5 ms·

> "'Bigness often cuts against innovation.' > The term the author needs is 'diseconomies of scale.'" diseconomies of scale, like economies of scale, are syste

> "'Bigness often cuts against innovation.' > The term the author needs is 'diseconomies of scale.'" diseconomies of scale, like economies of scale, are systemic characteristics that change (somewhat predictably) with size. stagnation resulting from bigness is a self-inflicted dysfunction that is independent of size (that is, it doesn't only happen when companies get big). and multiple groups working on the same product might not be a dysfunction at all. it could just be risk mitigation (that only a large company can afford). my point isn't so much to disagree, but to redirect. organizational dysfunction increases as companies get larger because of "coordination neglect" (it gets harder to keep all the initiatives pointing in the same direction as communications channels necessarily multiply with size). but risk socialization strategies at large companies leading to things like "too big to fail" bailouts really chap my hide. those companies should go bankrupt--not out of business, but reorganized, with the execs replaced, their compensation clawed back, and possibly sued for malfeasance. the bigger you are (or equivalently, the more power you have), the bigger the consequences and the more important it is to face justice from wrongdoing, the exact opposite of the direction we're headed right now in the US (e.g., recent presidential pardons).

krtong 7y ago
I've never heard the term diseconomy. Sounds to me like Tragedy of Commons. > stagnation resulting from bigness is a self-inflicted dysfunction that is independent of size (that is, it doesn't only happen when companies get big). A book with a strong argument why this MIGHT be incorrect is called, "Big Is Beautiful" by Michael Lind, who argues that productivity, research and development stagnate when companies get as big as google, but relatively medium sized companies like BMW (I did say "relatively") have solid research and development and productivity that can't be found in smaller businesses. The book also gets into why some of the mythology of America like "small businesses are the backbone of America" and "It's good thing that so many people work for themselves" are probably false. Either way it's a good one to read alongside "The Curse of Bigness" by Tim Wu. Also this article goes into almost no detail by what he means. No fault of the author, it's just a lot to go over. I haven't read this author's book personally but another book I recommend on this subject is Michael Lind's "The Land of Promise: and Economic History of the United States."
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> stagnation resulting from bigness is a self-inflicted dysfunction that is independent of size (that is, it doesn't only happen when companies get big) How could stagnation resulting from bigness happen to a company that hadn't gotten big?
- comicjk 7y ago
  "Big" is relative. If a company starts falling apart as soon as the founder can't personally manage everyone, it has a disease of bigness, even though it's still small on some absolute scale.

krtong 7y ago

I've never heard the term diseconomy. Sounds to me like Tragedy of Commons. > stagnation resulting from bigness is a self-inflicted dysfunction that is independent of size (that is, it doesn't only happen when companies get big). A book with a strong argument why this MIGHT be incorrect is called, "Big Is Beautiful" by Michael Lind, who argues that productivity, research and development stagnate when companies get as big as google, but relatively medium sized companies like BMW (I did say "relatively") have solid research and development and productivity that can't be found in smaller businesses. The book also gets into why some of the mythology of America like "small businesses are the backbone of America" and "It's good thing that so many people work for themselves" are probably false. Either way it's a good one to read alongside "The Curse of Bigness" by Tim Wu. Also this article goes into almost no detail by what he means. No fault of the author, it's just a lot to go over. I haven't read this author's book personally but another book I recommend on this subject is Michael Lind's "The Land of Promise: and Economic History of the United States."

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> stagnation resulting from bigness is a self-inflicted dysfunction that is independent of size (that is, it doesn't only happen when companies get big) How could stagnation resulting from bigness happen to a company that hadn't gotten big?

comicjk 7y ago
"Big" is relative. If a company starts falling apart as soon as the founder can't personally manage everyone, it has a disease of bigness, even though it's still small on some absolute scale.