Re: Corporate entities should have a forced maximum lifespan
From evolution it is known that individuals must die so that the species could evolve. This is why we are not immortal. It is important for the older generations to die because otherwise they hold the resources for themselves and it becomes extremely difficult for new generations to become successful.
Same logic should be applied to corporate entities such as Coca Cola and what not. They should forcefully be exterminated after 100 years of existence, all their assets being redistributed between new firms and startups. My corpse will some day rot and turn into soil so that new life can use it for building blocks. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Ford and other big and long lived corporations should be forced to die in a similar manner.
Any takers?
This makes no sense. First of all, accounting rules are that a company must be a going concern in order for it's books to be accurate. A "going concern" is something that is expected to be able to stay in business "forever" based on the current environment.Same logic should be applied to corporate entities such as Coca Cola and what not. They should forcefully be exterminated after 100 years of existence, all their assets being redistributed between new firms and startups. My corpse will some day rot and turn into soil so that new life can use it for building blocks. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Ford and other big and long lived corporations should be forced to die in a similar manner.
Any takers?
Quote from: Max Planck
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Secondly why should new businesses get to leach off of the success of other people's good ideas? If a business is forced to shut down after a certain time then they would be forced to sell their assets at below market prices as they would be at a disadvantage, and could not wait for an appropriate price (what you describe in the OP is actually less fair as you imply that the assets should simply be given to newer businesses).