Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LtWorf 357 days ago
> I think the idea is that corporations are the most efficient entities in the economy in terms of allocating capital.

Anyone who has had a job knows it's not true.

2 comments

>> I think the idea is that corporations are the most efficient entities in the economy in terms of allocating capital.

> Anyone who has had a job knows it's not true.

In an 'absolute' sense they may not be as there is (always) some waste, but is there a more efficient way / entity?

Public entities can, theoretically, be more efficient because they operate at greater economies of scale and with lower barriers. Centrally-controlled systems become unbelievably efficient when the scale is very large. In addition, public entities enjoy the absence of the shackles of profit, which allows them to make longer-term decisions.

Now, if this is really the case in the US today is debatable. But, it was the case in the past, and is still the case in many very functional countries.

I think the claim is that public administration is always less efficient. I just need to demonstrate it's equally inefficient :)
I’m also sceptical of this claim.

It seems to me that the capitalist economics mostly end up in capitalisms favor because it simply ignores a lot of variables.

1) Capital is allocated according to the wishes of the capital owner, generally to gain more capital and buy luxury goods. My question then is what does the people who have no capital get out of this system!

They are of course free to sell their labour, which is different part of the equation all together.

You may trade the few chips you have made from selling your labor for capital, but the chips you will receive will be of extremely low values, compared to the vast fortunes accumulated by wealthy families over generations.

Often these capital owners are descendants from feudal lords and others who gained their capital via dubious means.