The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: While you're technically correct

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I don't agree (see in situ)

While you're technically correct

in practice, however, it is virtually impossible. The legal and staffing mandates alone virtually guarantee that nearly a million dollars be spent to start any non-tiny corporation. This then guarantees that it is funded by either one or more very wealthy individuals or a sanctioned investment of some type. Via the SEC, the banks have total control over all SEC sanctioned investments. Through "part D", they limit direct investors to those who have $300k in liquid assets and an income of 'I think' half a mil. They mandate a licensed broker handle the deal. They mandate the structure of the board of directors and the tie between financial shareholders and voting shareholders - they are not the same. In short, they've got 'em by the brass.

In reply to the legal mandate of short term profit, I refer you to the "Benefit Corporation" description in Wiki.

"Benefit corporation
Main article: Benefit corporation

A benefit corporation is a class of corporation required by law to create general benefit for society as well as for shareholders. Benefit Corporations must create a material positive impact on society, and consider how their decisions affect their employees, community, and the environment. Moreover, they must publicly report on their social and environmental performances using established third-party standards.[32]

The B corporation label is a third party certification and a corporation with this label should not be confused as a Benefit corporation.

The chartering of Benefit Corporations is an attempt to reclaim the original purpose for which corporations were chartered in early America. Then, states chartered corporations to achieve a specific public purpose, such as building bridges or roads. Their legitimacy stemmed from their delegated charter, although they could still earn profits while fulfilling it.[citation needed]

Over time, however, corporations came to be chartered without any public purpose, while being legally bound to the singular purpose of profit-maximization for its shareholders. Advocates of Benefit Corporations assert that this singular focus has resulted in a variety of societal ills, including the thwarting of democracy, diminished social good, and negative environmental impacts.[33]

In April 2010, Maryland became the first U.S. state to pass Benefit Corporation legislation. Hawaii, Virginia, California, Vermont, and New Jersey soon followed. Additionally, as of November 2011, Benefit Corporation legislation had been introduced or partially passed in Colorado, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.[34]

Benefit Corporation laws address concerns held by entrepreneurs who wish to raise growth capital but fear losing control of the social or environmental mission of their business. In addition, the laws provide companies the ability to consider factors other than the highest purchase offer at the time of sale, in spite of the ruling on Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.. Chartering as a Benefit Corporation also allows companies to distinguish themselves as businesses with a social conscience, and as one that aspires to a standard they consider higher than mere profit-maximization for shareholders.[35]"

This is a new type of corporation being tested in a few states (not mine!) that ALLOWS owners to circumvent the legal profit mandate. You can find this at:

If you haven't heard of the laws mandating profits, you haven't tried to start your own business. That was 'slap-in-the-face' 101 in my venture!

So, yes, there's nothing wrong with BUSINESSES making lots of profits but corporations do cross the line of total non-accountability.