as the purpose is a lawful one.... An LLC will be classified as an association and taxed as a partnership unless the LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation under the Self-Classification Regulations of the IRS.... The RULLCA sets forth certain mandatory provisions but distinguishes between items that the members cannot either vary or eliminate, items that the members can vary but not eliminate, items that the members cannot restrict, and items the members cannot unreasonably restrict.
An LLC is an unincorporated association that is a separate legal entity distinct from the "owners" or members and is not merely an aggregation of the members....
An LLC can be formed for any business purpose as long as the purpose is a lawful one.... An LLC will be classified as an association and taxed as a partnership unless the LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation under the Self-Classification Regulations of the IRS....
The RULLCA sets forth certain mandatory provisions but distinguishes between items that the members cannot either vary or eliminate, items that the members can vary but not eliminate, items that the members cannot restrict, and items the members cannot unreasonably restrict.
explicitly...
SECTION 104. NATURE, PURPOSE, AND DURATION OF LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. (a) A limited liability company is an entity distinct from its members. (b) A limited liability company may have any lawful purpose, regardless of whether for profit. (c) A limited liability company has perpetual duration. www.nccusl.org, 2006
(a) A limited liability company is an entity distinct from its members.
(b) A limited liability company may have any lawful purpose, regardless of whether for profit.
(c) A limited liability company has perpetual duration.
www.nccusl.org, 2006
Would you say LLCs were very largely/mostly used for non-profit purposes?
I couldn't say. Maybe the org has some firm population and firm size (1 - 1,000+) stats, maybe firm by NIC.
The key to understanding business classes here is understanding that selection is driven by concommitant tax advantage strategies and reporting requirements of each type so to shelter earning distribution -- whatever the source of income. 501(*) is a tax category of organization, whether or not incorporated, whether or not partnership, that indemnifies the firm according to strict regulation by tax agents of its business activities rather that its profit (loss) expectation. Administration is expensive. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
If they do, then they will be 'out-competed' by those who do not have the overhead of a payment to unproductive(TM) shareholders.
Modern industrial production is not materially subject to competition.
When it is subjected to significant competition, it stops working (barring sufficiently rapid expansion of demand that the competition is isolated to competing for the increase rather than the existing demand).
See, e.g., California's experience with deregulating electricity.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
If they do, then they will be 'out-competed' by those who do not have the overhead of a payment to unproductive(TM) shareholders
But surely that isn't possible. Governments have told us for years that these businesses and PFI schemes are more efficient. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
