[satvikpendem]

> when you start with the core concept that the _only_ purpose of a company is to earn capital.

...Yes? That's literally what a corporation is for. That some might have good customer service is simply a marketing method to get people to continue using that company to, in the end, earn capital. If you want to run a service whose primary motive is not earning capital, create a non profit.

[jdbernard]

No, it's not, or at least, it doesn't have to be, and it wasn't always. It's amazing how our modern society has so completely lionized and internalized greed.

Maybe the core concept of a corporation could be, for example:

- to make an excellent product in a sustainable manner,

- to provide gainful employment,

- to steward a natural resource,

- to push the boundaries of human knowledge,

- to organize a portion of society,

- etc.

I'm sure I could go on, this is literally 3 minutes of thought so far.

All of these could be pursued as the primary purpose of the corporation, with a goal of doing so profitably as a secondary concern. None of these are fundamentally incompatible with seeking profits. And in fact, in the past, as part of incorporation, you had to create a charter: what was the purpose of your corporation? That's actually still part of the prices if you go to register a business, though I don't know how meaningful it is anymore. Even the doctrine that corporations be managed "for the benefit of the shareholders," does not necessarily imply a focus on earning capital above all else.

But when the idea that profits are the sole and highest aim of a business, then yes, a lot of very good things get lost along the way.

This is already s long comment, so I'll stop here. I'm not convinced that the way we've chosen in 2024 to conceptualize corporations, even capitalism, is the only way. I think this statement:

> [Earning capital is] literally what a corporation is for

is a value judgement, not a natural definition.

[satvikpendem]

Not sure what you mean "it wasn't always," because it literally started off as a way to divide trade proceeds, you could buy shares in an entity that entitled you to shares of the profits. Again, you could just as easily start a non-profit to achieve all of those things, corporations have always been for earning capital as their primary motive, it's not a value judgment, it's simply the definition of a corporation. It is actually you who is making a value judgment, that corporations should do X, Y, and Z unrelated to earning capital as a primary objective.

[jdbernard]

At this point we're going to need to provide sources if we want to get further value out of this discussion because I disagree with your definition and don't believe your characterization of the history of incorporation. Profit sharing and ownership interest have always been a motivating aspect of incorporation, yes, but historically the main goal of the corporation has not been earning capital as their primary motive. The first US corporations, for example, where chartered by the government with specific goals in mind. The question of scope/goal is still part of the incorporation process. If the purpose of all corporations was profit, by definition, why ask? I that is vestigial: we used to care more about the charter and goal because profit was a concern, but not the primary concern.

I'm also intentionally not making a value judgement on what a corporation should do, rather pointing out that there exist many possibilities beyond a pure profit motive.