3 ms·

> one thing i thought it did a good job of was pointing out both corporations and governments suffer from the ills of consolidation Seriously? I saw nothing in

> one thing i thought it did a good job of was pointing out both corporations and governments suffer from the ills of consolidation Seriously? I saw nothing in the article to argue why consolidation would yield to such ills, it kind of just assumed it. Felt mostly like the article said: "why don't most firm consolidate? Well, maybe because it wouldn't end up so good? Maybe because the leader would fail to manage all of it properly?" I don't know, the whole thing was so thin on actual analysis, data, examples, annectodes, logic, etc. I felt it relied exclusively on the hope that you already are biased towards its conclusion to actually make its point. For example, it could have at the very least brought up very large successful firms that have consolidated? Like most tech giants? Or media corporations? And tried to explain why they have done so?

clairity 5y ago
yes, it did a poor job of plainly spelling out the rationale, but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here. (tech) giants might be successful, but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies. firms consolidate beyond the point of maximal economic benefit because of other reasons (at root, for power & status). the (lost) point being that this is suboptimal from a strictly economic perspective (same for overgrown governments).
- didibus 5y ago
  > but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies I didn't see that point being made, I only saw it being affirmed without substantiated reasons. Why do you believe they aren't as successful in their consolidated state as they would be in a seperated state? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? > but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here Same thing, I saw nothing to justify why whatever may be true of corporations somehow would similarly apply to a different context such as governments. Why do you believe that what is generally true for a corporate model would be for a government? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? And in both cases, are there exceptions to these truths? Are their circumstances that are required for them to hold? And if you're not going to walk me through the proof, at least make a case for why I should trust your assessment. Who are you and how much time and effort did you spend evaluating this? Did you do so in good faith? What did you do to make sure you challenged your pre-conceptions and didn't fall pray to bias? Did you have other people review your assessment? Were they themselves deep thinkers on the same topics? Do you have skin in the game? Did you test your theories in any way? Etc.
  - clairity 5y ago
    there’s a whole branch of economics on this very subject: theory of the firm[0]. one of the bad parts of the essay was assuming familiarity with this line of economic research. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm

clairity 5y ago

yes, it did a poor job of plainly spelling out the rationale, but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here. (tech) giants might be successful, but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies. firms consolidate beyond the point of maximal economic benefit because of other reasons (at root, for power & status). the (lost) point being that this is suboptimal from a strictly economic perspective (same for overgrown governments).

didibus 5y ago
> but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies I didn't see that point being made, I only saw it being affirmed without substantiated reasons. Why do you believe they aren't as successful in their consolidated state as they would be in a seperated state? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? > but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here Same thing, I saw nothing to justify why whatever may be true of corporations somehow would similarly apply to a different context such as governments. Why do you believe that what is generally true for a corporate model would be for a government? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? And in both cases, are there exceptions to these truths? Are their circumstances that are required for them to hold? And if you're not going to walk me through the proof, at least make a case for why I should trust your assessment. Who are you and how much time and effort did you spend evaluating this? Did you do so in good faith? What did you do to make sure you challenged your pre-conceptions and didn't fall pray to bias? Did you have other people review your assessment? Were they themselves deep thinkers on the same topics? Do you have skin in the game? Did you test your theories in any way? Etc.
- clairity 5y ago
  there’s a whole branch of economics on this very subject: theory of the firm[0]. one of the bad parts of the essay was assuming familiarity with this line of economic research. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm