A Brief History of the Corporation: 1600 to 2100

+^d

I would have liked him to spell out a little more clearly how he thinks the corporation is going to shrink in influence by 2100 too, but perhaps that will be in those future posts.

I can see them killing themselves by overextending their influence leading to a people's revolt that regulates them to obscurity......but that will take another few decades at the very very least. We have a lot more rights and wealth to lose before the people realize that only a revolt will stop them.

I think I speak for everyone here; that cannot come soon enough.

I agree 110%, a revolt is coming, like the ones were seeing in the Arab spring uprisings. It may be all we have left.

now Greece and Britain, it's moving westward fast.

Well said. Hope it's not too far down the road. But I do think it's inevitable they'll blindly and arrogantly overreach and implode. A new wave of them will form and have their 75 to 100 year run... Cyclical in nature just like the economy itself.

agreed +^d

correction: bought the rights of the Louisana purchase that France claimed over the land that was not theirs to own in the first place. Please remember there were approximately 20 million 'Americans' (american indians) here long before anyone else arrived.

You better read more than what's available to you on Current. Otherwise you will have a very biased, bigoted view of the world.

Snookums .... Thanks for the post. It's an interesting article.

Thank you Warren. Might I suggest that you help balance the view here at Current if you feel that it's biased in a particular way? Please feel free to post an article anytime.....

I recommend taking inspiration from the illustrious Sarah Palin who, as we all know, reads everything.

I'm not sure I believe in the decline of the corporation. But the history is accurate. I heard some names and terms I hadn't heard in years.

I believe the corporations are getting stronger and stronger. I don't neccessarily mean this in a positive way in terms of consumerism. Mergers and acquisitions diminsh competition. Diminished competition reduces price and product competition. A lot of people would be surprised if they knew how many companies are owned by larger entities.

Agreed. M&A's have drastically changed the business landscape in the last 30 years....and I also believe not for the better.

As for corporations getting stronger; I think the corporation will continue to permeate our lives, but only in the short term (30-40 more years). A brief reference in the article leads me to believe that the author also thinks that the death-spiral of the corporation involves this last grasp for power and influence. I may be reading into it too much, and hopefully future posts will clear up his position.

Sometimes we focus too closely on the issues and not on the larger picture. The Native Americans have been getting the shaft ever since Columbus came here. I am not sure how relations went with the Vikings when they arrived, although I do not believe that would have gone over well either. Bt our government was the most cruel of all, convincing the Natives that an agreement actually had meaning.

I do read more, but it seem that people are all over the web bringing information to Current. I actually spend a bit of time on international papers like Guardian, Der Spiegle, The Nation, but I do not always have the time.

The fun of the barbeque is all well and good, but we need a bit more concrete information.

Like the damn supreme court rulings. We need to find out more about those damn supreme court cases that gave corporations the rights of citizens.

I think it would be just dreamy to find out about these damn supreme court rulings. Then maybe we can get on with "LIFE INC.", but personally I opt out of that particular hell.

Nice video, thanks.

Here's where it started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Thanks figg. I was going to do it, and then forgot.....

It's interesting that people like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and others would go on to craft the Constitution in such a way so as to lay the groundwork for the re-invention of the East India Company. James Madison: "our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

So, in light of Thom Hartman's piece, we ought to be able to identify counter-revolutionary figures among the most powerful of our "founders."

Indeed. There are many among the founders (many died in the Revolution itself and are relatively unknown to most) who were proponents of the revolt for purely selfish reasons. In today's vernacular; "You're not the boss of me". They didn't really want to reorganize society for the better, they just wanted to shuffle the deck and put themselves on top.

That was one of the reasons that the majority of what was later to become "Americans" did not support the Revolutionary War.

"Historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle — some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29