A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
ribbonfarm.com
A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
1–10 of 35 posts
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#2I just want to point out that this guy is also the author of The Gervais Principle[1], a 4-part saga that offers an incisive, brilliant and depressingly accurate analysis of the human psyche as it applies to workers in a corporation. It's probably the most awesome thing I've ever read in blog format, and I'm looking forward to reading this essay.
It looks like the site is supported by donations, which I just did.
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#3I just want to point out that this guy is also the author of The Gervais Principle[1], a 4-part saga that offers an incisive, brilliant and depressingly accurate analysis of the human psyche as it applies to workers in a corporation. It's probably the most awesome thing I've ever read in blog format, and I'm looking forward to reading this essay. It looks like the site is supported by donations, which I just did. [1]…
Venkat's essays have helped me understand memetic grooming in a new context
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#4Interesting. He's certainly well read, but the conclusion sort of fizzles in my opinion.
> How do we measure Coasean growth? I have no idea. I am open to suggestions. All I know is that the metric will need to be hyper-personalized and relative to individuals rather than countries, corporations or the global economy.
He seems to be pointing at a future where transaction costs between individuals are lower, so there's less need to organize people into Large Organizations. (See: Coase's Nature of the Firm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm )
Fair enough, but I don't see companies going away, as you still need someplace to invest capital/pool resources to be spent, to create large-scale projects, whether they're created by employees or by freelancers.
Sort of on the same topic, this book talks about economic organizational models in the west vs the middle east, and how the former pulled ahead of the latter in part due to better institutions:
It's a bit long-winded at times, and repeats itself, but the subject is, IMO, interesting.
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#5Culture, policitics, war and business = decreasing strength order? Isn't this almost the opposite of the Maslow hierarchy, with food, safety, belonging and esteem, self-actualizing?
He is only a few paragraphs in and he has drawn a causation diagram backwards.
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#6I just want to point out that this guy is also the author of The Gervais Principle[1], a 4-part saga that offers an incisive, brilliant and depressingly accurate analysis of the human psyche as it applies to workers in a corporation. It's probably the most awesome thing I've ever read in blog format, and I'm looking forward to reading this essay. It looks like the site is supported by donations, which I just did. [1]…
Venkatesh is entirely supported by book sales (Tempo) and blog donations: he doesn't have regular income nowadays.
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#7Culture, policitics, war and business = decreasing strength order? Isn't this almost the opposite of the Maslow hierarchy, with food, safety, belonging and esteem, self-actualizing? He is only a few paragraphs in and he has drawn a causation diagram backwards.
I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible?
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#8Culture, policitics, war and business = decreasing strength order? Isn't this almost the opposite of the Maslow hierarchy, with food, safety, belonging and esteem, self-actualizing? He is only a few paragraphs in and he has drawn a causation diagram backwards.
I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible?
Caesar's invasion of Gaul changed the people and culture. Modern France still acknowledges a direct cultural link with the Roman era, while there's barely anything remaining of the Celts who were invaded.
Granted, it took hundreds of years. Present-day imperialists lack that kind of patience.
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#9Pure Korpo Fascist apologist hack at work here...
Kind of skipped over the whole 'US was founded on the premise of keeping corporations from having citizenship rights'.
Korps in decline, I think not, rights of real people in decline, rights of corporations on the continued rise.
Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he's saying that it can be harder to change cultures than it is to say, simply invade a country. The US rolled into Iraq with no problems at all, but how long would it take to truly change the people and culture? Would it even be possible?
Caesar's invasion of Gaul changed the people and culture. Modern France still acknowledges a direct cultural link with the Roman era, while there's barely anything remaining of the Celts who were invaded. Granted, it took hundreds of years. Present-day imperialists lack that kind of patience.
> it took hundreds of years
Compared with a few years for the wars. That's the point - it's easier to wage war than to change a culture.
Another interesting book along these lines is this one:
A Language History of the World http://t.co/f80cwQo
It uses languages to look at where they 'stuck' and where they didn't, why, how, and so on.