[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Nope. A company can exist without shareholders. And rarely without even employees.

Which is why I used the terms "operatives" and "investors" at first. But then I switched back to the most common case because it's easier to visualize.

For the former, imagine if I decided to set up a business setting up students with the many engineering grads I know for tutoring sessions. This is a viable business that requires no capital investment, in this case you have a company with employees(myself and the tutors), but no investors or shareholders.

It would still require a time investment. You'd need to advertise your business, and then you'd need to advance the first few expenses without treasury...

Likewise, imagine if I set up some coin operated microwaves/ovens in the local supermarket to allow customers to cook their own food on the spot, and they're exceedingly advanced and need no regular maintenance.

Those don't exist.

Then I have a company with assets (and hence shareholders) but no actual employees. I simply have to pop by the ovens and regularly collect my money.

Which still means one operative. If you're going to invent fictitious technology, why don't you say your ovens all work with electronic payments and transfer the money to your bank?

Besides, my point wasn't that every company was built around the same model, but that a company had to serve all the stakeholders - all the ones who give it something necessary to function, be it capital, money, or labor. If one of those doesn't apply, too bad, but it doesn't change the basic point.

Heck, if you want a customer-less "company", I could propose the example of an association for ecological preservation made up of volunteers who pick up trash on beaches or something.

But there is no instance of a money making enterprise (a "company") which exists without a customer, of some kind.

So the employees or shareholders can each pull out, and the business can still continue to exist (though it will likely be damaged),

Actually, for the most part they can't. Your examples were cute, but at most they apply to a tiny fraction of enterprises. Ones built, from the ground up, to work without investors or employees.

but if the customer pulls out then the shareholder will go bankrupt, as he has created something no one wants (dead weight), and the employee will lose his job, as he no longer has a task to do.

Employees should concern themselves with serving the customer, and shareholders should concern themselves with whether the company is successfully serving the customer. It might be advisable for both to look for the other to be satisfied, but it is not a necessity for a company to run well. Arguably, the most disposable is probably the shareholder, as he plays no direct role in the value creation process.

What are we, slaves? We concern ourselves with the good of the customers (who, presumably, want everything top quality instantaneously and for free, but will settle for less) as long as is it's in our interest to do so. If it isn't, it's time to either renegociate terms, or quit.