Talk:Corporation/Archive 2

Formation of Criticism Article and consolidation of issues

In its current incarnation, the "Criticism" section is somewhat difficult to follow, particularly to a person---such as myself---who knows very little about the legal structure and decision-making practices of corporations (this was the ignorance I was attempting to remedy when I first visited this page). We could consider improving the "Criticism" section by reducing it to one or two general paragraphs that describe the primary or fundamental nature of the majority of concerns about corporations, and then generate a separate article that treats concerns about corporations in much more detail. We could also consider describing how different progressive movements have raised concerns about the effects of corporations on democracy (e.g. ways that corporations have contributed to issues raised by feminism, environmentalism, the human rights movement). Either the "Criticism" article or the "History" article could also include a discussion of the tactics employed---such as advocation for public policies, boycotts, and Alinsky's and others' "proxy tactic" in the 1970s---in efforts to return some the power held disproportionately by corporations to the public. Finally, we might want to consider changing "Criticisms" to "Concerns," as the majority of the issues raised here seem to be concerns about the effects of corporations on democracy rather than criticisms of specific actions undertaken by or on behalf of corporations.

In my experience, one of the most frequently voiced concerns about corporations seems to be the extent to which they have co-opted much of the government in formerly or ostensibly democratic societies. In the United States, this appears to have been achieved through the use of a powerful lobbying industry and a tradition of financing the campaigns of political candidates who advocate for public policies that would allow corporations to increase profits. These practices seem to be unfavorable because they consolidate public resources and policy into the hands of a minority of powerful agents (i.e. shareholders and CEOs) who operate without public oversight. In essence, this small group of powerful individuals becomes a modern aristocracy, denying the majority of the population the ability to meaningfully participate in the political process. This criticism appears to be inextricably linked to concerns about the implications of granting corporations the rights and legal status of a person. From a philosophical perspective, the deontological distinction between real persons as conscious moral agents who share the same rights and responsibilities universally and corporations as amoral entities who exist primarily to exploit resources negates the possibility of any meaningful equivocation. Socially, this practice appears to undermine the assumption of total equality upon which democracy rests by creating disproportionately powerful "persons" who possess access to virtually unlimited resources (as compared to those of real persons) and a form of legal immortality. Most other criticisms leveled at corporations seem to be more specific incarnations of these two issues. If most people agree with this assessment, then I would be happy to begin developing it into a slightly more detailed couple of paragraphs and move the other information into a new article at my earliest convenience.

Napzilla (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got some good and well thought out points.

First of all, I completely agree that the current criticism section sucks. I'm one of the folks that edited it to be that way. It used to be much worse, with various people adding incoherent points and counter-points. Most of that got removed, but what little is left is still a mess (although at least a mess with citations). I'm reluctant to cut it down any further.

I'd like to see the criticism section improved, and I think the best way to do that is to focus on material which is specific to the corporate form, as opposed to other types of businesses. It's easy to find general criticisms of capitalism, business, the military-industrial complex, mass production, globalization, etc, and it's tempting to discuss them here. However, despite the fact that corporations are the most common type of business entity today, they're not the only kind, and that should be kept in mind. --Jonovision (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This article should be redesigned to explain the term corporation, and a new article should be created for business corporations

The term "corporation" refers to a body of people. But this article intermingles the use of business corporation with the word corporation. Corporation is commonly used as a short form for business corporation, but such short forms should not confuse what the word corporation actually means.--R-41 (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a vote for the creation of a new article with the name Business corporation or Corporation (business) to end the confusion with the word "corporation" itself, which does not directly refer to a business corporation. There are cities that are officially called corporations, i.e. City of London Corporation, or the Corporation of Hamilton, see here: [1]. The Roman Catholic Church has "corporations" that are not related to business, here's an example that describes a corporation of Sisters of a Roman Catholic institution [2]. The introduction in this article should say that 'the term "corporation" in modern usage frequently refers to business corporations'.--R-41 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten

As I mentioned before this article only speaks of business corporations and not of non-business corporations. A new article should be made to address business corporations specifically, called Corporation (business). This article should focus on describing what the actual term "corporation" means in a broader context - for instance in corporatism corporations refer to bodies of people according to functional roles they perform. A number of cities are officially called corporations such as London, England. There are corporations of nuns within the Roman Catholic Church. Currently this article does not represent a worldwide view of the definition of corporation, and is only focused on business corporations. This article needs immediate attention for a complete re-write.--R-41 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to do that, we should have a separate article for Corporation (legal entity). Legally, a corporation is very specifically and narrowly defined. Many of the entities that you might think of as "corporations" from the business perspective are actually LLCs or LLLPs or Limited companies, and not corporations at all. If a statute requires "corporations" to provide certain disclosures, or clothes them with certain tax status or legal immunities, only those entities that conform with the legal corporate form will be subject to the provisions of that statute. bd2412 T 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Corporations pay no taxes!

"The Rich and Super-Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg - "But corporations do not really pay any taxes at all (or very, very rarely)—surely a novel and (to most people) no doubt a thoroughly wrongheaded, erroneous and even stupid assertion…. Corporations are no more taxed than were the aristocratic pre-Revolutionary French estates. The evidence is plain, in open view…ALL taxes supposedly paid by corporations are passed on in price of goods or services to the ultimate buyer, the well-known man in the street. This is not only true of federal and state taxes (where levied) but it is also true of local real estate and property taxes paid in the name of corporations. The corporations, in nearly all cases, merely act as collection agents for the government,… In further support, the late Representative Daniel Reed held that “inordinately high” consumer prices prevailed partly because “all products are increased in price in the exact proportion of taxation… and the former Republican Speaker of the House, Representative Joseph Martin of Massachusetts, reminded listeners that “any graduate economist can tell us that corporations compute profits after taxes, and not before, and their price scales are adjusted accordingly.” Stars4change (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Corporate crime

This should be mentioned. The Rich and Super-Rich" by Ferdinand Lundberg (1968): The sorts of crimes ignored by newspapers in their bulk and persistence are what the late Professor Edwin H. Sutherland of Indiana University called "white-collar crime"......"Corporate Crime" He took the seventy largest nonfinancial corporations (in his study on the behavior of corporations).....Of these seventy corporations, Sutherland found, thirty were either illegitimate in origin or began illegal activities shortly thereafter. Eight others were "probably" illegal in origin or in beginning policies....." 04:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs)

There's already an article on corporate crime. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

'Collectivist'?

Surely a corporation is the opposite of collectivist? The vast majority are hierachical and fascist. The only collectivist element I can think of is the board of directors, ignoring the actual workforce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.254.102 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A public corporation is an institution made up of many people (i.e. a collective) How is not a collective of people? It is organized a a hierarchy, which, if the control is severe, could be consider fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Chequebook journalism

May I add a link to Chequebook journalism? And could someone address the question WHY do corporations think everything should be given to them for FREE while us humans are forced to PAY for everything, like food & medicine? Stars4change (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Who said this?

Who said "You can take a slave out of the field and put him in an office, but he's still a slave?" I can't find it. Compare: http://www.southdownmuseum.org/history/history.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stars4change (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Corporations never invent... anything

"Corporations manufacture, distribute and sell lifesaving penicillin, at a profit. But no corporation discovered penicillin. Corporations never discover or create anything--are never more than tools, as often for ill as for good." Ferdinand Lundberg, "The Rich and the Super-Rich." Stars4change (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edited last line of intro 'graph

For the better, removed the mention of pensions, as all corporations have done is raid, underfund, and bitch about pensions. Correctly reflects the reality that most people don't have any choice in who they get their employment, goods or services from. Also even if it is a change for the "worse" at least it's better than the corporate blowjob that it's replacing.

LOL at the article on corporations that can be edited BY corporations and still wants to claim any sort of accuracy/npov etc. What a crock. Just like the rest of this fake ass encyclopedia.

Edit: that I even left "cultural development" should as a monolith to my own npov, as that is such revolting bullshit as to make one quite literally, gag. Shakespeare, Inc wrote all those plays, lol. I love how since they have dominated our every waking moment since at least the mid seventies, they think they always have. Because don't forget, Matisse and Rembrandt were actually hired corporate painters, I'm still chuckling over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.19.202.109 (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The End of Work

Could you please add a See Also link to The End of Work? Stars4change (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro cleanup

The introduction to this article has gotten completely out of hand, and is full of material that's not even in the main article. It seems like new editors feel that the best place to contribute new material is in the introduction!

I've removed the entire shareholder ownership debate. If someone wants to dispute the Hansmann and Kraaman characteristics of a corporation, they can do it here.

An important dispute relates to Hansmann and Kraaman's reference to shareholders as owners. Many legal scholars dispute shareholder ownership of the corporation. For example UCLA Law Professor Lynn Stout states that, "A lawyer would know that the shareholders do not, in fact, own the corporation. Rather, they own a type of corporate security commonly called “stock.”

Professor Stout continues, citing DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 8, § 141(a) & 170(a) (2001), to explain that

“...stockholders do not have the right to exercise control over the corporation’s assets. The corporation’s board of director’s holds that right. Similarly, shareholders do not have any right to help themselves to the firm’s earnings; the only time they can receive any payment directly from the corporation’s coffers is when they receive a dividend, which occurs only when the directors decide to declare one. As a legal matter, shareholders accordingly enjoy neither direct control over the firm’s assets nor direct access to them.” (p. 1191)

Shareholders neither own the corporation in any meaningful sense nor own, or have a privileged right to, the corporate profits. The value added by shareholders derives from the original investment for shares; however, the vast number of shareholders did not make this original investment in the corporation. These shareholders add no direct value in the widely-held corporation, but may add indirect value through providing a market secondary market for the original shares. Thus, shareholders should not be referred to, generally, as "investors," since they are in the secondary market. The lack of owner or investor status is why in most developed countries, excluding the English speaking world, corporate boards have representatives of both shareholders and employees to "codetermine".

--Jonovision (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction makes a mistake in referring to 2 neo-liberal professors calling shareholders owners. It is important to NOT make a mistake on this topic, and calling shareholders the OWNERS or RESIDUAL CLAIMANTS is flat out wrong. So either 1. correct the mistake or 2. keep my point in there.

I have a cite from Stout regarding OWNERS, which you see. Neither are shareholders the residual claimants. The dispute arises from “Neoclassical financial theorists argue that among all the stakeholders in the business corporation only shareholders are “residual claimants”. The amount of returns that shareholders receive depends on what is left over after other stakeholders, all of whom it is argued have guaranteed contractual claims, have been paid for their productive contributions to the firm. If the firm incurs a loss, the return to shareholders is negative, and vice versa.” (Lazonic 2007)

In contrast: Professor Bernard Black: “[S]hareholders are not the only important residual claimants of a firm’s income...[E]mployees, creditors...suppliers, customers...also often gain substantially when the firm does well, and suffer when the firm does badly.” (Black 1999) Professor Todd Henderson: “The decision to withhold dividends and invest in new businesses is, under current law, unassailable.” (Henderson 2007) Professor Lynn Stout: corporate profit can be used to, “…raise managers’ salaries, start an on-site childcare center, improve customer service, beef up retirees’ pensions, or make donations to charity.” (Stout 2002) Professor Ken Greenwood: “…legal doctrine makes clear that shareholders have the same legal right to dividends as waiters have to tips: an expectation that is not enforceable in court…” (Greenwood 2006).

The law professors are correct. Shareholders are not the owners or residual claimants.

If you call shareholders owners or residual claimants on the Corporation page, I will dispute it. Thanks.

That's fine, but my point is that the article, especially the introduction, is not a place to engage in debating the accuracy of the sources. If there is a problem with the material that cites Hansmann and Kraaman, then we should definitely remove it! I don't have a copy of their book, so I'm looking their definition online. --Jonovision (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So whoever added the Hansmann and Kraaman reference didn't quote them properly. I've re-written the five core characteristics to be more in line with what they said. Have a look and let me know if you think their wording is still problematic. --Jonovision (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The last part where you say "ownership is shared" is wrong for reasons I have previously stated and the shareholders are capital providers is also wrong. They are primarily in the secondary market. I think you should look at Bainbridge or Monks and Minow rather than H and K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The books says "Shared ownership by contributors of capital", which doesn't necessarily imply that all shareholders are owners. The sources you mention above seem to be discussing specifically secondary shareholders only, and don't seem to be saying that an investor can never own part of the company. --Jonovision (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first we have to agree that we're discussing widely-held public corporations, The Modern Corporation of Berle and Means 1932. Given that, over 99% of the shareholders are in the secondary market. Shareholders of these corporations are not owners (see the quote by Stout above). These shareholders don't own the corporation in any meaningful sense. Neither do they own the net assets or profit. All legal scholars agree on this. H&K are sloppy writers on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jonovision: I think you should consider separating private from public corporations. They are completely different. I believe that this is part of the confusion.138.202.216.81 (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article covers both private and public corporations, so we should keep the article introduction general, discussing what both have in common. I think that H&K's main point is that individual ownership is not a requirement of modern corporations, in other words, that corporate law across the world allows a corporation to have multiple owners. This is not true in every case (a corporation could have a single owner). If I understand Stout correctly (see above), investors can be considered owners if they have directly contributed capital to a corporation. Shareholders are not owners if they have purchased the shares on the secondary market. Perhaps we can add a note beside H&K's quote, to make this clear, like this:

• Shared ownership by contributors of capital. (although not all shareholders are owners (ref to Stout))

Thoughts? --Jonovision (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Shareholders are not the owners because the law measures ownership as a bundle of rights and duties and shareholders of a public, widely-held corporation have none of these rights and duties. Whether shareholders are owners is unrelated to being in the secondary market. And again, the 99.9% are in the secondary market and therefore NOT contributors of capital. Thus again, shareholders are NOT owners and NOT contributors of capital. Do you follow? Professor Todd (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so if shareholders are not contributors of capital, then there shouldn't be any confusion caused by the wording of the 5th characteristic as it stands now. --Jonovision (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no shared ownership because there is no ownership to share. And there are not many contributors of capital in a public corporation, but even if there were, they wouldn't be the owners. So I would say that the 5th is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.56.121 (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Corporations never have any owners? Do you have any sources that show that? The sources that ProfessorTodd posted only deal with shareholders. For example, if I started a corporation by myself, do I not own it? --Jonovision (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The lack of ownership is less clear with private corporations. We're talking about large public corporations, the modern corporation of Berle and Means. I have a few papers I could send you or put somewhere on this subject if you're interested. Prof. Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.56.121 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If we're talking about very obscure differences in terminology, I'd prefer to stay away from that subject, so long as the article doesn't have any outright errors. For example, the term "domain name owner" is common, and even though the legalities are quite a bit more complicated, the term "owner" itself is accepted and mostly accurate in this context. --Jonovision (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jonovision, This is a serious difference, calling shareholders "owners" or not is an important. I have given you several quotes from articles published in peer-reviewed law journals. These guys wouldn't take the time to dispute the issue of shareholder ownership if it weren't important. The main place where it becomes important is in the argument for "shareholder primacy." If shareholders are not the owners, why "maximize shareholder value." I can email 10 articles that back up this position.138.202.138.73 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I've already edited the article and removed the part that suggests that shareholders are owners. Whoever wrote that misquoted the original authors of the source being cited. I agree with you 100% about that, and the article no longer says that shareholders are owners. --Jonovision (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with this phrase, "Shared ownership by contributors of capital". (1) The "contributors of capital" no doubt refers to the shareholders. But for pubic corporations, almost all shareholders are in the secondary market; NOT "contributors of capital". The person(s) who contributed the original capital might have died long ago. Therefore, I suggest we delete "contributors of capital" and replace it with shareholders. Don't you agree, Jonovision? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.56.121 (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My reading of it was that "contributors of capital" refers to the people whose capital directly went into the company (as opposed to those who bought shares on the secondary market). I presume that H&K used this phrase intentionally, and would have written "shareholders" if that is what they meant. I also believe that their main point is to say that corporate law around the world allows corporations to be owned by more than a single individual, and that they are not trying to say that shareholders are owners. --Jonovision (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My reading is also that "contributors of capital" refers to the people whose money went into the corporation. It is also true that the vast majority (over 99%) of shareholders are in the secondary market. Therefore, H&K are either (1) not referring to shareholders (unlikely) or (2) mistakenly are calling shareholders in the secondary market the "contributors of capital." Again, we need to correct the mistake and replace "contributors of capital" with "shareholders". PS Jonovision, I'm a phd, cpa, published scholar and tenured professor. I have written papers on this exact topic. I hope you have knowledge of this area as well.Professor Todd (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the subject, and my only goal is to maintain this article in a state that's readable by the average Wikipedia reader. I'd be very happy if we can agree on a wording that is accurate while remaining concise. We can't go into every detail in the article introduction. As for what H&K meant, I do know that they never used the term "shareholder" in the relevant section of the book. They wrote what they wrote, and I'm going to assume that they meant it. The goal of their work is to create a summary of corporate law throughout the world, and it seems that they purposely have chosen very general language, rather than going into specifics about regional differences in corporate law.

As for the goal of creating a short and accurate article summary, you're not being helpful by suggesting that we add the term "shareholder" back in there. You are the one who complained about it in the first place! Why do you want to put it back in and reset this discussion to where it started? --Jonovision (talk) 08:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I complained about referring to shareholders as either (1) owners or (2) suppliers of capital. Again, I am requesting that, if you agree, we should change this phrase, ""Shared ownership by contributors of capital". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting really confused now, because this phrase definitely is not saying "Shareholders are contributors of capital", nor "Shareholders are owners". It's saying that people who contributed capital to the corporation (which I read to mean initial investors, and not people who bought shares on the secondary market) share in its ownership. Not all corporations necessarily have owners, but I believe that most private and many public corporations do. For example, would it have been wrong to say "Steve Jobs owns Pixar"? --Jonovision (talk) 12:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, what do you suggest changing that phrase to? --Jonovision (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The quote from H&K is that states that a "core characteristic" is that there is "shared ownership" by the "contributors of capital" By "core characteristic" H&K imply that shared ownership and contributors of capital are prevalent among public corporations. As you agree, this is not the case. Most public corporations have few if any original contributors. You can find examples such as Pixar, but these are the exceptions. Thus, neither "shared ownership" nor "contributors of capital" are "core characteristics". Do you get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The previous editor incorrectly quoted H&K by mentioning public trading, which might be the source of our confusion. H&K are actually talking about all business corporations, in general, not just publicly traded ones. --Jonovision (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment above still stands. Let's change that phrase.Professor Todd (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you wrote that "H&K imply that shared ownership ... is prevalent among public corporations". They did not say that, and I don't see them implying it. It is your personal reading of this phrase which includes "public corporations". And, since other readers might also make the same assumption, I suggested adding a note to clarify this to other readers, in case they read it the same way. However, you don't like that idea either, and you haven't suggested something better, so we continue this discussion.

The point of the article introduction (and of the introduction to H&K's book), is to give a broad overview of what corporations are. This means that they do not cover every possible exception. For example, many corporations are owned by a single individual. Others are traded entirely on the secondary market. Perhaps in a few jurisdictions, the law is different. H&K's point is that shared investor ownership is a common feature of corporate law throughout the world. Generally, corporations can have shared ownership.

The same is true for of all their other core characteristics. There are exceptions to all of them, some of which are discussed later in the article. The existence of exceptions doesn't mean that H&K's summary is invalid. --Jonovision (talk) 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A core feature of public corporations is NOT "shared ownership" by "contributors of capital". I don't think the solution is putting a note that says, "this particular core feature doesn't relate to public corporations." The other course of action is to change the wording, but this is not good either--because you'd have a partial quote on a list by H&K. My suggestion is that we use a different text with better, more encompassing, quotes, perhaps from Bainbridge. If you don't mind, I'll look into this and write something in January that replaces H&K. Is this acceptable?Professor Todd (talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why you keep focusing on public corporations? This article is not only about public corporations, it is about all types of corporations. --Jonovision (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The main reason is that public corporations represent the largest economic force in the world. As a whole, public corporations are far bigger than private corporations. Public corporations rule the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Todd (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong about that. But, even if that was true, it wouldn't change the fact that this article discusses all types of corporations. This should be plainly obvious to anyone who reads it. I'm starting to feel that you're just here for an argument, and you're not actually interested in improving the article, so I'm not going to continue this discussion. --Jonovision (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, then stop asking me questions. I will change the article in January and will have more time to defend the position. I have a feeling that we will need an arbiter. I just want the stupid wiki article to be accurate. PS If you think I'm wrong, show me. In sales dollars, I doubt I'm wrong. Later dudeProfessor Todd (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not your research assistant. And please read this again: even if that was true, it wouldn't change the fact that this article discusses all types of corporations. This should be plainly obvious to anyone who reads it.' --Jonovision (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No you're not my research assistant, but you did say that I was "absolutely wrong" about the public corporation being the largest economic force in the world. I just asked you to back it up since you were so sure. The heading of the article is "Corporation". A lot of people will think it's about public corporations. The movie "The Corporation" was about public corporations, the book "When Corporations Rule the World" is about public corporations. Rarely, to academics or academic textbooks refer to private corporations as simply "corporations." As I said before, we should have an article on Corporation (meaning pubic corporations) and Private Corporations. That would make sense to people.Professor Todd (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• For over 30 years I have represented hundreds of entrepreneurs and family-owned businesses, most of which have been corporations. I have lectured on corporate law and attended presentations of dozens of other corporate lawyers and more than a few professors. While the term "public" or (more often) "publicly-held" corporation is often used, I cannot remember a single instance of anyone using the term "private corporation". To suggest that the article on the basic form of business entity be relegated to one titled "Private Corporation" to free up the article on "Corporation" for a particular type of corporation is entirely unreasonable. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Wikipedia to disagree or not. Maybe have one article title Corporation, then another for "Public Corporation" and another for "Private Corporation." My main point, which I have stated over and over, is that shareholders should NOT be called owners or contributors of capital, esp. if they are shareholders of a public corporation.Professor Todd (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I basically agree with Jonovision. This article is about the corporation as a type of entity. While there academics may argue about whether the shareholders of large publicly held corporations are "owners" in an economic, and while it may be true that "As a whole, public corporations are far bigger than private corporations," the vast majority of corporations are privately held. The key point to remember here is that we want a general article that the public can understand. It is not an academic treatise. That is not to say that the academic points cannot be made, but the article itself should stick to the basic legal construct. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should call shareholders "owners" and "contributors of capital" even when they are not. Sounds brilliant!Professor Todd (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Where did I say that? I do believe that shareholders are the owners under most accepted views of corporate law. The concept of "contributors of capital" is not one that I usually see when talking about shareholders and I think perhaps its use in the introduction should be reevaluated. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Shareholders are NOT the owners "under most accepted view of corporate law." That is the main point I've been trying to make (see above). I'm glad you agree that shareholders should not be called "contributors of capital" since they are not.Professor Todd (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)