5 ms·
Counter argument: selling off products to smaller businesses creates more limited liability. I.e less to lose more to gain by being bad stewards. A bigger compa
by paiute 3y ago
Counter argument: selling off products to smaller businesses creates more limited liability. I.e less to lose more to gain by being bad stewards. A bigger company in fear of hurting their brand has incentive to be good.
- boringg 3y agoI feel like that the same for the fracking companies -- the small no-name companies have more of an incentive to do a poor job because they are under more pressure to make money or go bankrupt and not clean up the sites. Whereas the bigger companies have a brand to worry about and also they will use their muscles to force regulation on their competitors. Not saying its good or bad - just how it seems. Companies out of the limelight and too small to notice have more leeway to cheat.
- mrguyorama 3y agoAh yeah that's been working so well. Meanwhile, trading on brand value has been the go-to profit making strategy of nearly every business for at least twenty years running now. >smaller businesses creates more limited liability. I.e less to lose more to gain by being bad stewards. Nonsense. A thousand small CEOs have limited liability to not lose their sole home if they do bad things that harm everyone and get shut down. A single Giant CEO has limited liability to go back to his six mansions in his chauffeured lamborgini that picked him up from his private plane.