5 ms·

Keeping up with the competition, if you’re talking about quality of product/service, isn’t the same thing as growing yearly revenues, which usually entails scal

Keeping up with the competition, if you’re talking about quality of product/service, isn’t the same thing as growing yearly revenues, which usually entails scaling up operations and product lines to more places and more customers, which no business has to do just for the sake of survival. See for example long-surviving small- to medium-scale family businesses. There doesn’t seem to be another motivation for chasing YoY revenue growth other than greed.

a-dub 5y ago
or simple corporate charter. if the company is organized around maximizing shareholder value, that's what they'll do. that's why we have public benefit corporations.
xyzelement 5y ago
// See for example long-surviving small- to medium-scale family businesses Are these business in industries with fierce large competitors? If not, it's an unreasonable comparison - they are only not getting eaten because nobody's trying to eat them. I love small and medium businesses but just making a game theoretical point - you can only chose to limit your competitive effort to the extent that nobody is increasing theirs.
- johannes1234321 5y ago
  There are family owned businesses where others try to beat them, but those businesses are so tied to their space that it is hard for others to step in and as these companies don't try to expand too much, they are free to cooperate with anybody, which gives them a beneficial network. However that is heavily industry specific and in tech, where scales are very different only works for very small niches.
- nl 5y ago
  There are plenty of small family scale business in fields like alcoholic drinks and food, and they have large, fierce competitors.
  - opinion-is-bad 5y ago
    These businesses have a natural limit to their growth due to the estate tax. If the company grows too large, the taxes on death can be crippling for families that can not plan decades in advance. Public corporations do not have to pay this tax, and therefore have an unnatural advantage in holding valuable assets over long periods of time. The estate tax is well-intentioned, but because it hits only family firms it’s essentially regressive despite being applied only to wealthy families.
    - 8note 5y ago
      The owners of public companies dont have to pay the estate tax when they die, as their children inherit the stock? I thought it was for the total value exchanged?
      - opinion-is-bad 5y ago
        The owners of public companies are irrelevant to the large public company’s continued existence. Owners for them come and go and pay their own taxes, but the company never has to pay the estate taxes itself, hence the advantage against those who must.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

a-dub 5y ago

or simple corporate charter. if the company is organized around maximizing shareholder value, that's what they'll do. that's why we have public benefit corporations.

xyzelement 5y ago

// See for example long-surviving small- to medium-scale family businesses Are these business in industries with fierce large competitors? If not, it's an unreasonable comparison - they are only not getting eaten because nobody's trying to eat them. I love small and medium businesses but just making a game theoretical point - you can only chose to limit your competitive effort to the extent that nobody is increasing theirs.

johannes1234321 5y ago
There are family owned businesses where others try to beat them, but those businesses are so tied to their space that it is hard for others to step in and as these companies don't try to expand too much, they are free to cooperate with anybody, which gives them a beneficial network. However that is heavily industry specific and in tech, where scales are very different only works for very small niches.
nl 5y ago
There are plenty of small family scale business in fields like alcoholic drinks and food, and they have large, fierce competitors.
- opinion-is-bad 5y ago
  These businesses have a natural limit to their growth due to the estate tax. If the company grows too large, the taxes on death can be crippling for families that can not plan decades in advance. Public corporations do not have to pay this tax, and therefore have an unnatural advantage in holding valuable assets over long periods of time. The estate tax is well-intentioned, but because it hits only family firms it’s essentially regressive despite being applied only to wealthy families.
  - 8note 5y ago
    The owners of public companies dont have to pay the estate tax when they die, as their children inherit the stock? I thought it was for the total value exchanged?
    - opinion-is-bad 5y ago
      The owners of public companies are irrelevant to the large public company’s continued existence. Owners for them come and go and pay their own taxes, but the company never has to pay the estate taxes itself, hence the advantage against those who must.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]