Thursday, January 29, 2015
On the Assertion by Statists that Companies Such as Home Depot and Starbucks are Evil Because They Put Other Companies Out of Business
I hate to burst their bubble but in a free market economy firms go under all the time. It's called competition, and if this is a problem maybe they need to check out some of those rare places on the planet where it isn't allowed - for some perspective, I'm saying............................................................................................................P.S. And then there's this for perspective; the fact that 60% of the new jobs in the country are actually coming from small businesses and so maybe these two boogieman (in this case, two well-respected corporations that treat their employees well and who serve their customers ditto) aren't so damned powerful after all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
True, in a free market, putting small business out of business is smart business..any evil being in the eye of the beholder. I've never been in a Starbucks, but have heard good things about them.
Home Depot, I now avoid because the local Ace place is far better.
A couple ex Home Depot folks I know confirm the general opinion about HD's management problems . The well worn
adage 'power corrupts' IMO applies equally in government and big business, and in the latter,
generates ignorant arrogance in the ivory tower. IMO, the biggest problem facing business growth is that efficient, creative, loyal
and successful operation has always worked best with teams
of about 100 or less; probably
40 or less in high end R &D. Of
course business leaders are aware of that when expanding and try to
maintain some sort of independent
groups. Slowly, things get top heavy, consultants (newly minted
Harvard kids) come in, communications go to hell,
turnover increases, short term
profits dominate and size alone
carries the big boys. The sole
good example I have seen in the last few years is an electrical
engineering company started by
a PhD EE. In 10 years, they became world wide, hired carefully, created a high level
culture and actually care about
communities. Their key, IMO was
to avoid going public and create
an employee-owned company. Now
they have tie in from customers,
communities and employees. Any argument that criticism of business is 'statist' is specious, given the lamentations of some former Harvard Business
School educators studies of the
results of their MBA program.
That is just a POV honest criticism, Will: the 'evil'
companies star weekly in the
TV series American Greed !
Yes, and very often in competition, companies make poor decisions in terms of price and service, and they pay for it and founder. Because others don't make such mistakes and thrive.
It is entirely wrong to place the blame on the companies that aren't making these mistakes.
Regulations and bad government policies need to be revisited also...
Main street vs the mall?
Literal "main street". I encounter countless situations where all of the parking in the downtowns have meters with very short times: one or two hours. And you have to pay, of course. This sends a strong message of: "We begrudge you even being here, and we don't want you here for long".
I can't recall the last time I found a mall, or a Walmart, with anything like this. There, it is more a hospitable: "Yall, come and stay long as you want... "
There's a huge difference, BB. Businesses that screw the public pay a price in the marketplace and, unless they get bailed out by corrupt politicians, they had better not do it long. Government never seems to pay a price.
dmarks, and I would also add that not every Main Street is struggling. Towns like Brattleboro VT, Great Barrington MA, Northampton MA, Rhinebeck NY, Essex CT, etc. are doing awesome despite the nearby presence of malls and superstores. And the reason for this is that the new stores and shops are those that compliment the bigger stores and/or offer goods and services that the big boys don't. Through adapting, in other words.............And bigness isn't a guarantee by any stretch - just ask the folks at Kmart.
Well run companies always win and the reason is excellent management. Home Depot had Blank and Langone....Starbucks has Schultz....GE had Jack Welch...hell,WalMart had Sam Walton.
How many well paying jobs have these companies created? Millions.
My whole working life has been in the business world and I for one appreciate success.
I would also add that as the big boys, due to size, purchasing power at the lowest pricing levels, perks gain through special interest money political contributions etc. and fewer and fewer competitors can compete, then what? My guess monopolistic industries. Koch industries and a few others are working on this. Citizen United was perfect for the big boys.
Prepare for the coming neo-fuedalism. Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.
Will: Sounds like a comparative lack of the bad attitude of "I've been doing this in the same spot the same way for 80 years... and I'll be damned if I do anything different, ever!"
It's that attitude, along with crushing regulations and overtaxation, that causes "main street" businesses to fail.
But for some, bashing others just for doing a better job is shifting the blame where it does not belong.
The thing for me, guys, is whether or not the companies got to where they are on their own or through government favoritism; fellows like Vanderbilt, Mellon (who we can thank for the National Gallery of Art), and James J. Hill versus guys like Robert Fulton, Glenville Dodge, and Edward Collins, in other words.
Will,guys like Walton,Schultz and Blank got there in spite of government.You cant compare modern businessman to the robber barons...that's apples and oranges.
Study actual economic history dmarks, start with Adam Smith and go from there. You'll be surprised at what you learn. Hint, it won't be the conservative/libertarian talking points of the Koch
brothers et all.
In other words by honest competition. What need be of concern however in the tendency towards monopoly in a free wheeling unregulated market; Reference Adam Smith for greater detail.
Post a Comment