Why are corporations the dominant form of business in the United States?

This question was asked by my instructor.

As an owner of a corporation he/she is not personally responsible for any financial liabilities of the corporation. They can seize all of the assets in a meltdown of the business and the owner will still retain his/her personal property. Also for the tax breaks that are available when incorporated in certain states. Delaware is popular with insurance corporations.

Limited liability. Huge volume of shares/money that does not belong to them but they have full access to use and if it is all lost, its not their loss or responsibility.

Basically it is harder to get to a corporation legally than it is a small business person. It was not initally supposed to be this way but because of lobbists they have pretty much been given the keys to the kingdom and the stock market. Our paper money is basically worth less than toilet paper because thr federal govt is able to change the value of the dollar anytimes it feels like it. Going back to Andrew Jackson you will find that he knew this day was coming and he knew that a few having all all the power in the country would be bad for THE PEOPLE.

Here is some history you might find interesting.

[Development of modern commercial corporations

1/8 share of the Stora Kopparberg mine, dated June 16, 1288.
A bond issued by the Dutch East India Company, dating from 1623, for the amount of 2,400 florinsEarly corporations of the commercial sort were formed under frameworks set up by governments of states to undertake tasks which appeared too risky or too expensive for individuals or governments to embark upon. The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. Many European nations chartered corporations to lead colonial ventures, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company, and these corporations came to play a large part in the history of corporate colonialism.

In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust). Eventually, state governments began to realize the greater corporate registration revenues available by providing more permissive corporate laws. New Jersey was the first state to adopt an "enabling" corporate law, with the goal of attracting more business to the state.[10] Delaware followed, and soon became known as the most corporation-friendly state in the country after New Jersey raised taxes on the corporations, driving them out. New Jersey reduced these taxes after this mistake was realized, but by then it was too late; even today, most major public corporations are set up under Delaware law.

The 20th century saw a proliferation of enabling law across the world, which some argue helped to drive economic booms in many countries before and after World War I (the advantage to the overall economy of enabling laws must, however, be viewed in light of the success of Carnegie Steel and Standard Oil, the economic stimulus of the war, the flourishing of the automotive sector, and other major economic drivers). Starting in the 1980s, many countries with large state-owned corporations moved toward privatization, the selling of publicly owned services and enterprises to corporations. Deregulation -- reducing the public-interest regulation of corporate activity -- often accompanied privatization as part of an ideologically laissez-faire policy. Another major postwar shift was toward development of conglomerates, in which large corporations purchased smaller corporations to expand their industrial base. Japanese firms developed a horizontal conglomeration model, the keiretsu, which was later duplicated in other countries as well. While corporate efficiency (and profitability) skyrocketed, small shareholder control was diminished and directors of corporations assumed greater control over business, contributing in part to the hostile takeover movement of the 1980s and the accounting scandals that brought down Enron and WorldCom following the turn of the century.

More recent corporate developments include downsizing, contracting-out or out-sourcing, off-shoring and narrowing activities to core business, as information technology, global trade regimes, and cheap fossil fuels enable corporations to reduce and externalize labor costs, transportation costs and transaction costs, and thereby maximize profits.

For protection against lawsuits, etc. having a corporation is necessary to insulate the people running the companies as individuals from the company itself. Furthermore it is very helpful for tax purposes, and if only to creat the company as it's own entity instead of being a person. It also helps when you consider growth of a company and it's desire to have public investment and consideration for zoning/tax sheltering/etc. Corporation doesn't mean bad by definition, though most people think it does. A lot of corporations are quite small. If you are asking why are some corporations large, well look up the definition of corporation. It stands to reason that they'd all look to grow and profit more, as everyone would like to be as successful as possible. If doing so allows acquisitions and parnerships, as it usually does in capitalism, then there will be large corporations over time that become larger.

Because the United States is a capitalist nation. Companies either buy out competitors or put them out of business. Small businesses really don't last.

Because they establish themselves and run out competition. Simple as that. Ideally, this is the goal of all businesses. If your local mom and pop stores did enough business to open up a second store, they would do it. If they could open up a third and fourth, they would do it. If they had a competitor come in town, they would lower prices, have deals, advertise more to try and save their business. If they wanted to expand to more areas that had more businesses, they would try to run them out as well. And by run them out, either wait until they go out of business, or hurt their sales enough that they can buy them out. Small businesses can't last long when sales aren't doing well. Large businesses can.

Business isn't friendly. It just doesn't work that way. But competition drives down prices. The only downside, is that the common people tend to choose products that are of lesser quality but cheaper, over products that are of greater quality but more expensive. And people will shop somewhere that has bad service but low prices, versus good service but high prices. Just look at how well Aldi's does. And do I even need to mention Wal-Mart?

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.034
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Sunday, May 27, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy