pyre, in your rendition, the punitive attitude acts as some kind of leveling force, effecting the really big corporations at least as much as the small startups

pyre, in your rendition, the punitive attitude acts as some kind of leveling force, effecting the really big corporations at least as much as the small startups. But the article that is linked at the top of this thread ("Company size: Big is back") implies that the regulatory trend is giving an advantage to the biggest corporations, as such increased regulations impose costs that small firms can not handle. Again, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is worth considering in this context. The biggest firms are the ones most likely to avoid a conflict with the law, as they can afford the legions of accountants and lawyers needed to comply. And, of course, along with a punitive attitude that will likely effect smaller firms most, there are the enormous bailouts being given to the largest firms. As the article says: "Governments have been rescuing companies they consider too big to fail, such as Citigroup and General Motors. Recession is squeezing out smaller and less well-connected firms. But there are other reasons too, which are giving big companies a self-confidence they have not displayed for decades." I suspect that at some level these attitudes are linked. The flip side of "too big to fail" is possibly "we don't give a damn about the rest of you."