NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently they can grow till the limit of the sky and it’s clear that it’s no good. The current world crisis is not delivered by small or midsized companies but by the biggies.

Each sector should receive an acceptable maximum in manpower. A car factory should receive a bigger maximum than a grocery store.

Why?

* You’ll get more competition, which would result in better products and prices.
* If one company would collapse it’s not a disaster anymore.
* They would produce for a more local market, which is good for employment and environment.
* There would be less corruption.
* One company which is dominating all, would be a harsh memory.

This can’t be fixed on a regional level, but should be accepted worldwide.

And that’s why it’s probably a business wet dream.

Nah.

yah

meh :p

Your plan has inefficiency up the arse, c'mon.

yeh

yeah nah (Australian saying FTW)

Your plan has inefficiency up the arse, c'mon.


why is it inefficient? Btw, the same goes for arses, they shouldn't grow till the limit of the sky.

There should be a public poll for this topic.

Sounds brilliant to me.

why is it inefficient? Btw, the same goes for arses, they shouldn't grow till the limit of the sky.
Too much needless duplication.

And aye, I'd agree about arses. Tight, pls.

Too much needless duplication.

And aye, I'd agree about arses. Tight, pls.

I worked for several biggies. And several times I saw that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.

I worked for several biggies. And several times I saw that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.
Then that's a problem of communication, rather than an inherent problem with large companies, and will probably cause their downfall. I don't think we should put arbritrary limits on how large companies can be, although I do agree that if a monopoly (and a real monopoly) is created in even one area of goods or services, this is a Bad Thing.

Then that's a problem of communication, rather than an inherent problem with large companies, and will probably cause their downfall. I don't think we should put arbritrary limits on how large companies can be, although I do agree that if a monopoly (and a real monopoly) is created in even one area of goods or services, this is a Bad Thing.

It's a disease all big companies suffer. It has to do with size.

I saw the mythical man month in practice several times. On one project, we were working with 50 people on it and a delay was calculated. To beat it, the management hired 20 additional people. The result was a larger delay.

As long as you want to pay x2-x10 for any (and most any) given good, go for it.

As long as you want to pay x2-x10 for any given good, go for it.


I don't think that the prices of services and goods would grow. Being big, doesn't mean be more efficient. Many profits of the big ones are hidden in ridiculous things, like oversized manpower (I know companies where the manager their salary is linked with the size of their staff, you can guess what happens, no?)

Due the increased competition, I would expect that efficiency would go up and prices down.

I don't think that the prices of services and goods would grow. Being big, doesn't mean be more efficient. Many profits of the big ones are hidden in ridiculous things, like oversized manpower (I know companies where the manager their salary is linked with the size of their staff, you can guess what happens, no?)

Due the increased competition, I would expect that efficiency would go up and prices down.

It absolutely DOES mean that. Big means more efficient because you're not carrying the salaries of more people. That's why in a merger the "redundant" jobs go. Ergo, cost savings. On top of that, you gain a bigger share of the supply change, so lower prices for raw materials.

That models works only in a market that is new. For example, when AT&T was broken up, the HUNDREDS of new phone companies spun off tons of new technology and price wars. About fifteen years later, we were at 4 phone companies in the US. It's the nature of the beast: markets desire productivity, and competition means that some companies ultimately lose.

It absolutely DOES mean that. Big means more efficient because you're not carrying the salaries of more people. That's why in a merger the "redundant" jobs go. Ergo, cost savings. On top of that, you gain a bigger share of the supply change, so lower prices for raw materials.

That models works only in a market that is new. For example, when AT&T was broken up, the HUNDREDS of new phone companies spun off tons of new technology and price wars. About fifteen years later, we were at 4 phone companies in the US. It's the nature of the beast: markets desire productivity, and competition means that some companies ultimately lose.

I start to believe that my initial thinking isn't that bad. Suppose that those hundreds had a manpower size...

I start to believe that my initial thinking isn't that bad. Suppose that those hundreds had a manpower size...

Communism failed.

You would create more "private bureocracy" and challenge eficiency...

In the other hand, you would reduce unemployment.

As anything, it's always a double edged sword.

Communism failed.

It has nothing to do with communism. I believe in free enterprise but not in the free wild market. I certainly believe in regulation. Currently, if the governments worldwide were not regulating their banks, an unseen catastrophe would occur.

If those 100 baby phone companies had a man size maximum, you would have more than 4 big ones today. You still would have nice prices and awesome services.

A monopoly of 4 feels more communist than 100 small ones. Those 4 ones are dictating all and if tomorrow one of those 4 is broken, a serious amount of people is losing their job. With the know results, more weight on the government budget (welfare checks), collapsing families, rising criminality…

You would create more "private bureocracy" and challenge eficiency...

In the other hand, you would reduce unemployment.

As anything, it's always a double edged sword.

I'm not sure. Look, I'm really not sure, because this experiment can't be tried out for real. But...

...if you have a manpower maximum, then would it not be wise, to maximize your treasure (the human capital) by making sure they do real work, instead of increasing the controlling unit?

This is pointless.

None of modern companies is nearly the size of even a very small country. Ha. Not even the size of a decent city.

Yet the results? Halliburton bribed themselves half the Iraq, Walmart is shaping the entire economies of multiple nations, and the CEO of Gazprom recently bought himself a country.

The power of corporations comes from their extreme efficiency, not their size. A government has to spend billions of dollars to counteract a corporation; while a corporation can change government's course with a few million slipped into the right hands. It's not size, it's organization that matters.

It absolutely DOES mean that. Big means more efficient because you're not carrying the salaries of more people.

That's why in a merger the "redundant" jobs go. Ergo, cost savings. On top of that, you gain a bigger share of the supply change, so lower prices for raw materials.

That models works only in a market that is new. For example, when AT&T was broken up, the HUNDREDS of new phone companies spun off tons of new technology and price wars. About fifteen years later, we were at 4 phone companies in the US. It's the nature of the beast: markets desire productivity, and competition means that some companies ultimately lose.

Metal recycling works best on a small scale. The cost of paying the gas and the employess for the pittance you get back makes the business unprofitable unless you do it yourself. The same goes for corner stores that can sell alcohol apparently. Nor do we see international knife-sharpening conglomerates. Therefore, bigger is not always better.

Some industries will suffer inefficiencies due to scale, such as car companies (good riddance to bad rubbish, I say) but the environmental and social advantages of such a system would far outweigh the problems of a few businesses as they weather the transition. Victor Papanek discusses this at length in his book, The Green Imperative.

Metal recycling works best on a small scale. The cost of paying the gas and the employess for the pittance you get back makes the business unprofitable unless you do it yourself. The same goes for corner stores that can sell alcohol apparently. Nor do we see international knife-sharpening conglomerates. Therefore, bigger is not always better.

Some industries will suffer inefficiencies due to scale, such as car companies (good riddance to bad rubbish, I say) but the environmental and social advantages of such a system would far outweigh the problems of a few businesses as they weather the transition. Victor Papanek discusses this at length in his book, The Green Imperative.

Some car factories are very small AND are making good money. So there's no need to be an enormous mogul like GM that probably will stop business soon.

This is pointless.

None of modern companies is nearly the size of even a very small country. Ha. Not even the size of a decent city.

Yet the results? Halliburton bribed themselves half the Iraq, Walmart is shaping the entire economies of multiple nations, and the CEO of Gazprom recently bought himself a country.

The power of corporations comes from their extreme efficiency, not their size. A government has to spend billions of dollars to counteract a corporation; while a corporation can change government's course with a few million slipped into the right hands. It's not size, it's organization that matters.


Many of those mogul companies have a bigger BNP as many countries... I don't think it's normal and healthy.

When the companies are smaller, then it's easier for any government to regulate them. Currently, even big rich countries like USA go down on their belly for a Toyota...

I'm going to go with No on this...

I'm going to go with No on this...

Wil, you're allowed, but please explain why.

Many of those mogul companies have a bigger BNP as many countries... I don't think it's normal and healthy.
Not so big, actually. And if they have bigger BNP, despite having less people - well, it only proves they are right and these countries are wrong.

The reason companies are so powerful is the way they work, and the way they work with each other. Survival of the fittest, not a secure bloaty body.


Currently, even big rich countries like USA go down on their belly for a Toyota...
And so they should. Companies are the ones that actually drive the economy, make products, create jobs. Governments are just parasites.

Not so big, actually. And if they have bigger BNP, despite having less people - well, it only proves they are right and these countries are wrong.

The reason companies are so powerful is the way they work, and the way they work with each other. Survival of the fittest, not a secure bloaty body.

And so they should. Companies are the ones that actually drive the economy, make products, create jobs. Governments are just parasites.

The mafia makes more than the police. Does that make them right and the government wrong? No, of course not. Therefore, the amount of money generated by the institution can not be the only factor in determining how correct it is.

Not so big, actually. And if they have bigger BNP, despite having less people - well, it only proves they are right and these countries are wrong.

The reason companies are so powerful is the way they work, and the way they work with each other. Survival of the fittest, not a secure bloaty body.



And so they should. Companies are the ones that actually drive the economy, make products, create jobs. Governments are just parasites.

Without those parasites, half the world would be revolting now.

Look, I don't believe that government has to play company. They should make it possible that companies can stay, invest and grow. Make sure that they pay taxes and regulate when needed.

But I'm not sure that the big companies are that big because they are the fittest. In general it works like this: first they are small, smart and fight hard to reach the top. When they reach the top, they start to buy their competition and reshape themselves to a mogul. Many of those unnatural growing giants collapse soon or later.

GM is selling much more cars as Spyker (http://www.spykercars.nl/). But Spyker is making more profit (even I'm making more profit as GM).
While Spyker is targeting a niche market, there are other small car companies that are doing business (and nice business) in the common consumer market.

The mafia makes more than the police. Does that make them right and the government wrong? No, of course not. Therefore, the amount of money generated by the institution can not be the only factor in determining how correct it is.
The mafia doesn't make money, the mafia takes money. It's GDP redistribution.

Companies, on the other hand, actually do make money, creating new products. It's GDP creation.

So if a corporation with a million people makes more than a country with 5 million - something's wrong with the latter.

Wil, you're allowed, but please explain why.

Because I believe that competition brings out the best in people. The reason one company may be bigger than another is that maybe they're just better, or they run a better business.

Competition in a capitalistic society is a good thing.

Currently they can grow till the limit of the sky and it’s clear that it’s no good. The current world crisis is not delivered by small or midsized companies but by the biggies.
Correlation =/= causation

Each sector should receive an acceptable maximum in manpower. A car factory should receive a bigger maximum than a grocery store.

Why?

* You’ll get more competition, which would result in better products and prices.
No, you won't. Things will be the same as they are now, but on smaller scales. Instead of country wide monopolies, there'd be local ones.
* If one company would collapse it’s not a disaster anymore.
It could be a local disaster.
* They would produce for a more local market, which is good for employment and environment.
Eh, no. Consider a car factory. There'd be one in every big town. You think that's better than one big factory in one big city? Same with EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY. Computer factories in every town, machine factories of every kind. Small towns would be screwed. Big towns would have to grow to the size of cities.
* There would be less corruption.
Why?
* One company which is dominating all, would be a harsh memory.
Nationally, yes. Locally, maybe not.

This can’t be fixed on a regional level, but should be accepted worldwide.
Why?

And that’s why it’s probably a business wet dream.

??

The mafia doesn't make money, the mafia takes money. It's GDP redistribution.

Companies, on the other hand, actually do make money, creating new products. It's GDP creation.

So if a corporation with a million people makes more than a country with 5 million - something's wrong with the latter.

The mafia makes money selling drugs and sex and murders and other illegal goods and services. You seem to be focusing specifically on extortion.

Why do you mistakenly assume that a country is in it to make money?

What does that have to do with the OP?

Because I believe that competition brings out the best in people. The reason one company may be bigger than another is that maybe they're just better, or they run a better business.

Competition in a capitalistic society is a good thing.

Limiting the size of a company shouldn't limit competition. Why do you associate one with the other?

This idea actually makes a ton of sense. Companies do have far too much power now.

I work for a major british corporation, and the bigger they get, the bigger my pay-pack gets, so no complaints here. :)

Because I believe that competition brings out the best in people. The reason one company may be bigger than another is that maybe they're just better, or they run a better business.

Competition in a capitalistic society is a good thing.

Wil, I am not against competition, au contraire. In 'my' system, competition would enlarge. It's one of the goals I think it would achieve.

When there are just a few companies in some sector, the fights aren't hard. When you have many concurrent companies, the fights will be marvelous. And it would result in better prices and better quality services and products.

For me, the companies can be big, but at a limit. You will still have small, midsize and big companies. What would disappear are the moguls with more than 10.000 people inside.

This idea actually makes a ton of sense. Companies do have far too much power now.
You'll just get co-operatives. Or guilds. Which became corporations over time.

You'll just get co-operatives. Or guilds. Which became corporations over time.

Ban them.

Without those parasites, half the world would be revolting now. Whom would they be revolting against?

Look, I don't believe that government has to play company. They should make it possible that companies can stay, invest and grow. Make sure that they pay taxes and regulate when needed.
No, the government's intended purpose is to make the life of its citizens as good as possible. That's what it should be doing. If taxes mean they really help it, so be it. If taxes don't, they aren't needed.

The problem is, companies can lay off employees, break apart, sell off assets. They do it when the situation requires that. They can both grow and shrink on their own. Governments - well, when was the last time you saw a government voluntarily reduce its own size?


But I'm not sure that the big companies are that big because they are the fittest.
Most times, they are. It took being fit, some good work and some good theft, to make M$ what it is now.


When they reach the top, they start to buy their competition and reshape themselves to a mogul. Many of those unnatural growing giants collapse soon or later. That's what anti-monopoly laws are for.


GM is selling much more cars as Spyker. But Spyker is making more profit (even I'm making more profit as GM).
More net profit. Net profit is what remains after all its expenses and paying all wages, salaries, bonuses, and even dividends.

Actually, your personal net profit is not your income, but rather more like by how much did your bank account grow or credit drop - many people live with a negative net profit. Strong examples are a student with his student loans, a young person just starting to loan big, or an old person taking out of the pension fund.

Gross profit includes what the company pays all its employees, and by that measure GM is far ahead. It generates a lot of profit, but gives out too much of it to the high-wage unionized workers for its own good.

Ban them.
At which point you have collections of small companies. I think we got over that kind of shite in the 18th century.

Ban them.

It's not as easy as it sounds.

(I unignored you, because a wise person told me to grow a spine. So I will, if it's the last thing I do.)

At which point you have collections of small companies. I think we got over that kind of shite in the 18th century.

What was wrong with that? Companies just made things, they didn't have power. That worked.

Wil, I am not against competition, au contraire. In 'my' system, competition would enlarge. It's one of the goals I think it would achieve.
No, it wouldn't. There'd probably be about the same amount of competition, just in more places.

When there are just a few companies in some sector, the fights aren't hard. When you have many concurrent companies, the fights will be marvelous. And it would result in better prices and better quality services and products.
If a company can only afford to sell in, say, a 100 mile radius of its main production centre under your system, then companies in the same sector 200 miles away are largely irrelevant to it. It can't sell directly to their customers. So it isn't competing with that far off company. Just in the same way that a car dealership in California isn't competing with one in New York.

For me, the companies can be big, but at a limit. You will still have small, midsize and big companies. What would disappear are the moguls with more than 10.000 people inside.
So Microsoft is fucked, and thus so is damn near every company that uses their products, since they won't be able to make critical patches at anywhere even vaguely resembling a reasonable speed(not that they can/so now).
Ban them.
So if there's a co-op of farmers, then who will they sell their produce to? Big companies? Ooops, they don't exist under this system. Fuck, I guess we're out of food then. Bugger. Oh well, at least your 'conservative' ideals are satisfied.

What was wrong with that?
The cost of living was pretty high compared to incomes. Corporations played a massive role in the reduction of the cost of living between the Great War and WW2 (which was something like 60%), I don't want that to be lost for some romantic idea of the artisan-trader.
Companies just made things, they didn't have power. That worked.
Not really, it gave power to the 1066 winners of Europe instead of those who worked to make their money in the present day.

Correlation =/= causation


No, you won't. Things will be the same as they are now, but on smaller scales. Instead of country wide monopolies, there'd be local ones.

It could be a local disaster.

Eh, no. Consider a car factory. There'd be one in every big town. You think that's better than one big factory in one big city? Same with EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY. Computer factories in every town, machine factories of every kind. Small towns would be screwed. Big towns would have to grow to the size of cities.

Why?

Nationally, yes. Locally, maybe not.


Why?



??


It was certainly causation and not correlation. It were not the small local banks that started to sell loans to people without money.

No, you will not have that many national monopolies. First of all, for some niches, a single country is too small as marketplace. Secondly, with the size limit it's easier for other companies to reach the limit and have business.

As for the local disaster. Yep, it would be local, or at least small scaled. Consider this fictive example: you have 1 country with 1 company, holding 1000 people. Then the company quits business. All the people are fired, no other company can pick up the people and government would collapse. In 'my' system 10 companies would hold 100 people. When one would have to finish not an entire society would be in huge problems.

Local, is not every town. I don't think that each town should have it's own car factory. I don't even think that each country should have it's car factory. It depends. It would work like now, only that there's a worldwide size limit. Some companies will deliver in one country, others will go worldwide.

There would be less corruption due the smaller size of the companies:
There's less money left to corrupt people.
Due the increased competition they would look better to each other.
Smaller companies are easier to control for the government.

The grocery store around the corner can't corrupt that much as a Boeing.

I don't believe that one company would dominate in one country.

This business idea will never be reality, because it has to be arranged worldwide. THat's only one reason why it never will happen. Also what will we do with current existing moguls? They would fight for their life.

Also what will we do with current existing moguls? They would fight for their life.
They would just set up 100 smaller companies all working to the same ends.

So if there's a co-op of farmers, then who will they sell their produce to? Big companies? Ooops, they don't exist under this system. Fuck, I guess we're out of food then. Bugger. Oh well, at least your 'conservative' ideals are satisfied.

Who cares, at least the capitalist corporations who only care about profit don't have any power any more.

Who cares, at least the capitalist corporations who only care about profit don't have any power any more.
Everyone would care when the cost of living went up by a not insignificant amount, as opposed to pretending to care that big business plays a larger role than ever in the running of a country.

The cost of living was pretty high compared to incomes. Corporations played a massive role in the reduction of the cost of living between the Great War and WW2 (which was something like 60%), I don't want that to be lost for some romantic idea of the artisan-trader.

Not really, it gave power to the 1066 winners of Europe instead of those who worked to make their money in the present day.

I was under the impression that was due to the increase in industrialisation that occured after Europe was rebuilt. In other words, the war destroyed all the old technology, wand then Europe rebuilt itself with the technology dervived from the war, which resulted in more efficient production, and a decrease in production cost. This would have occured regardless of the model of the economy, whether it be corporate or otherwise.

Who cares, at least the capitalist corporations who only care about profit don't have any power any more.

A limit on company size would have this advantage, yes.

Everyone would care when the cost of living went up by a not insignificant amount, as opposed to pretending to care that big business plays a larger role than ever in the running of a country.

Why can't we just put control of the companies in the hands of the government? That way, the companies have no power but they remain efficient.

Everyone would care when the cost of living went up by a not insignificant amount, as opposed to pretending to care that big business plays a larger role than ever in the running of a country.

Why would it do so?

I was under the impression that was due to the increase in industrialisation that occured after Europe was rebuilt. In other words, the war destroyed all the old technology, wand then Europe rebuilt itself with the technology dervived from the war, which resulted in more efficient production, and a decrease in production cost. This would have occured regardless of the model of the economy, whether it be corporate or otherwise.
Not really. For starters, not much civilian infrastructure was actually destroyed in the first war, outside of in Belgium and some of France. The factories were still there, it was the fact that companies changed their production methods which did the trick. As much as I hate Henry Ford for being a massive Nazi, I cannot fault him for the idea of the production line.
Why can't we just put control of the companies in the hands of the government? That way, the companies have no power but they remain efficient.
Because the running of any company should not be a political issue, or its MO will change with every election. Look at the utter mess that is the NHS and its policy decisions. Keep its funding at current levels, but for fuck's sakes take it out of government hands so that Labour or the Tories can't swap lives for votes.

Why would it do so?
Because smaller companies cannot afford the same kind of logistical effort that goes into producing goods and shipping them across the world today.

Everyone would care when the cost of living went up by a not insignificant amount, as opposed to pretending to care that big business plays a larger role than ever in the running of a country.

1 company = high prices, they are the only around and ask whatever they want.

You have this system also with some competition. They'll go for maximizing their profits and asking the best price they can get.

1000 companies = fierce competition. One will fight with prices, another with quality, another with both and someone else with something different.

I'm rather sure that prices would go down. Basic economics laws teach us that prices will go down when the offers are high.

Because the running of any company should not be a political issue, or its MO will change with every election. Look at the utter mess that is the NHS and its policy decisions. Keep its funding at current levels, but for fuck's sakes take it out of government hands so that Labour or the Tories can't swap lives for votes.

Why should it be an issue? It should just happen.

1 company = high prices, they are the only around and ask whatever they want.

You have this system also with some competition. They'll go for maximizing their profits and asking the best price they can get.

1000 companies = fierce competition. One will fight with prices, another with quality, another with both and someone else with something different.

I'm rather sure that prices would go down. Basic economics laws teach us that prices will go down when the offers are high.
Yeah, fine, you'd have more predator pricing, I can't disagree with that, but the prices of non-local goods would probably become much more expensive. Fore example - like poncey bathing oils? Good luck getting a small company to bring in masses of Ylang-ylang from the Comoros. Especially with the Suez Canal and all. How the hell is that going to work with a global system of small companies? Different locks with different companies?

It was certainly causation and not correlation. It were not the small local banks that started to sell loans to people without money.
Correlation =/= causation. Demonstrate that small local banks could not have done exactly what big banks did because of their size and I'll accept your point.

No, you will not have that many national monopolies. First of all, for some niches, a single country is too small as marketplace. Secondly, with the size limit it's easier for other companies to reach the limit and have business.
It depends on the limit. As I pointed out, if companies were limited to 10000 people, then Microsoft would no longer be able to function. Millions of people would no longer be able to get support for Windows or any other Microsoft product. Is this a good thing?

As for the local disaster. Yep, it would be local, or at least small scaled. Consider this fictive example: you have 1 country with 1 company, holding 1000 people. Then the company quits business. All the people are fired, no other company can pick up the people and government would collapse. In 'my' system 10 companies would hold 100 people. When one would have to finish not an entire society would be in huge problems.
And in that town where those 100 people live then there are serious problems. 100 people now have no income. They can't buy groceries from the store that employs ~20 people. They can't buy clothes from the store that employs ~10 people. They can't buy a new car from the factory that employs another ~50 people. They can't get their car fixed in the mechanics that employs ~5 people. They can't get a computer from the computer manufacturers that employs ~50 people. For those 100 people now unemployed, every local business will lose 100 customers. That's a lot of lost business.

Local, is not every town. I don't think that each town should have it's own car factory. I don't even think that each country should have it's car factory. It depends. It would work like now, only that there's a worldwide size limit. Some companies will deliver in one country, others will go worldwide.
Then the car factories would have to be huge, as big as they are now. How has the environment been spared in any way?

There would be less corruption due the smaller size of the companies:
There's less money left to corrupt people.
But more people to be corrupted. And they'd be poorer, relatively, so less money would be more tempting than it is now.
Due the increased competition they would look better to each other.
Smaller companies are easier to control for the government.
Smaller companies, but more of them. More work for the government.

The grocery store around the corner can't corrupt that much as a Boeing.
Relatively speaking, it can.
I don't believe that one company would dominate in one country.
No, one company would dominate one small area. Same difference to the people that live there.

This business idea will never be reality, because it has to be arranged worldwide. THat's only one reason why it never will happen. Also what will we do with current existing moguls? They would fight for their life.

Did you ever consider that if so many people would object to your idea, then maybe it isn't a good one.

Why should it be an issue? It should just happen.
Because governments are made of politicians. Politicians are ambitious in the extreme, very much into lying and can chat the shit but are often pretty ill-informed. Having them running companies is a Bad Thing.

Not really. For starters, not much civilian infrastructure was actually destroyed in the first war, outside of in Belgium and some of France. The factories were still there, it was the fact that companies changed their production methods which did the trick. As much as I hate Henry Ford for being a massive Nazi, I cannot fault him for the idea of the production line.

The production line is a technological innovation. Production methods are technological choices.

Because smaller companies cannot afford the same kind of logistical effort that goes into producing goods and shipping them across the world today.

If there was a small company making computers inmy neighbourhood, I wouldn't have to buy one that was made half a world away. Nor would I have to pay for it to be shipped across the globe, as I do now.

Who cares, at least the capitalist corporations who only care about profit don't have any power any more.

Who cares if farmers go out of business? Only everyone who wants to eat. You think you can live on smug satisfaction alone, fine, but the rest of us need food to survive.

Why should it be an issue? It should just happen.

FO, then you have a communist situation. And you know that very well.

This is not my idea. I'm against communism; I'm for free enterprises but against Wild West capitalism. I certainly think that governments have to play a role, but not as a business itself.

In my country, most companies are private, a few very big ones are owned by the government or mixed. For some situation, it's good that the government is doing this (by instance, the rail infrastructure for trains), for others I think government should leave. My government is the biggest internet provider of the country, and they have de facto a monopoly.

Because governments are made of politicians. Politicians are ambitious in the extreme, very much into lying and can chat the shit but are often pretty ill-informed. Having them running companies is a Bad Thing.

I dunno, it seems like a good idea to me.

The production line is a technological innovation. Production methods are technological choices.
It was as much about the deployment of labour as anything technological.
If there was a small company making computers inmy neighbourhood, I wouldn't have to buy one that was made half a world away. Nor would I have to pay for it to be shipped across the globe, as I do now.
Aye, you would just have to pay for them shipping in all of the resources, and not in bulk because such things would be banned.

FO, then you have a communist situation. And you know that very well.

This is not my idea. I'm against communism; I'm for free enterprises but against Wild West capitalism. I certainly think that governments have to play a role, but not as a business itself.

In my country, most companies are private, a few very big ones are owned by the government or mixed. For some situation, it's good that the government is doing this (by instance, the rail infrastructure for trains), for others I think government should leave. My government is the biggest internet provider of the country, and they have de facto a monopoly.

Well, I like the idea. What's wrong with communism?

I dunno, it seems like a good idea to me.
Alright, let's put it this way -

Would you want Rudd et al running your supermarkets?

Correlation =/= causation. Demonstrate that small local banks could not have done exactly what big banks did because of their size and I'll accept your point.


It depends on the limit. As I pointed out, if companies were limited to 10000 people, then Microsoft would no longer be able to function. Millions of people would no longer be able to get support for Windows or any other Microsoft product. Is this a good thing?


And in that town where those 100 people live then there are serious problems. 100 people now have no income. They can't buy groceries from the store that employs ~20 people. They can't buy clothes from the store that employs ~10 people. They can't buy a new car from the factory that employs another ~50 people. They can't get their car fixed in the mechanics that employs ~5 people. They can't get a computer from the computer manufacturers that employs ~50 people. For those 100 people now unemployed, every local business will lose 100 customers. That's a lot of lost business.


Then the car factories would have to be huge, as big as they are now. How has the environment been spared in any way?


But more people to be corrupted. And they'd be poorer, relatively, so less money would be more tempting than it is now.

Smaller companies, but more of them. More work for the government.


Relatively speaking, it can.

No, one company would dominate one small area. Same difference to the people that live there.



Did you ever consider that if so many people would object to your idea, then maybe it isn't a good one.

The people don't know what they want.

According a survey from Henry Ford the people were in demand of a faster horse. They didn't talk about cars.

The people don't know what they want.
That extends to people who want artisan-traders instead of co-operatives and corporations.

Why can't we just put control of the companies in the hands of the government? That way, the companies have no power but they remain efficient.

How communist of you. Only conservative here my ass. Regardless, companies in the hands of the government have no need to be concerned about profitability, the tax payer will make up the difference. At least until they vote in someone who privatises the companies.

Well, I like the idea. What's wrong with communism?

Ugly cars: http://judey.dasmirnov.net/lada.jpg

Ugly cars: http://judey.dasmirnov.net/lada.jpg
Not to mention the Trabant.

Alright, let's put it this way -

Would you want Rudd et al running your supermarkets?

Couldn't hurt. He hasn't done anything wrong so far.

How communist of you. Only conservative here my ass.

I switched sides. The other side was wrong.

Couldn't hurt. He hasn't done anything wrong so far.
...
I switched sides. The other side was wrong.
Go to bed :tongue:

The people don't know what they want.
Who are you to decide this?

According a survey from Henry Ford the people were in demand of a faster horse. They didn't talk about cars.

Ignorance.

Ugly cars: http://judey.dasmirnov.net/lada.jpg

Too much unifromity too. *nod*

That extends to people who want artisan-traders instead of co-operatives and corporations.

How many people at GM are making a real good living and became rich due GM?

Maybe a nice amount, but 99% is just working from 9:00 to 18:00 or something, making some salary and that's it. 99% will never be rich at GM.

So IMHO why would we allow a system that is serving just a few fellows?

The people don't know what they want.

Exactly. And by the same token, why should people be allowed to run companies? They're just going to get greedy and ruin it.

Correlation =/= causation. Demonstrate that small local banks could not have done exactly what big banks did because of their size and I'll accept your point.

Could not, or would not? I would wager that they would not as they would have a direct relationship with the lender and be able to accurately judge the risk of the loan. Such a direct relationship is impossible with larger companies, and thus the appreciation of risk is not as well defined. This was one of the problems of the crisis, was it not? That people were buying bad debt without knowing it was?

It depends on the limit. As I pointed out, if companies were limited to 10000 people, then Microsoft would no longer be able to function. Millions of people would no longer be able to get support for Windows or any other Microsoft product. Is this a good thing?

As you also pointed out, they are currently unable to get the support they need. Is this a good thing?

And in that town where those 100 people live then there are serious problems. 100 people now have no income. They can't buy groceries from the store that employs ~20 people. They can't buy clothes from the store that employs ~10 people. They can't buy a new car from the factory that employs another ~50 people. They can't get their car fixed in the mechanics that employs ~5 people. They can't get a computer from the computer manufacturers that employs ~50 people. For those 100 people now unemployed, every local business will lose 100 customers. That's a lot of lost business.

But only one tenth of the lost business of HK's example. So HK is right that it would create less of a crisis.

Then the car factories would have to be huge, as big as they are now. How has the environment been spared in any way?

I wouldn't mind if the majority of car companies go out of business. Places where cars are still needed will provide economically for the few small factories that will survive to meet the demand.

But more people to be corrupted. And they'd be poorer, relatively, so less money would be more tempting than it is now.

People tend to be less corrupt when they have a stronger relationship with their community. This is why federal politicians are often more corrupt than municipal ones. The same would hold true for companies. It's harder to screw people around when they are your friends and neighbours.

Smaller companies, but more of them. More work for the government.

By that logic, we should stop breeding.

Relatively speaking, it can.

Relatively, yes. That's why you reduce the size of the company. To reduce the total harm.

No, one company would dominate one small area. Same difference to the people that live there.

The nice thing about small areas is that it's easy to travel to the next one.

Did you ever consider that if so many people would object to your idea, then maybe it isn't a good one.

For along time, most people thought it was a good idea to be anti-semitic. Popularity of an idea is no indication of its validity.

It was as much about the deployment of labour as anything technological.

Aye, you would just have to pay for them shipping in all of the resources, and not in bulk because such things would be banned.

But that deployment of labour is also not limited to the corporate model.

And why do you make the assumption that the resources will have to be shipped in from afar? In the case of computers, there is enough old computers that materials could be recycled from those. If not, local materials could be used as alternatives.

How many people at GM are making a real good living and became rich due GM?
Not that many.
Maybe a nice amount, but 99% is just working from 9:00 to 18:00 or something, making some salary and that's it. 99% will never be rich at GM.

So IMHO why would we allow a system that is serving just a few fellows?
Because having every bastard and his mum setting up their own business is not the answer to people being poor. If you do well in a corporation, it'll be because you have the skills necessary to do well in one element of the running of the business or another. Having arbritary caps on the numbers of workers in your employment will just lead people who are not qualified enough setting up their own businesses, or people who are intelligent enough to run a successful business using every loophole there is and making the system a waste of time in the first place.

That's nonsense. In a properly regulated market, firm sizes tend towards the optimum for that particular good on the basis of economies of scale and marginal analysis of their operations. It would do nothing but severely increase unemployment, decrease wages, and decrease the quality and availability of goods if such arbitrary restrictions were placed.

But that deployment of labour is also not limited to the corporate model.
Yeah, I'd agree with that.
And why do you make the assumption that the resources will have to be shipped in from afar? In the case of computers, there is enough old computers that materials could be recycled from those.
Aye, if you want to make substandard computers. Which nobody does.
If not, local materials could be used as alternatives.
Ersatz coffee, anyone?

Exactly.
Again, I see no reason why this doesn't apply to you.
And by the same token, why should people be allowed to run companies? They're just going to get greedy and ruin it.
Ah because as everyone knows, politicians are beacons of good judgement and infallibility.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Aye, if you want to make substandard computers. Which nobody does.

Ersatz coffee, anyone?

I did not say that we would reuse old computer parts. I said we would recycle them.

But I'm glad you brought up coffee. Right now, I can easily purchase organic fair-trade coffee grown by a small company in the tropics, which is then transported by another small company, and finally sold by my local café owner. In other words, the entire production, transportation, and distribution process is done by small companies at a price comparable to the big companies. There are also the fortunate aspects of not oppressing workers in developing nations or contributing to environmental destruction.

So, coffee is a good example of why (or where, perhaps) we should implement the OP's policy.

I did not say that we would reuse old computer parts. I said we would recycle them.
Aye, and recycled parts will be degraded in that process, as well as not containing much of a necessary architecture of modern PC parts.
But I'm glad you brought up coffee. Right now, I can easily purchase organic fair-trade coffee grown by a small company in the tropics, which is then transported by another small company, and finally sold by my local café owner. In other words, the entire production, transportation, and distribution process is done by small companies at a price comparable to the big companies. There are also the fortunate aspects of not oppressing workers in developing nations or contributing to environmental destruction.

So, coffee is a good example of why (or where, perhaps) we should implement the OP's policy.
Uhu. And I drink organic coffee which is grown by a co-operative and then bought by a subcontractor to the Sara Lee Corporation. I loves me the Douwe Egberts.

It was certainly causation and not correlation. It were not the small local banks that started to sell loans to people without money.



Actually a large portion of the now bad mortgages were generated by small (and unregulated) mortgage brokers, not banks. There were small banks that got caught up in subprime and went under and there were large banks they stayed out of it and now getting even larger and stronger by scooping up the wreckage.

This topic has me thinking; whatever happened to monopoly laws?

Is it just me or does it seem that there are 2 major companies that own everything they respectively produce. For example Kraft and Nestle seem to own A LOT more names than they did 5 years ago.

This topic has me thinking; whatever happened to monopoly laws?

Is it just me or does it seem that there are 2 major companies that own everything they respectively produce. For example Kraft and Nestle seem to own A LOT more names than they did 5 years ago.
Yes, those are two companies. Not one.

Yes, those are two companies. Not one.

Yeah but what's to keep two major companies from conspiring? Let's take cereal for example. Cereal is expensive because of the shortage of corn. What's keeping the major companies from making that up? I'm not saying that's the case, but by having two major players as opposed to ten makes it much easier for the two companies to conspire.

Plus if you increase the number of major competitors and it drives costs of goods down (obviously).

Yeah but what's to keep two major companies from conspiring?
Their shareholders.
Plus if you increase the number of major competitors and it drives costs of goods down (obviously).
Don't really see how obvious this is.

Their shareholders.

How?

Don't really see how obvious this is.

Competition always invites lower prices because companies tend to want to sell their goods and increase revenues by outselling other companies.

Aye, and recycled parts will be degraded in that process, as well as not containing much of a necessary architecture of modern PC parts.

Uhu. And I drink organic coffee which is grown by a co-operative and then bought by a subcontractor to the Sara Lee Corporation. I loves me the Douwe Egberts.

What do you mean by recycling? I meant taking the artifact apart down to its component materials, recycling them into usable material, and the making new parts from the new materials. Since you're completely rebuilding the architecture, you can just give it the architecture of modern parts.

So we both get organic fair trade coffee. We both pay the local growers, we both pay for transportation, and we both pay for local distribution. But I 'm not paying the salary for the SaraLee ceo's as well.

How?
Because they want their company to do best. Always. Not better, along with the other company, but best, at the other company's expense.
Competition always invites lower prices because companies tend to want to sell their goods and increase revenues by outselling other companies.
Aye, but if you don't have the capital to buy in masses of bulk, there we go.
What do you mean by recycling? I meant taking the artifact apart down to its component materials, recycling them into usable material, and the making new parts from the new materials. Since you're completely rebuilding the architecture, you can just give it the architecture of modern parts.
Aye, but the material quality of those metals recycled will be degraded. This is a Pain In The Arse.
So we both get organic fair trade coffee. We both pay the local growers, we both pay for transportation, and we both pay for local distribution. But I 'm not paying the salary for the SaraLee ceo's as well.
So?

Aye, but the material quality of those metals recycled will be degraded. This is a Pain In The Arse.

So?

It doesn't really matter. the point is that it is possible to provide a comparable and cost-effective solution by providing computers locally. There may be some small problems, but it would also resolve much bigger problems like the carbon footprint of shipping crap all over the globe.

So coffee is an excellent example of how we could actully make it cheaper and more socially responsible by restricting the size of the company.

Metal recycling works best on a small scale. The cost of paying the gas and the employess for the pittance you get back makes the business unprofitable unless you do it yourself. The same goes for corner stores that can sell alcohol apparently. Nor do we see international knife-sharpening conglomerates. Therefore, bigger is not always better.

Some industries will suffer inefficiencies due to scale, such as car companies (good riddance to bad rubbish, I say) but the environmental and social advantages of such a system would far outweigh the problems of a few businesses as they weather the transition. Victor Papanek discusses this at length in his book, The Green Imperative.

What sort of metal recycling are you talking about? Copper, steel... soda cans? I'm not seeing the market you speak of... clarify please?

Ah, but that's retail! The corner store gets the alcohol from distributors, and we've all seen Bud and Miller and the world's beer companies merge like mad over the last 10 years.
And, heck, consider the rampant franchisation of America. Back in the day, I could drive US 1 from NYC to Boston and find all kinds of interesting restaurants, shops, etc. These days, I see lots of 7-11, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc.
How about finding a bookstore that isn't a Barnes & Noble or Borders? (Whom may soon be the same firm...) :(

Bad rubbish? Go back to 1973 and compare pollution then to now. The auto industry has been amazing as far as I'm concearned. In 35 years, they x2 to x3 mileage, got rid of leaded gas, deployed mufflers and catalytic converters, and drastically cut emissions.

It has nothing to do with communism. I believe in free enterprise but not in the free wild market. I certainly believe in regulation. Currently, if the governments worldwide were not regulating their banks, an unseen catastrophe would occur.

If those 100 baby phone companies had a man size maximum, you would have more than 4 big ones today. You still would have nice prices and awesome services.

A monopoly of 4 feels more communist than 100 small ones. Those 4 ones are dictating all and if tomorrow one of those 4 is broken, a serious amount of people is losing their job. With the know results, more weight on the government budget (welfare checks), collapsing families, rising criminality…

Controlling the means of production is most certainly Communism! Regulation allows companies to compete in an environment of competitive fairness. You're talking about making decisions for firms.
Central banks don't enter into it. You're comparing a country regulating itself to a business. When the US regulates their interest rate, it doesn't compete with Equador for what rate to set!

That's a fantasy. The number of employees has little bearing on how many firms would exist. It totally ignores dozens of factors, not least of which are how the workforce is deployed (marketing? production? accounting? etc...), day to day business decision, markups, supply chains, etc.

Say what? A monopoly = 1 firm!
As for the rest, simply no. A hundred firms can go out of business as easily as four. Want proof? How many carriage firms became car companies?

How many people at GM are making a real good living and became rich due GM?

Maybe a nice amount, but 99% is just working from 9:00 to 18:00 or something, making some salary and that's it. 99% will never be rich at GM.

So IMHO why would we allow a system that is serving just a few fellows?

Redistribution of wealth = Communism. Communism = Failure. Game over.

Is it just me or does it seem that there are 2 major companies that own everything they respectively produce.
Note that they own other companies, not absorb them. Company size has nothing to do with it - a 1,000 employee company can own a hundred others just as well as a 1,000,000 employee one.


So we both get organic fair trade coffee. We both pay the local growers, we both pay for transportation, and we both pay for local distribution. But I 'm not paying the salary for the SaraLee ceo's as well.
It's nice that you don't pay the CEO. But... But the coffee in your local shop still costs more than in Walmart. And it's not like it's just a bit more. 20% at least, 30% often, even 40% and over not unseen.

I'm not poor by any means (5x national median income), but still I always find it hard to bring myself to buy something in these local shops.

Nope, I'll better spare 1 cent per $1000 to the Target's CEO.


It doesn't really matter. the point is that it is possible to provide a comparable and cost-effective solution by providing computers locally.
No, it's not. It takes tens of thousands of people to design and build even a single computer's component.

So coffee is an excellent example of how we could actully make it cheaper and more socially responsible by restricting the size of the company.
Coffee is nice, but you're missing what's important in more serious goods. It's R&D. Without massive R&D, you'd have to drive crap and wouldn't be able to post on this forum as personal computers would never exist.
And only the biggest megacorporations can afford R&D. Research can bring results in 30 years, in 50 years, in 100 years, or never - small companies can't afford it. Only large companies like Toyota and formerly Bell Labs can do it... and even the latter proved too small to do it despite the crisis.

Why can't we just put control of the companies in the hands of the government? That way, the companies have no power but they remain efficient.

Really? Really?

The people don't know what they want.

I certainly have a better idea of what I want than you do.

Why the hell are we blaming corporations for the world's problems? You forget that corporations are created and managed by human beings. It's simple; if a corporation is run by corrupt and unethical people, then it will operate in a corrupt and unethical manner. A corporation run by honest people will do honest business. Imposing size caps on businesses is nothing more than misguided scapegoating.

Big business is a good thing. Without big corporation we wouldn't have cars or computers or a lot of the amazing technology we take for granted. Remember that all business starts out small but some, by doing the best job in their sector and by managing their money well, grow and grow into the multinational giants we know and loathe but depend on every day. I think the real reason a lot of people don't like big business and rich people in general is because they're jealous of the success of others and feel entitled to some of that success but those people have to realize that it took a lot of hard work for those rich people to get rich and big business to get big and that if you too were hard working, smart and a little lucky then you could also be more than you are today. So what are you waiting for? Stop reading this and get to work.

Currently they can grow till the limit of the sky and it’s clear that it’s no good. The current world crisis is not delivered by small or midsized companies but by the biggies.

Each sector should receive an acceptable maximum in manpower. A car factory should receive a bigger maximum than a grocery store.

Why?

* You’ll get more competition, which would result in better products and prices.
* If one company would collapse it’s not a disaster anymore.
* They would produce for a more local market, which is good for employment and environment.
* There would be less corruption.
* One company which is dominating all, would be a harsh memory.

This can’t be fixed on a regional level, but should be accepted worldwide.

And that’s why it’s probably a business wet dream.

once upon a time we had such a concept in the u.s. i think, but am not sure, it came out of the f.d.r. era, as a measure to prevent another great depression. or it might have been around from even earlier.

at any rate it was called the sherman anti-trust act, and, again if i'm not mistaken, it was one of the first things raygunomics threw out with the bath water.

we did manage to break up at&t into regeons back before then, but probably only because people were paying attention to it because ma bell wanted to force the infant computer networking to use their own western electric modems, and charge the moon for doing so. although there were also major political and social question behind the push as well, one of which being devestiture of south african assets as aparthied came more and more to world attention and opposition.

Yeah, fine, you'd have more predator pricing, I can't disagree with that, but the prices of non-local goods would probably become much more expensive. Fore example - like poncey bathing oils? Good luck getting a small company to bring in masses of Ylang-ylang from the Comoros. Especially with the Suez Canal and all. How the hell is that going to work with a global system of small companies? Different locks with different companies?

Um, actually, you just pay a shipping company to ship stuff for you. You pay to put a box on their boat, basically. That's how it's done whenever companies ship stuff overseas. From small local companies to enormous conglomerates.

And in the OP, he/she said that the limitations on a company's size would be set with consideration for how big a company has to be for what type of company it is. Obviously you need more people to run a shipping company than you do to run a local bank.

Currently they can grow till the limit of the sky and it’s clear that it’s no good. The current world crisis is not delivered by small or midsized companies but by the biggies.

Each sector should receive an acceptable maximum in manpower. A car factory should receive a bigger maximum than a grocery store.

Why?

* You’ll get more competition, which would result in better products and prices.
* If one company would collapse it’s not a disaster anymore.
* They would produce for a more local market, which is good for employment and environment.
* There would be less corruption.
* One company which is dominating all, would be a harsh memory.

This can’t be fixed on a regional level, but should be accepted worldwide.

And that’s why it’s probably a business wet dream.


We actually Have antitrust laws, when/if they're enforced. (they weren't in the case of the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing merger, and it's like they've been suspended or something in the case of the Wall-Street bailout..but we DO have them.)

What sort of metal recycling are you talking about? Copper, steel... soda cans? I'm not seeing the market you speak of... clarify please?

Specifically, I am talking about the people who come and pick up scrap metals and then take them to the scrapyard or recycling company and get paid for the metal.

Ah, but that's retail! The corner store gets the alcohol from distributors, and we've all seen Bud and Miller and the world's beer companies merge like mad over the last 10 years.

And the beer sucks, and has preservatives in it so that you can ship it in huge tanks in the hold of a boat, and costs the same as my high quality, locally produced beer. Again, bigger is not always better.

And, heck, consider the rampant franchisation of America. Back in the day, I could drive US 1 from NYC to Boston and find all kinds of interesting restaurants, shops, etc. These days, I see lots of 7-11, McDonalds, Taco Bell, etc.
How about finding a bookstore that isn't a Barnes & Noble or Borders? (Whom may soon be the same firm...) :(

Yes, limiting the size of companies would make more competition and promote local business. Thanks for pointing out how the current system reduces choice and local ownership of businesses.

Bad rubbish? Go back to 1973 and compare pollution then to now. The auto industry has been amazing as far as I'm concearned. In 35 years, they x2 to x3 mileage, got rid of leaded gas, deployed mufflers and catalytic converters, and drastically cut emissions.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_16451.aspx

The study, from Toronto Public Health, estimates that more than 440 of the estimated 1,700 pollution-related deaths in the city every year come directly from traffic emissions. And the city's Medical Officer of Health fears unless something is done soon, the toll could keep going up.

And that's not even discussing the number of people killed because motorists aren't paying attention and crash into each other and non-motorists.

It's nice that you don't pay the CEO. But... But the coffee in your local shop still costs more than in Walmart. And it's not like it's just a bit more. 20% at least, 30% often, even 40% and over not unseen.

I'm not poor by any means (5x national median income), but still I always find it hard to bring myself to buy something in these local shops.

Nope, I'll better spare 1 cent per $1000 to the Target's CEO.

But there's no local wal-mart, while my local café is right across the street. It takes me less than 6 minutes to get my coffee, and that includes grinding time. To go to wal-mart and get fresh ground, organic, fair trade coffee (if they sell it) would take me the better part of two hours. If I were to add that time to the cost of the coffee, I would end up paying more. Time is money, you know.

Not to mention that by using small companies, I'm not supporting sweatshops and environmental destruction like I would be if I bought from large corporations.

No, it's not. It takes tens of thousands of people to design and build even a single computer's component.

Are you on glue? This is so illogical, I don't even know how to respond to it. If this were true, no one could ever have invented one or built a prototype. Since this has actually been done, you are obviously wrong.

Coffee is nice, but you're missing what's important in more serious goods. It's R&D. Without massive R&D, you'd have to drive crap and wouldn't be able to post on this forum as personal computers would never exist.
And only the biggest megacorporations can afford R&D. Research can bring results in 30 years, in 50 years, in 100 years, or never - small companies can't afford it. Only large companies like Toyota and formerly Bell Labs can do it... and even the latter proved too small to do it despite the crisis.

Do you have any evidence at all for this claim that only large companies can do R & D? Again, I have to point out that since small companies have put forth new research and development in the past, you seem to be wrong.

It has nothing to do with communism. I believe in free enterprise but not in the free wild market. I certainly believe in regulation. Currently, if the governments worldwide were not regulating their banks, an unseen catastrophe would occur.

The kind of government control that would be necessary to implement this does sound more like fascist economics than communist, but the same question rings true for either...

Who decides how big a company can get?

We have anti-trust laws that do accomplish much of what you seem to be after -- prevention of restricted free trade, prevention of predatory pricing, and oversight of mergers and acquisitions.

I think the fundamental mistake you're making is assuming that corporations really do have any serious power. An interesting statistic, is that the GDP of South Korea is that of the top 50 corporations in the world combined. And that's just little South Korea, hardly a major player on the global stage.

I think the fundamental mistake you're making is assuming that corporations really do have any serious power. An interesting statistic, is that the GDP of South Korea is that of the top 50 corporations in the world combined. And that's just little South Korea, hardly a major player on the global stage.

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html

The GDP of South Korea is roughly equivalent to the GDP of the top two or three corporations in the world combined. You're off by a factor of about 20.

Currently they can grow till the limit of the sky and it’s clear that it’s no good. The current world crisis is not delivered by small or midsized companies but by the biggies.

Each sector should receive an acceptable maximum in manpower. A car factory should receive a bigger maximum than a grocery store.

Why?

* You’ll get more competition, which would result in better products and prices.
* If one company would collapse it’s not a disaster anymore.
* They would produce for a more local market, which is good for employment and environment.
* There would be less corruption.
* One company which is dominating all, would be a harsh memory.

This can’t be fixed on a regional level, but should be accepted worldwide.

And that’s why it’s probably a business wet dream.

nah, won't work. after a company hits that cap then what? all they will do is expand into other areas by diversifying and splintering their company into a united conglomeration made up of smaller companies united by a cabal of CEO's that would avoid anti-trust laws since technically, each part is a 'seperate' company.

http://www.corporations.org/system/top100.html

The GDP of South Korea is roughly equivalent to the GDP of the top two or three corporations in the world combined. You're off by a factor of about 20.

That's revenue though, not profits. I'm trying to find now where that tidbit of information came from so I can show you.

Edit: here's the link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.econ.kuleuven.be%2Few%2Facademic%2Fintecon%2FDegrauwe%2FPDG-papers%2FRecently_published_articles%2FHow%2520big%2520are%2520the%2520big%2520multinational%2520com panies.pdf&ei=6TYTSan0FZKWQo_b7ZoL&usg=AFQjCNGMHBsBsqfw8uDrpbKuh__Lzlub1w&sig2=OGzwgzOflNR4rBwBeE5ChQ)

Edit2: It doesn't seem actually mention what I said about South Korea, although in general it does show they aren't all that enormous, especially the pretty graph

That's revenue though, not profits. I'm trying to find now where that tidbit of information came from so I can show you.

Edit: here's the link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.econ.kuleuven.be%2Few%2Facademic%2Fintecon%2FDegrauwe%2FPDG-papers%2FRecently_published_articles%2FHow%2520big%2520are%2520the%2520big%2520multinational%2520com panies.pdf&ei=6TYTSan0FZKWQo_b7ZoL&usg=AFQjCNGMHBsBsqfw8uDrpbKuh__Lzlub1w&sig2=OGzwgzOflNR4rBwBeE5ChQ)

Edit2: It doesn't seem actually mention what I said about South Korea, although in general it does show they aren't all that enormous, especially the pretty graph

I'll concede that if you play with the numbers, you can make them appear significantly smaller than economic superpowers like the USA. However, many are larger than developing nations, where the practices of large corporations have been the most destructive.

Not to mention the simple fact that corporations do not have to be as big as nations before they cause problems due to their size.

Currently they can grow till the limit of the sky and it’s clear that it’s no good. The current world crisis is not delivered by small or midsized companies but by the biggies.

Each sector should receive an acceptable maximum in manpower. A car factory should receive a bigger maximum than a grocery store.

Why?

* You’ll get more competition, which would result in better products and prices.
* If one company would collapse it’s not a disaster anymore.
* They would produce for a more local market, which is good for employment and environment.
* There would be less corruption.
* One company which is dominating all, would be a harsh memory.

This can’t be fixed on a regional level, but should be accepted worldwide.

And that’s why it’s probably a business wet dream.

No. Of course there is a need to encourage competition at times but I really don't agree with anything else that you are claiming and advocating.

Sir, This is exactly what you get in a Free Market economy. Your talking about the unavoidable "Revolution of Evolution" that we see with all Companies. An interesting read for you (if you care) would be something Jack Welsh (a very influential CEO of GE), and his thoughts on large Business.

Note to Everyone: Monopolies would be impossible, and Companies would have to remain light if there wasn't any Government interference. The problem you're talking about wouldn't go away, but would be significantly reduced. It's as inarguable as a NS Debate on Evolution.


It's logic. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke.


Fascinating Stuff
http://www.youtube.com/user/Franc28

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RusXQvhcvE

And the beer sucks, and has preservatives in it so that you can ship it in huge tanks in the hold of a boat, and costs the same as my high quality, locally produced beer. Again, bigger is not always better.
Where does your "high quality locally produced beer" cost that? All I've seen, "homebrew" beers are 4-5 times more expensive.

Also, beer is rarely shipped anywhere. Most companies establish production near the consumer, no matter where the brand belongs. Look carefully at the can.


BTW a good idea to add "=username" to at least the first quote when replying, otherwise it's hard to see when you are replied to.
But there's no local wal-mart, while my local café is right across the street. It takes me less than 6 minutes to get my coffee, and that includes grinding time. To go to wal-mart and get fresh ground, organic, fair trade coffee (if they sell it) would take me the better part of two hours. If I were to add that time to the cost of the coffee, I would end up paying more. Time is money, you know.
It's still a lot cheaper for me to drive a few minutes to the big shop, fill the Land Cruiser's trunk, and get over with most products for a week.

Plus, you can't count time spent walking around the big shop the same as time spent at work - most people even consider shopping a pleasure. I surely do, as long as I don't concern myself with the prices. And in a discount store I don't.


Are you on glue? This is so illogical, I don't even know how to respond to it. If this were true, no one could ever have invented one or built a prototype. Since this has actually been done, you are obviously wrong.

Do you see the difference between the prototype, doing 1000 computations per second for $1,000,000, and the modern computer, doing 1,000,000,000 computations per second for $1,000?

The latter only became possible through hundreds thousands engineers thoroughly refining the technologies.


Do you have any evidence at all for this claim that only large companies can do R & D?
Yes. Serious, particularly fundamental R&D is affordable only for big corporations.
To have a team as small as 25 scientists working for 5 years, which is only enough to determine if the real research is even worth doing, you have to spend $100,000*4*25*5=$50 million. (4 is pay multiplier - adding junior personnel, taxes, equipment, maintenance).

R&D: $50+ million to just start the research, 10% at most success chance. $500+ million to complete the research. 20+ years between research and product.

Small company: "Banx please lend us 50-500 million dollars, we'll start 1-10 projects, in 20 years we maybe will start making billions and repay you a lot!"
Bank: GTFO.

Medium company: "We finally have 500 million, maybe we should start a few research projects?"
Shareholders: "In 20 years half of us will be dead, and your company will probably be dead long before that".

Big company: "Okay, this year's R&D budget is $10 billion, let's pick 100 most promising new projects to start..."

Specifically, I am talking about the people who come and pick up scrap metals and then take them to the scrapyard or recycling company and get paid for the metal.

Um, that's not an industry. That's a job. Just like you can't outsource cleaning your bathroom to China. :)
Speaking of which, guess where the majority of that locally collected metal goes?

And the beer sucks, and has preservatives in it so that you can ship it in huge tanks in the hold of a boat, and costs the same as my high quality, locally produced beer. Again, bigger is not always better.

Yep. And that you can blame on the Federal Government's food laws, not on internationalization.
Oh, I agree. But your locally produced beer might very well be made under liscense. I don't know where you live, but all of the Sam Adams west of the Mississippi is made by Coors. And you can't taste the difference... because there is none.
And I've had lots of bad local brews too. Bigger may not always be better, but it isn't always worse either. :)

Yes, limiting the size of companies would make more competition and promote local business. Thanks for pointing out how the current system reduces choice and local ownership of businesses.

It doesn't necessarily make more competition as a direct result. It makes for an inefficient marketplace. Consider cable companies.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_16451.aspx

Yes, and? Just because a good is massively improved doesn't mean it's perfect. What you are missing is that without all those innovations, the number would have been much, much higher.

<SNIP!> I'm not sure what's the rest of this, did you mean it for someone else?

I see the good intention behind this, but seriously, who would enforce it? You? You and the What Army? God? As far as I see, this goes into the same filing cabinet as world peace and food for everyone.

Where does your "high quality locally produced beer" cost that? All I've seen, "homebrew" beers are 4-5 times more expensive.

Also, beer is rarely shipped anywhere. Most companies establish production near the consumer, no matter where the brand belongs. Look carefully at the can.

In Montreal, the prices are about the same. That's due to the large amount of small breweries. It keeps competition healthy and the price stays low. And beer is sometimes shipped in vats. It is also processed in huge vats, and often chemicals are added to hasten the fermentation process. I figured all this out by looking carefully at the can and the brewing and transportation systems involved. This is important to do when you have family members with allergies.

It's still a lot cheaper for me to drive a few minutes to the big shop, fill the Land Cruiser's trunk, and get over with most products for a week.

Right. because gas is free. And so is parking and insurance and all those other costs that automatically happen when you need to use a car. Please note that you are also increasing your nations dependence on foreign resources and polluting the air,

Meanwhile, in my community where I am surrounded by small, local businesses, I always have access to all the products I need, so I don't need to buy a week's worth of stuff at once.

Plus, you can't count time spent walking around the big shop the same as time spent at work - most people even consider shopping a pleasure. I surely do, as long as I don't concern myself with the prices. And in a discount store I don't.

So big companies are better than small companies because you like shopping when you can be unmindful of the price?

Bizarre.

I assume that you also prefer shopping when you don't have to think about the environmental or humanitarian consequences of your shopping decisions. It is such thinking that keeps sweatshops and environmental destruction as a part of our economic system.

Do you see the difference between the prototype, doing 1000 computations per second for $1,000,000, and the modern computer, doing 1,000,000,000 computations per second for $1,000?

The latter only became possible through hundreds thousands engineers thoroughly refining the technologies.

For this to be relevant, you should eventually tie this into some sort of evidence that only megacorporations could have done this. Please ignore things like Linux, as they will prove you wrong.

Yes. Serious, particularly fundamental R&D is affordable only for big corporations.
To have a team as small as 25 scientists working for 5 years, which is only enough to determine if the real research is even worth doing, you have to spend $100,000*4*25*5=$50 million. (4 is pay multiplier - adding junior personnel, taxes, equipment, maintenance).

R&D: $50+ million to just start the research, 10% at most success chance. $500+ million to complete the research. 20+ years between research and product.

Small company: "Banx please lend us 50-500 million dollars, we'll start 1-10 projects, in 20 years we maybe will start making billions and repay you a lot!"
Bank: GTFO.

Medium company: "We finally have 500 million, maybe we should start a few research projects?"
Shareholders: "In 20 years half of us will be dead, and your company will probably be dead long before that".

Big company: "Okay, this year's R&D budget is $10 billion, let's pick 100 most promising new projects to start..."

This is a classic example of economic theory being assumed to be correct even when history has shown that this is not the only possible way. Instead of making up imaginary conversations and pulling numbers out of thin air, Nor does R&D have to cost a fortune. A local brewery has recently put out a brand new product that is selling quite well because of demand. And I don't think they spent $50 million just to see if making gluten-free beer was cost effective. It's called La Messagere, if you want to google it.

Um, that's not an industry. That's a job. Just like you can't outsource cleaning your bathroom to China. :)
Speaking of which, guess where the majority of that locally collected metal goes?

Regardless of whether or not metal collection is a job or an industry, the point remains. Bigger is not always better.

To my local recycling plant. And if we limited the size of corporations and promoted local industry, this would be everyone's answer. Not just those lucky enough to live in more progressive locales.

Yep. And that you can blame on the Federal Government's food laws, not on internationalization.
Oh, I agree. But your locally produced beer might very well be made under liscense. I don't know where you live, but all of the Sam Adams west of the Mississippi is made by Coors. And you can't taste the difference... because there is none.
And I've had lots of bad local brews too. Bigger may not always be better, but it isn't always worse either. :)

You may not be able to taste the difference, but I can. And I do know what is made under license and what is not. I purchase those locally produced beers that are made by small, local industries. The current fave has their brewery a few blocks away from my old apartment. Due to the size of the batches and the uniformity required, chemicals are almost always added. Microbreweries need not do this as the batches are smaller.

It doesn't necessarily make more competition as a direct result. It makes for an inefficient marketplace. Consider cable companies.

Do you have any evidence for such a claim?

Yes, and? Just because a good is massively improved doesn't mean it's perfect. What you are missing is that without all those innovations, the number would have been much, much higher.

And just because a tool is not as immediately lethal as it used to be does not make it good. What you seem to be missing is that if automobile use had been restricted through a measure such as this, that number would have been much, much lower.

Blame the consumer not the companies. McDonalds has sufferered recently when people became health food concious. Less sales meant McDonalds had to change so they did their healthy adds.

The consumer buys the products thus keeping the company afloat. If you want smaller companies you should only buy from smaller companies. But im sure you are sitting at home with brand name shoes and clothes, big business food in the fridge, probably own a car made by big business and type complaining about all of this on your computer which even if bought from a small time consumer was made by some big factory

I don't see the point, even if you believe in LTV, taxation is better, because it diverts resources more sensibly to skilled labour, rather than having to manage one giant, generalised labour force.

A monopoly of 4 feels more communist than 100 small ones.

Wait... a monopoly of four? Whats more is that efficiency does go down, and look at the competition between Wal*mart, and Target... it doens't seem like competition can get much more fierce.

Redistribution of wealth = Communism. Communism = Failure. Game over.


The resize idea is not about redistribution of wealth.

A guy, low in the hierarchy, is currently having no chances to rise and this will be no different in the 'new' system.

Nineteen days?

Gravedig!

Why the hell are we blaming corporations for the world's problems? You forget that corporations are created and managed by human beings. It's simple; if a corporation is run by corrupt and unethical people, then it will operate in a corrupt and unethical manner. A corporation run by honest people will do honest business. Imposing size caps on businesses is nothing more than misguided scapegoating.


There are no ethical companies. Companies do not care about people, environment or whatever. They care a little about shareholders, but nothing about stakeholders.

Companies are not natural persons, but legal persons. If a shrink would examine these legal persons, his diagnose would be that most of them are psychopaths.

We actually Have antitrust laws, when/if they're enforced. (they weren't in the case of the McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing merger, and it's like they've been suspended or something in the case of the Wall-Street bailout..but we DO have them.)

They don't work. Odds are low to be caught.

And if they are trapped, they just pay the fine and make sure they do it more smartly the next time.

The size limit idea is more then only anti-trust. The current crisis, in the bank world and in the 'real' economy is having its foundations in the big sharks. If those big ones were small, the impact would be much smaller.

Do you realize how many people already lost their job in US and Europe? Do you realize how many more will follow this path?

The current crisis is a really unseen before disaster. The size limit can prevent disasters at such a scale.

Nineteen days?

Gravedig!

No hospital.

The kind of government control that would be necessary to implement this does sound more like fascist economics than communist, but the same question rings true for either...

Who decides how big a company can get?

We have anti-trust laws that do accomplish much of what you seem to be after -- prevention of restricted free trade, prevention of predatory pricing, and oversight of mergers and acquisitions.


Who's deciding the anti-trust laws? Maybe, the same people can decide the size limit. I think this problem is rather easy to solve.

If you call this idea fascist then all economic laws are.

I see the good intention behind this, but seriously, who would enforce it? You? You and the What Army? God? As far as I see, this goes into the same filing cabinet as world peace and food for everyone.

I feel that the foundation of my idea is rather good, but I'm the first to state that it will never be enforced.

Currently, countries can barely agree about fish quotas and stuff...

Blame the consumer not the companies. McDonalds has sufferered recently when people became health food concious. Less sales meant McDonalds had to change so they did their healthy adds.

The consumer buys the products thus keeping the company afloat. If you want smaller companies you should only buy from smaller companies. But im sure you are sitting at home with brand name shoes and clothes, big business food in the fridge, probably own a car made by big business and type complaining about all of this on your computer which even if bought from a small time consumer was made by some big factory

I'm not an extremist, but I'm already doing something about it.

I buy my vegetables and meat in small local stores. I try to buy stuff that is produced in my own country (not for nationalistic reasons, but environment).

Am I paying more? Probably, but I'm earning enough (and so is 99% of the people) to fill that small gap.

Wait... a monopoly of four? Whats more is that efficiency does go down, and look at the competition between Wal*mart, and Target... it doens't seem like competition can get much more fierce.

Sure and what's the price, the real price, of their low priced goods?

The people working at those giants are earning nothing and do have other very bad work conditions. But changing work doesn't help, 'cause the other 3 giants are the same.