4 ms·
a CEO laying off 3% scales in absolute numbers as the company grows should, therefore, large companies, even ones that succeed largely in a clean way by just b
by adamisom 11mo ago
a CEO laying off 3% scales in absolute numbers as the company grows
should, therefore, large companies, even ones that succeed largely in a clean way by just being better at delivering what that business niche exists for, be made to never grow too big, in order to avoid impacting very many people? keep in mind that people engage in voluntary business transactions because they want to be impacted (positively—but not every impact can be positive, in any real world)
what if its less efficient substitutes collectively lay off 4%, but the greater layoffs are hidden (simply because it's not a single employer doing it which may be more obvious)?
to an extent, a larger population inevitably means that larger absolute numbers of people will be affected by...anything
- rafabulsing 11mo agoI think it's reasonable that bigger companies are under more scrutiny and stricter constraints than smaller companies, yeah. Keeps actors with more potential for damaging society in check, while not laying a huge burden on small companies which have less resources to spend away from their core business.
- schmidtleonard 11mo ago> voluntary business transactions The evil parts are hid in property rights which are not voluntary. > made to never grow too big, in order to avoid impacting very many people Consolidated property rights have more power against their counterparties, that's why businesses love merging so much. Look at your tax return. Do you make more money from what you do or what you own? If you make money from what you do, you're a counterparty and you should probably want to tap the brakes on the party.
- nradov 11mo agoWhat are the evil parts, exactly? When property can't be privately owned with strong rights the effectively the government owns everything. That inevitably leads to poverty, often followed by famine and/or genocide.
- jonah 11mo agoPlaces with predominantly private ownership can be and are prone to famine, and/oril genocide, etc. as well.
- hunterpayne 11mo agoSure, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Centralized (Marxism and its descendants) societies tend to have those things happens the majority of the time. In decentralized capitalist societies, they happened once a long time ago and we took steps for them to not happen again. Seems like a flaw in those societies is that when these problems happen so infrequently people forget and then you get takes like this.
- piva00 11mo agoCentralised planning is not what Marxism is about though, Marxism is about class struggle and the abolishment of a capital-owning class, distributing the fruits of labour to the labourers. In that definition it's even more decentralised than capitalism which has inherent incentives for the accumulation of capital into monopolies, since those are the best profit-generating structures, only external forces from capitalism can reign into that like governments enforcing anti-trust/anti-competitive laws to control the natural tendency of monopolisation. If the means of production were owned by labourers (not through the central government) it could be possible to see much more decentralisation than the current trend from the past 40 years of corporate consolidation. The centralisation is already happening under capitalism.
- AndrewKemendo 11mo agoUnfortunately you’re taking to the void here People can’t differentiate between what Marx wrote and what classic dictators (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) did under some retcon “Marxist” banner
- hunterpayne 11mo ago
- roughly 11mo agoIndeed, by what moral justification does one slow the wheels of commerce, no matter how many people they run over?
- ashanoko 11mo ago[dead]