6 ms·

A corporation that didn't take its customers demands into account would be quite likely to fail. There are many governments that continue to exist by enriching

A corporation that didn't take its customers demands into account would be quite likely to fail. There are many governments that continue to exist by enriching and providing for a small segment of society, and uses force to suppress the demands of the rest of society. A corporation generally doesn't shoot dissatisfied customers. Even in relatively liberal democracies, governments are clearly more beholden to forces other than citizens and their vote. There's a reason why US governments did little to respond to massive BLM protests this summer, as government viewed its responsibility as more aligned to police unions than citizens.

arcticbull 6y ago
> A corporation that didn't take its customers demands into account would be quite likely to fail. Without a government to enforce monopoly rules, it'll just aggregate all its competition into one big blob, and you won't have any choice. Efficiencies of scale mean there's a natural pressure towards consolidation. The terminal state is always one blob that owns everything. Once they do, they can smash any new upstarts, by undercutting prices, or by just buying them too. > A corporation generally doesn't shoot dissatisfied customers. Sure does shoot dissatisfied union leaders though [1] and enslave children to farm cocoa [2], and take down a democratically elected government kickstarting a 36 year long civil war [3]. Also substantially all of the trans-atlantic slave trade [4, 5]. These things were all allowed to happen because the governments in those respective jurisdictions weren't (and in the case of child slave labor, aren't) strong enough to stop them. The idea that "a corporation generally doesn't shoot dissatisfied [people]" is a privileged western position to take based on the current system working pretty well. In places that have weak government, your statement simply does not hold. [1] https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-nestle-mars-chocolate-child-labor-west-africa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe... [3] https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Guatemalan_Coup_student:RS01.pdf https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Guatemal... [4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company [5] https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/voc-dutch-east-india-company-explained https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/voc-dutch-east-india...
- stale2002 6y ago
  > Without a government to enforce monopoly rules, it'll just aggregate all its competition into one big blob, and you won't have any choice. Thats not really true. There are tons of industries out there that are highly competitive, and are not aggravating into a monopoly, and those industries are highly competitive without much action from the government. Sure, there are some industries that have huge network effects, such as telecom, that have a tendency towards monopolies. But such industries are not the rule. There are instead many industries where monopolies are not forming, competition is working on its own, without the government doing much to enforce that competition.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Do you have some examples out of curiosity?
    - stale2002 6y ago
      Like almost every single major market where people spend a large percentage of their money on? Are restaurants a monopoly? Obviously not. Cars? There are lots of options for cars grocery stores? There are certain some big players, but the 10 corner stores, target, safeway, and whole foods within 5 blocks of where I live show that it is not a monopoly. MAYBE you could argue geographic monopoly for grocery stores, in certain limited exceptions in a few small towns, but that is not the vast majority of people. Housing? There are 10s (or Hundreds?) of millions of people own their own home, or rent it to others. Clearly That is pretty competitive Lets now pick some random things that I see within eyesight of me. What about refrigerators? There are multiple refrigerator companies. Furniture? Probably a lot of companies make furniture. What about shoes? Clothing? There are lots of clothing companies. And before someone says it, yes I am sure that every example that I gave has some big players in the market. But my main point is that I simply do not consider the existence of some big players in a market, to be anywhere even close to the same thing as a monopoly or similarly non-competitive market. There is a huge gap between those two things. The only major exception to all of these examples, is some of the new tech companies that have significant network effects in winner take all markets. Sure, maybe there is an argument that Google is getting to the point where it almost has a monopoly on ads. But, just looking around my room, and looking at the main things that I buy in my life, which is food, shelter, transportion, and clothing, it seems pretty clear that most of these things have lots of competition, even if there are some big players in these markets. That is unless someone is going to make a silly argument that the only markets that could be considered "competitive" are ones in which there are 10 thousands small businesses of equal size or something.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
> A corporation that didn't take its customers demands into account would be quite likely to fail. Meeting customer demands is only one way to compete. A better facebook is going to still have a hell of a time not being out-competed by facebook. Likewise with amazon sometimes throwing its weight around to take a loss to undercut competitors until they starve.

arcticbull 6y ago

> A corporation that didn't take its customers demands into account would be quite likely to fail. Without a government to enforce monopoly rules, it'll just aggregate all its competition into one big blob, and you won't have any choice. Efficiencies of scale mean there's a natural pressure towards consolidation. The terminal state is always one blob that owns everything. Once they do, they can smash any new upstarts, by undercutting prices, or by just buying them too. > A corporation generally doesn't shoot dissatisfied customers. Sure does shoot dissatisfied union leaders though [1] and enslave children to farm cocoa [2], and take down a democratically elected government kickstarting a 36 year long civil war [3]. Also substantially all of the trans-atlantic slave trade [4, 5]. These things were all allowed to happen because the governments in those respective jurisdictions weren't (and in the case of child slave labor, aren't) strong enough to stop them. The idea that "a corporation generally doesn't shoot dissatisfied [people]" is a privileged western position to take based on the current system working pretty well. In places that have weak government, your statement simply does not hold. [1] https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings https://prospect.org/features/coca-cola-killings [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-nestle-mars-chocolate-child-labor-west-africa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershe... [3] https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Guatemalan_Coup_student:RS01.pdf https://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Guatemal... [4] https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company https://www.britannica.com/topic/East-India-Company [5] https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/voc-dutch-east-india-company-explained https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/voc-dutch-east-india...

stale2002 6y ago
> Without a government to enforce monopoly rules, it'll just aggregate all its competition into one big blob, and you won't have any choice. Thats not really true. There are tons of industries out there that are highly competitive, and are not aggravating into a monopoly, and those industries are highly competitive without much action from the government. Sure, there are some industries that have huge network effects, such as telecom, that have a tendency towards monopolies. But such industries are not the rule. There are instead many industries where monopolies are not forming, competition is working on its own, without the government doing much to enforce that competition.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Do you have some examples out of curiosity?
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Like almost every single major market where people spend a large percentage of their money on? Are restaurants a monopoly? Obviously not. Cars? There are lots of options for cars grocery stores? There are certain some big players, but the 10 corner stores, target, safeway, and whole foods within 5 blocks of where I live show that it is not a monopoly. MAYBE you could argue geographic monopoly for grocery stores, in certain limited exceptions in a few small towns, but that is not the vast majority of people. Housing? There are 10s (or Hundreds?) of millions of people own their own home, or rent it to others. Clearly That is pretty competitive Lets now pick some random things that I see within eyesight of me. What about refrigerators? There are multiple refrigerator companies. Furniture? Probably a lot of companies make furniture. What about shoes? Clothing? There are lots of clothing companies. And before someone says it, yes I am sure that every example that I gave has some big players in the market. But my main point is that I simply do not consider the existence of some big players in a market, to be anywhere even close to the same thing as a monopoly or similarly non-competitive market. There is a huge gap between those two things. The only major exception to all of these examples, is some of the new tech companies that have significant network effects in winner take all markets. Sure, maybe there is an argument that Google is getting to the point where it almost has a monopoly on ads. But, just looking around my room, and looking at the main things that I buy in my life, which is food, shelter, transportion, and clothing, it seems pretty clear that most of these things have lots of competition, even if there are some big players in these markets. That is unless someone is going to make a silly argument that the only markets that could be considered "competitive" are ones in which there are 10 thousands small businesses of equal size or something.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

> A corporation that didn't take its customers demands into account would be quite likely to fail. Meeting customer demands is only one way to compete. A better facebook is going to still have a hell of a time not being out-competed by facebook. Likewise with amazon sometimes throwing its weight around to take a loss to undercut competitors until they starve.