Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

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

#21

Post by wazoox »

limist wrote: post #20
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…

Yes, I probably was unjust but hey, that was a rant. I must be agreeing more with the general analysis than would appear from the rant; it's more the reference book I was after, and maybe the chosen perspective.

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

#22

Post by zipdog »

Some good points but the idea of Peak Attention seems to be conflated with focus. Its one thing to have the captive attention of a tv audience, but its a completely different thing for a team of people to have joint focus on a task. The later is what gets things done, the former is just a way of passing time for those without the motivation to entertain themselves.

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

#23

Post by hessenwolf »

quadhome wrote: post #18
TheloniusPhunk wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree it is much too short, but I think we need a good solid baby boom before we will take arms in the near future.

I was also thinking that economics and not war are behind the spread of the English language. You could argue that movies (culture) also cause people to learn a language, but the movies are coming from the place that has the money and industry to make them.

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

#24

Post by trh44 »

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 statements are just completely misguided. We're finding more and more sources of energy everyday. Our sources for energy isn't decreasing; it's increasing because techology allows us to extract more oil, more natural gas, more coal, and more uranium, as well as discovering newer and more efficient means to extract energy. We're also innovating on renewables; we're rapidly finding newer methods to get more energy out of wind and sun for example. Remember, we hadn't exploited natural gas for energy use until recently; technological innovations are helping us continually extract more and more energy out of that resource.

Before finding any uses for fossil fuels, we survived off of hydropower, an inifinite supply of energy. Predicting a doom and gloom because we'll run out of fossil fuels makes you forget that humans have survived for thousands and thousands of centuries without fossil fuels.

Further, stating that we'll run out of resources ignores the laws of supply and demand: if resources start to dry up, prices will increase, prompting people to find alternative sources for energy. Guess where the next growth industry will be, and where people will spend their money.

With economic growth, comes new and better ways of extracting energy (see natural gas and nuclear power, recent phenomenons). Humans are innovative, and we'll find even newer sources of energy in the future like we have been doing since the dawn of time.

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

#25

Post by barry-cotter »

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.

It's probably an exaggeration but I believe Caesar's Gallic Wars has something about killing a third of the Gauls and enslaving another third.

Implacable patience would almost certainly substitute for a certain amount of brutality, but the more of one you have the less you need of the other.

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

#26

Post by hapless »

Section I (EIC) was amusing. I didn't make it all the way through Section II (Taylorism). Citing such unreliable institutions as paragons of business virtue destroys your credibility.

The American railroads that conquered the west were grossly inefficient. Their "success" was sustained almost entirely by malfeasance, corruption, and the unchecked abuse of eminent domain.

Taylor was a fraud at best and a liar at worst. Taylorism and its cronies are possibly the greatest curse on our age.

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

#27

Post by clistctrl »

randomwalker wrote: post #2

I 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]…

The post linked to in this thread has been literally the most interesting thing I've read, in quite a while. Thanks for linking me to more :D

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

#28

Post by wazoox »

trh44 wrote: post #24
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 statements are just completely misguided. We're finding more and more sources of energy everyday. Our sources for energy isn't decreasing; it's increasing because techology allows us to extract more oil, more natural gas, more coal, and more uranium, as well as discovering newer and more efficient means to extract energy. We're also innovating on renewables; we're rapidly finding newer methods to get more energy…

> We're finding more and more sources of energy everyday.

Excuse me, this flies in the face of everything I know of. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No source of energy even remotely comparable to fossil fuels in power density and convenience is in sight. Unless you discovered a way to build a fusion reactor?

> Predicting a doom and gloom because we'll run out of fossil fuels makes you forget that humans have survived for thousands and thousands of centuries without fossil fuels.

Logical fallacy. Human beings will still exist in the future. What's in question is advanced civilisation. Read about how Rome looked like when Carolus Magnus came there, 350 years after its fall.

> Further, stating that we'll run out of resources ignores the laws of supply and demand: if resources start to dry up, prices will increase, prompting people to find alternative sources for energy.

Typical armchair economist bullshit; this really makes me angry nowadays. People will find alternative resources given that some exist.

> With economic growth, comes new and better ways of extracting energy ...

Hello, second law of thermodynamics calling. Exponential continuous growth is impossible. You know, like "it will cease someday or another, whether you like it or not".

This recent post on the oil drum is a pretty good digest: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7924

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

#29

Post by Shorel »

rapind wrote: post #12
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).

No one will change his/her lifestyle unless some extreme conditions apply.

Therefore, almost nobody will change lifestyle. But it doesn't matter, as we all die, and we are replaced by people with a different mindset/lifestyle.

E.g. smokers die of cancer, new generations smoke less.

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

#30

Post by delinquentme »

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…

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

The response you were hoping to get was...?

" its ok .. it upsets me as well " ?

Post reply on HN