WebSeitz/wikilog
Scale Vs Consolidation
Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

(backlinks off) (map off)
(search off)
last edited by BillSeitz on Mar 11, 2008 3:21 pm

I have big concerns about large-scale stuff.

Big/-s (e.g. jet planes, nuclear reactors) embody a lot of risk we tend to under-recognize.

Big institutions (corporations/, , religions/, etc.) don't like individual people very much, they cause too much trouble. So they start to fight against having an .

As an organization gets big, it becomes much harder for most managers to manage the trade-offs of soft factors in decisions. So they don't, and just decide on the basis of short-term dollars (also relates to ).

People also become de-humanized drones, making moral choices they would never make as people.

And, since for a given market-size, bigger organizations means fewer competitors, they becomes even less concerned about external factors. Do banks really need to so huge? Do we really need only so few car companies?

Consolidation also reduces (speaking metaphorically), increasing the odds of stupid decisions going further due to a lack of local (in time/space) competition. Meaning that the eventual surprise will be a crisis (e.g. auto manufacturers in the '70s).

Is this bigness "natural", or the result of ? See PhilJones:IsMassNatural

Eeek, am I going to become a ? Perhaps we need some bomb-throwing ...


Why do the capital markets encourage scale through consolidation/acquisition?

Why do some companies manage to squeeze out smaller-scale competitors so fully? (, , Gap, etc.) (or oligopolies: music retailers, music publishers (distributors), )

See : | | | | | | | | | |


 




Bill Seitz, fluxent at gmail dot com, Weblog