5 ms·
> It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people. Actually, accumulated wealth to that extent is almost always connected to anti-competitive
by omegaworks 8y ago
> It's almost always connected to providing value to lots of people.
Actually, accumulated wealth to that extent is almost always connected to anti-competitive practices and monopolizing a space to such an extent that people have no other choice then to do business with you.
- manigandham 8y agoAll corporations trend toward monopoly as it provides the greatest efficiency and value to all involved, until it crests the peak of innovation and starts falling into decay. It makes no difference if you want to focus on businesses instead of family names. It's just another cycle of rise and fall that you can easily see by looking at the Fortune 500.
- hedvig 8y agoSome of us aren't resigned to the idea that it has to be that way though.
- manigandham 8y agoWhat way? That things are in a constant cycle? Are you suggesting that there be some perfect steady state of companies that are neither too big nor too small and nobody can ever gain or lose in life?
- refurb 8y agoI can think of far more examples of very successful companies that got that way by offering something people wanted than companies who used anti-competitive tactics to push a sub-standard product.