4 ms·
To me it's pretty easy to understand. It's far easier for state organs to control large corporations, than many small and independent businesses. Meanwhile, it'
by kebman 6y ago
To me it's pretty easy to understand. It's far easier for state organs to control large corporations, than many small and independent businesses. Meanwhile, it's far easier for coroporations with means to lobby for legislation that makes it difficult for smaller, i.e. competing, businesses to thrive. They can do this, because they can afford the armies of lawyers and lobbyists needed to uphold and exploit all those rules. Just add revolving doors. It's particularly conspicuous that this is going on to such a degree in the USA. In effect, it means the USA is increasingly ending up with a new kind of aristocracy not dissimilar from the royal rule they once rebelled against.
- Dumblydorr 6y agoI'd argue it's simpler for governments to foster a free and competitive market than try to work against massive vertically integrated companies with tons of lobbyists and power. Are you suggesting the US has any control over the tech giants? It's clearly not the case, most politicians talk the talk, but they take massive donations in private events and then craft legislation to favor big tech. What we need is more companies, more competition, government needs to bust up the big players and disallow M&A.
- nickff 6y agoBureaucracies don't like working with a bunch of small companies; they want to work with a few large companies with specialized departments that make it easy to get what they want. The rules and regulations are all written for large corporations with inside counsel and compliance departments, not small independent companies. source: I work at a small company, and have dealt with such bureaucrats