…and then outsourced their operations to Halliburton, Blackwater and so on.
I’m not sure why people decouple big business and corporations from everything else that makes up our modern civilization and American standard of living. It’s all interconnected. We buy their products. We work for them and they provide our salaries. You can’t say “I like affordable food” but then berate Monsanto for how it conducts business.
You put the lie to your own claim. Obviously, if people are running out and striking and breaking things, they must not be running the government.
Before Monstanto and other like corporations came along, we got by just fine with small business and farmers markets.
Even now, it is small business that makes up the majority of the jobs in this country.
The arrangement is much better also because your with your company on a more personal level, and rather than some x number employee. Wages have stagnated in the past 30 years, and guess what took off the most since then?
The CEO - Shareholder model exists where not just surviving and/or making small profits is good enough like many small business I know. The model exists only on making more profits even at the expense of killing jobs or outsourcing in order to make more profits.
It is not sustainable and not in the best interest of the country or its people.
No, it is not. Especially since big business will almost always drive out small due to economies of scale and distribution, and the big players that have eliminating competition as their goal will drive out those that want merely to compete.
This means more employees working for fewer employers; more control in the hands of larger organizations that do not have to be nearly so responsible to employees or consumers; fewer goods and services available that do not lend themselves to mass production and mass marketing.
When was that magical time? A hundred years ago? Longer? And food was more expensive then. And there was less of it available. You have access to food resources that our ancestors (with their small farming businesses and farmers markets) could only dream of…and you pay almost nothing for it compared to what they paid. And you don’t have to worry about famine or a bad harvest leaving your kids starving.
Seriously…where do people get these sorts of ideas from? Take off the rose colored glasses man and take a look at the real world!
-XT
The argument that mass distribution and marketing made many good cheaper and more easily obtained is sound.
The assumption that greater and greater concentration of economic resources is therefore either a) inevitable or b) a good thing is fallacious.
A very large reason why food is cheap has much more to do with Norman Borlaug and his work in academia and through government projects than anything from Monsanto and agribusiness. Agriculture extension services through universities and governments enabled the dissemination of modern agricultural practices - not Monsanto or ADM.
And for an example of a modern industrial nation in the real world with strong farmers markets just look at France.
The same system could not be perfectly replicated in the United States, because of geography - a fact exploited by agribusiness and national retailers. But the local food movement and community-supported agriculture are growing and getting stronger every year.
To say our standard of living is due to modern multinationals and therefore not worthy of criticism is willful blindness. Trade policies, education and democratic governance are the major reasons why OECD countries have achieved their standard of living. Multinationals have just come along for the ride and now try to take all the credit.
And the focus on America and the OECD is still misleading - the megacorporations wanted a global market and have achieved it, so they should be judged on how they serve that market, not just localized segments.
They fail. The system is unsustainable - especially since it was fueled by debt and not by the creation of real wealth.
Look up “economies of scale”. Small businesses cannot compete in certain industries because those industries are very capital intensive and are more efficent the larger they get. Automakers for instance.
No one is saying that they are not worthy of criticism. I am simply saying that they do not exist in a vacuum. Really most of what you said is completely off base. Multinationals did not “come along for the ride”. Companies like Standard Oil and US Steel, built the ride during the Industrial Revolution.
If you don’t believe me, go around your home and toss out anything made by a company with more than a dozen employees.
Ever notice how statements that use “real-world” adjectivally" (“real-world numbers”; “real-world solutions”) are often reasoned and open-minded, whereas statements where it is a noun (“the real world,” as above) are typically reductive and adversarial?
Have you ever noticed how passive aggressive arguments that start off as ‘ever notice’ really don’t lead to any sort of relevance to the content of the thread, but simply act as filler for someone to try and get around having to make any sort of sound contribution to the discussion at hand? Just wondering…
(ETA: The irony was no extra charge)
-XT
The industrial revolution was in full swing before Standard Oil and US Steel showed up. And their record of behavior after they swallowed up smaller local enterprises, who were developing oil wells and steel mills quite fine on their own, is why we have anti-trust laws on the books now.
Even now, Microsoft, IBM and Intel took advantage of independent developments of the IT revolution, yet they reap the vast amount of the bounty grown by the seeds of others.
The high standard of living and productivity in industrial nations is due to innovations that arise out of academia far more often than industry. Industry is great for making known products - but not for creating them.
And while economies of scale are great - the greater that scale, the greater the need for accountability. Because they do not exist in a vacuum. Accountability which private corporations do not offer unless a gun is held to their wallet. And the private financial services conglomerates are the worst offenders of all.
And while small firms individually may not be able to provide modern economies of scale, it is misleading to suggest that the only alternative are large corporations. Consortia, syndicates and other methods of industrial organization can provide them as well, but the deck has been stacked against them, and have no institutional support to create such alternatives on a scale equal to megas.
Sure, because every company with a dozen+ employees is a multinational megacorporation. The ones with a dozen thousand employees are the issue.
But that is their main source of power - attempting to disallow alternative production methods or organizations so people are forced to rely upon their products if they want to partake in modern society. So yes, I am typing this on a netbook made by a multinational. But I can honestly say that is the most expensive thing that I own that was made by one. And the first thing I did after I bought it was load up Ubuntu, Open Office and other open source software that I use.
Also my grocery bill is about 50% higher than the bare minimum since I spend it on as many local and/or fair trade products as my income will allow. And I consider that money well spent since I feel it reflects the actual cost to produce those goods sustainably.
Good Post!
The regulations and taxes are actually more harmful to the small business than the big business, and has driven many to bankruptcy. Not surprisingly, a lot of these mega corps had a hand in tailoring these regulations, which allows them grow even bigger as their smaller competitors fall to the wayside. Mega corps, due to scale can find loopholes to evade taxes while the small business is not so fortunate. Then they get so big that they pose a risk factor to the country if they go under.
Also, a lot of these mega corps and investment banks have a hand in funding who we pick from to be president. Pick Obama, their backing him, and interestingly, pick McCain, and the same parasites are also backing him.
What we need is campaign finance reform, and to disallow any corporation or large outfit, bank etc to have a say in elections when through their power are able to sway via the media the American people. And to also break up the too big to fail so that they do not pose a risk to the country, which would be for the greater good of the country.
Nonetheless, I truly think it is too late for all that anyhow and they will take the ship down with them before they give an inch of power or wealth back to the people of this country, which, it is this country that allowed them the position they are in to begin with
Efficient for whom?
Efficient for maximizing profits for their pockets.
I don’t see how it is very efficient when the products are made as cheap as possible in return for maximum profits.
Efficiency would entail making the highest quality product that would last the longest and reduce the garbage going to the dumpsters.
But when you have people making 50 cents a day making plastic low quality crap, their not going for efficiency but profit.
When you have planned obsolescence including in the design, your not going for efficiency but maximizing profits.
The only reason small business are not able to compete, is not because of efficiency, but mass of scale where pennies and nickel accumulations add up.
There is nothing efficient about the CEO - Shareholder model at all.
True, then where we really need to look is US GOV policy which both sides have been promoting for their globalist agenda, while dividing sides as if they are for either side. They use greed as a tool to shape and form the world on how they wish to see it, and many people are willing to oblige. Policies like NAFTA, WTO, GATT etc provide more power and control to these control freaks, and it has been both sides doing it.
Except that we were a lot poorer. Define “just fine.”
As we’re not omnipotent we cannot see that we’d be plunged something like the current economic crisis. Its not like you have to work for a decade more and have a 25% cut in pensions.
Not necessarilly. Many “mobs” in the past were often led and encouraged by members of the government.
I understand that just fine, or poor as in your case is quite subjective so then we get into how one wishes to define the well being of a country. You say we were poorer and I say we were fine, meaning a higher quality of life, while I will assume you mean less money, which drives the distinction between the two percepts.
As I also pointed out above, being with a small employer was better because of the personal nature also, rather than just being another x employee.
We could use the governmental and business definition of well being, being, GDP as an indicator, but GDP has many limitations when it comes to actually measuring the well being and health of a country.
GDP does not take into account wealth distribution nor does it take into account the exploitation of resources (oil and Saudi Arabia) nor miss-allocation of investments like the historic bubbles we have gone through in the past. It does not take into account projections of growth either which I would find quite important.
GDP ignores everything that happens outsides the realm of monetary exchange, using only the models expenditure, income or product approach, which does not define the life and well being of a nation.
GDP counts negatives as positives even when they are detrimental the nation as a whole. For example, would you consider increased healthcare costs a positive or negative for the well being of the country?
A more preferable model would be the GPI - Genuine Progress Indicator
So how are we doing in terms of the GPI?
http://lobbyingcongress.org/charts/gdi_v_gdp.html
It looks like the quality of life has been pretty much flat since the 1950’s using the above metrics.
But not the ones you’re referring to, as you know.
Oh no. Not the profits are evil argument again.
If they made the highest quality product possible, few people would be able to afford them.
I wish I had a graph to show the life span of many products dating back to 1930’s
I have many friends that still have an old fridge from the 70’s still going while they have replaced the new ones after 3 years.
They were able to afford those just fine then, and they lasted as long if not longer, so that refutes your argument.