You said it, not me. You long-windedly stated that Corporations are America’s problem. Do away with Corporations and everything is state owned which has proven time and time again to lead to severe economic inefficiency.
As I said, you did not actually read it, you put it into your little box. Now you are going to babble something about “communism or whatever”.
Well, there are private assets that are not corporate-owned. I didn’t see PA calling for an end to private property and the state ownership of the means of production.
He was talking more about how corporations have no real ultimate responsible person (there’s management, responsible to a board, responsible to shareholders, who are an amorphous mass of decentralized owners who can’t really control the corporation in any fine detail and are largely immune to any externalities).
He then says that lack of an ultimate responsible person means that corporations can do all sorts of anti-human-interest stuff and get away with it by shifting blame around, and that the rules of corporate life create a kind of frankenstein that can protect its own existence even by screwing parts of itself (firing its management, shifting the board, shafting shareholders).
If corporations are done away with do you really think private investors are going to take enormous risk knowing that they will be personally in financial ruin if the business fails? By calling for an end to corporations (I assume he means LLCs and the like as well), the State will have no choice but to take over the largest industries that require the most investment. So…he IS, apparetly unknowingly, suggesting Communism/Socialism by suggesting that Corporations be done away with.
What’s wrong with socialism? Sweden is a nice place with good healthcare and hot classy babes.
Personally I like S2000. When it comes to CFAI curriculum, he’s a genius. But he did recently call tell me I spoke ‘broken English’ because I put an apostrophe in a possessive pronoun. I was so embarrassed to make such an egregious grammatical error! So, I’m going to have to agree with you on this one.
There’s many problems with socialism. But perhaps the biggest is that those who believe in Socialism won’t CALL themselves socialists. Examples: Barack Obama, his political ideology is clearly socialist but he won’t associate himself with the word. At least Crazy Bernie Sanders owns up to being a socialist.
As for the hot classy babes: if there’s a direct correlation between socialism and that, I might change my stance and agree with PA.
Reducing the ability of people to share business risk is a real price of ending corporations, and the result would be that businesses that required enormous capital outlays would not be attempted, but could only happen if they could grow from smaller capital outlays. There’s a real cost to that, although it is conceivable that corporate laws could be tweaked to give them more accountability without sacrificing the entirety of the risk-sharing aspect.
But that’s a far cry from doing away with private property entirely, and gulags and everything that the Soviet Union is considered evil for.
You aren’t even on the right thread, you were told twice (now thrice) that nobody said that. Just go start a separate thread where you argue against nobody that corporations should not be ended. 
Do you live in North Korea? Can I start a thread on your nationality?
*eyeroll*
Oh look, another AnalystForum troll. Friends with Itera and S2000?
Back on topic, I finally re-found a link I’ve been digging for. This Ramez Naam is the closest to getting it, as any person I’ve ever hear of (even though he’s still not even remotely close). I’ll need to track him down once my paper is done.
In a hard takeoff scenario, an AGI rapidly self-improves, “taking control” of the world (perhaps in a matter of hours), too quickly for significant human-initiated error correction or for a gradual tuning of the AGI’s goals. In a soft takeoff scenario, AGI still becomes far more powerful than humanity, but at a human-like pace (perhaps on the order of decades), on a timescale where ongoing human interaction and correction can effectively steer the AGI’s development.[37][38]
Ramez Naam argues against a hard takeoff by pointing out that we already see recursive self-improvement by superintelligences, such as corporations. For instance, Intel has “the collective brainpower of tens of thousands of humans and probably millions of CPU cores to… design better CPUs!” However, this has not led to a hard takeoff; rather, it has led to a soft takeoff in the form of Moore’s law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_explosion
Yes, “soft takeoff” already happened, and yes it took decades, and wrong you failed to “steer” it, and yes it led to “taking control of the world”, and no it did not need to be strong AI to do that. What a mess of incorrect thinking.
People are always obsessed with words, you can call it weak AI, or “superintelligences”, or whatever. The critical point is that superintelligences have the brain power, but they are not in control , the legal-entity-based weak AI is in control…which is precisely what makes it near impossible to beat; narrow focused goal, with the smartest of the smartest as tools. You can’t outthink it, and you can’t reason with it.
You are a fu**ing nerd.
You have nothing to add to this thread, and by my judgment have crossed the line on forum rules, I request the mods delete these posts.
As a member of the AnalystForum community, you may not: Post any content that is abusive, obscene, hateful, vulgar, fraudulent, threatening, harassing, defamatory.
Nerd is not exactly defamatory. Some take it as a compliment.
Naw, these creepy posts talking about a person’s nationality (that’s really the same as racism) and direct abusive hateful insults bring the forum into the gutter and destroy intelligent conversations. The guy didn’t even read the thread. I’ve never even heard of him before yet he’s clearly angry about something (I assume he’s S2000s buddy).
So let’s add it up…we’ve got an angry abusive hateful nationalist with a Rambo avatar…hey, 99% probability he’s a Trump supporter!
haha bchad FTW
PA isn’t exactly arguing for an end to corporations or private ownership. That said, his initial post is fairly anti-corporation with some seemingly socialist undertones (that may not be intended, but certainly comes off that way). I don’t disagree that corporations have done some pretty rotten things in the name of higher profits, which should prompt the populace to demand better governance. This can be from the government directly in the form of laws, fines, etc… or from industry bodies that attempt to keep each in check via best practices and punishment for offenders (fines, expulsion from FINRA for example, etc…). This model is generally what most developed countries have adopted. It certainly isn’t perfect and corruption can be rampant given severe potential conflicts of interest. As such, what many are calling for is an improvement to the model.
PA’s solution is fairly crude, which eerily echoes what Bernie Sanders put forward along with his following; a revolution. PA’s solution is actually probably more extreme (though who knows what Bernie had in mind) since it would essentially require toppling or de-fanging most of the military.
What PA and many others fail to realize is just how destabilizing all of this really could be to the global system (stock market crash, depression, local skirmishes breakout given a military void - Eastern Europe, South China Sea, Middle East). Also, it’s not entirely clear the next form of government would be any better. In fact, what may have started off with good intentions could lead into something much worse (see Venezuela).
What PA should have said is that America should do a better job at overseeing corporations, but not so much that it totally crimps productivity and progress. Additionally, he could have said we need a more open and honest discussion with how best to tackle these problems. Instead, it sounds like he’s proposing more onerous and direct government rule, which indeed seems very communistic and even dictatorial.
I’ll leave it to Milton Friedman who I think said it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A
That’s Charlie Sheen, not Sylvester Stallone.