Ok, let's review this yet one more time:
Capitalism is is a system whereby the means of production, of transport, and exchange are privately owned rather than State owned.
In Capitalism those means are characterized by the fundamental concept of freedom (laissez-faire - "let us be"), the right to be left alone, unhindered, unimpeded by any outside force, most notably the force of the State.
That's capitalism.
If that we're the case then feudalism would have been capitalism .... no it isn't, it's also based on the capitalist mode of production, labor markets, owner's exclusive rights to capital and a FOR PROFIT system.
Btw, it isn't laissez faire ... property laws are very complex ... and property (expecially beyond personal possession) is all state created and enforced ... pre-state there was no "private property" in the form of land ownership and capital ownership.
On to corporations:
In 2009, there were roughly 5,800,000 corporations in the United States. Today that number is about 5,400,000.
89.7% of those corporations have fewer than 20 employees.
99.7% have fewer than 500 employees.
If we add in the number of unincorporated businesses in the United States, the number of businesses with fewer than 500 employees rises to 99.9% (~22m)
In other words, the VAST MAJORITY (99.9%) of businesses in this nation are small businesses and roughly 26% of
those are corporations - and the majority of THOSE are PRIVATE entities (i.e. "publicly" owned).
Source.
Yes but how much economic power do those small buisinesses have ... not much, the ones with the real power are teh goldman sachs and the walmarts .... the market power of those top corporations are HUGE.
The POINT of incorporating is NOT to "maximize profit" let alone to "maximize profit at ALL COSTS." That's just absurd and belies a complete lack of understanding of what a corporation is.
To define a corporation, it is best to ask the question "why incorporate?" You'll get a variety of answers, but all will have in common the following:
1) To protect yourself, your family, your assets from personal liability from company debts and obligations. That's the #1 reason for incorporation (becoming a corporation).
2) Name recognition and brand identity.
3) Easier to generate capital to expand and grow their business
4) Longevity - a corporation can exist indefinitely and beyond their original owner
etc. etc.
Incorporating is a method of ORGANIZING YOUR BUSINESS, structuring your business, in part to enable it to become more successful.
1. More successful means higher profit.
2. Generating capital is generating investors who demand maximum return on investment i.e. MAXIMIZING PROFITS.
Now, to your assertion, that the fundamental purpose of corporations is to "maximize profit at ALL COSTS." I've dispelled that myth already, nevertheless I suspect that in your mind you're talking about a very small and somewhat unique type of "corporation" - namely, Public corporations - moreover public corporations with > 500 employees (i.e. large corporations) as those seem to be the demon gorillas targeted by leftist ideologues with the most fervor these days.
When a corporation "goes public," it is soliciting capital from others who would invest in that corporation. In the process of "going public," a corporation loses its "private" standing (the original owner "sells" his company) and becomes an entity now owned by investors with a personal stake in the corporation. Investors invest largely in anticipation of seeing their investment grow - else why invest? So in a sense, you're correct when talking about such entities, that they are now beholden to investor's expectations that the business constantly grow. But at "ALL COSTS?" That's just hyperbole. It is the rare entity that will abandon reason, even the law to maximize its profits. So even if those are the culprits you're using to broadbrush all corporations, know that you're broadbrushing with a very, very small number of examples.
Finallly, what does it mean anyway to "maximize profits?" All that means is to get as much as the market, your customers will permit you to have. If you sell your product at say $100 but customers are willing to pay $300, you're not "maximizing" your profit; you're leaving $200 on the table that your customer would have been willing to pay you.
And that's a critical point that needs to be stated - the business transaction, ALL business transactions are fundamentally an exchange of value - and when done in freedom, laissez-faire (neither side coerced in any way into making the transaction when they otherwise wouldn't), the business transaction is something to which BOTH PARTIES FREELY AGREE. One of the purposes of marketing, e.g. is to figure out what your customers are willing to pay; it makes no sense to price your products or services at LESS than your customers would be willing to pay - any more than it makes to price your products ABOVE what they're willing to pay. "Maximizing profits" then is finding that price. Of course, competition can - and SHOULD lower that amount by offering to customers the CHOICE - a choice that will often (assuming equal quality products/services) be based on price.
Does that make a little more sense now?
This is all nice theory .... I've heard it all before. But we KNOW how it works in real life ....
1. When a worker in china has an option fo working for almost nothing or being homeless, the deal he makes with foxcon to work as almost a slave isn't really "free" in a meaningful sense of the word, it isn't an exchange that's really on equal terms it's EXPLOITATION ... exploitation that's built in teh system.
2. The whole "willing to pay" thing isn't how the market works, I'm willing to pay the least amount possible for something I need .... but the market wants to sell it to me for the most,. maximizing profit means if I can charge customers higher ... I must, if I can pay my employees less, I will, if I can dump my waste in the river instead of getting it disposed at a cost I will ... EVEN IF, those actions are detrimental to society ..... that's what it means.
3. It isn't a hypoerboly at all cost, it's system, look at the 2008 crisis, look at the enviromental climate, look at the destruction of rainforests, look at the empoverishing of whole nations, look at outsourcing ... these are all things that are detrimental to soceity, that corporations do to maximize profit. It isn't the "rare entity" it's the whole private health insurance company .... denying children or anyone healthcare in order to maximize profits its morally insane, yet they do it every day ... it's the whole banking sector ... putting the whole financial system at risk to make potentially profitable bets, putting peoples morgages and homes at risk, making people homeless so as to maximize profits is moral lunacy .... yet they do it every day.
The prophets in their day condemned nations that did what these corpoations do everyday, we have examples of economic systems God approves of, principles that God gives us .... yet you throw that aside to worship at the idol of capitalism ...
My arguments have been from scripture the WHOLE time, people that oppose inequalities in wealth, profit over people, property over people, people that fight for justice are in line with the biblical message. People that defend systems of profit and property, who ignore inequalities, who ignore injustice, who side with teh wealthy and powerful, are not.
