A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100 • Hacker News Board

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#11

Post by wazoox » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 11:45 AM UTC

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and many less common, like in this article -- economic theories written by people ignoring the second law of thermodynamics (or as a physicist said "[these economists] can't even change a tyre") are bunk. Yes, I think that only hard-core environmentalists are looking in the right direction, and we're a bunch of fools. The Titanic is sinking but the orchestra's still playing.

tl;dr: I'm extremely pessimistic about the future. This sort of happy, dreamy nonsense gets on my nerves.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#12

Post by rapind » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 12:12 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #11

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and…

I'm with you.

This opinion is extremely unpopular though because it requires so many lifestyle consumption changes for all of us.

It's like knowing you have a serious illness, but putting off a visit to the doctor's to confirm it, because then you'll have to take steps that'll impact your lifestyle (I.e. quit smoking / drinking / drugs).

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#13

Post by vorg » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 12:32 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #11

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and…

> the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast.

Our earth is just one of billions of planets in our galaxy alone.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#14

Post by khafra » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 1:07 PM UTC

vorg wrote: post #13

wazoox wrote: post #11

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and…

> the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. Our earth is just one of billions of planets in our galaxy alone.

It's been over 40 years since we went to the moon. How close are we to mining asteroids for rare earth metals and meeting our energy needs from non-terrestrial sources?

How long do you think we have to get it right?

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#15

Post by wazoox » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 1:35 PM UTC

vorg wrote: post #13

wazoox wrote: post #11

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and…

> the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. Our earth is just one of billions of planets in our galaxy alone.

Do you think that we'll be able to move to another inhabitable planet in the next few decades? I'm not holding my breath.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#16

Post by TheloniusPhunk » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 1:45 PM UTC

pavlov wrote: post #8

davidw wrote: post #7

Earlier 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.

That's a good point. Invading Gaul et al. was probably more lucrative than invading a country like Afghanistan as the Romans were more obviously and unabashedly imperialistic and that war had to do with territorial expansion.

The invasion of Gaul is more akin to the way (relatively) early Americans forced out the Native Americans, and their culture certainly changed/doesn't really exist anymore. WWII Japan and Nazi Germany are examples of a places where a short war changed the culture.

The reason it won't work any more is because that style of 'total war' appears to have gone out of style. Probably a good thing, though Fareed Zakaria was on the Daily Show the other night talking about how one reason America has been so powerful is because Europe was leveled in WWII and the US had the industry to rebuild.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#17

Post by quadhome » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 1:54 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #4

Interesting. 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…

> 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.

I think he's saying those sorts of investments will be fewer and further between.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#18

Post by quadhome » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 2:02 PM UTC

TheloniusPhunk wrote: post #16

pavlov wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a good point. Invading Gaul et al. was probably more lucrative than invading a country like Afghanistan as the Romans were more obviously and unabashedly imperialistic and that war had to do with territorial expansion. The invasion of Gaul is more akin to the way (relatively) early Americans forced out the Native Americans, and their culture certainly changed/doesn't really exist anymore. WWII Japan and Nazi G…

> The reason it won't work any more is because that style of 'total war' appears to have gone out of style.

The effect of nukes not withstanding, I think 66 years is too short of a history to say that "total war" has gone out of fashion.

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#19

Post by scott_s » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 2:46 PM UTC

vorg wrote: post #13

wazoox wrote: post #11

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and…

> the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. Our earth is just one of billions of planets in our galaxy alone.

Science fiction author Charles Stross on why we're unlikely to ever leave our solar system: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high...

Re: A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

#20

Post by limist » Thu, Jun 09, 2011, 3:28 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #11

These little ramblings on the future of corporations in 2100 is no better than discussions around the number of angels atop a pin head. All of these economic references without any ground in the reality of a finite world annoy me to no end. It's time both for academics and bloggers together to get in touch with reality : the planet is finite. Resources are limited. We'll be running out of them fast. All common -- and…

Your point is actually part of the article - the finiteness of physical, social, and mental resources constrained and will constrain possible paths and futures.

While the author mostly hints at what could be next, his closing focus on human perspective is credible: finite resources of energy and diminishing returns on investment (whether of time, capital, productivity, etc.) will entail the weakening of the corporate mode of life, and will entail major re-evaluations of infinite-growth assumptions.