The corporation should plan going forward with the intertion of paying off its debts.
Yes. If you do not believe that they are already doing this, then you should not lend to them in the first place. In fact, this is another excellent reason to not include creditors on the board: Inclusion of creditors would give them an incentive to attempt to persuade corporations to not retire their debts.
The problem in Yugoslavia is that that became disfunctional, since workers severely restricted the firm's capacity to generate new employment,
But maintaining full employment is not the purpose or responsibility of individual firms. The sovereign is the only planning unit that has sufficient scope, information and power to reliably serve as employer of last resort.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But maintaining full employment is not the purpose or responsibility of individual firms.
The democratic society reforming firm 'desires' in socially productive directions is the essence of what I'm talking about, but that doesn't mean giving 'responsibility' for social goals over to the firm, and it doesn't mean firm purpose would be 'full employment', since 'firm purpose' is always very complex. Corporations should be, or can be, one of the tools society uses to satisfy social needs.
What you want is for firms to decide 'naturally' in favor of expanding employment when that makes sense for the society at large. Firms' decision-making was skewed against that in a socially counterproductive way in Yugoslavia in the worker-self-managed firms. Not that that's the only thing that matters to a society, but it is a vital matter. And not that worker-self-managed firms were not a good thing in other ways. fairleft
