(Image by The merger of T-mobile and Sprint is a bad idea. It was blocked in the Obama Era. The Trump administration is allowing it. Bigger-- too-big is problematic. It is not desirable. Nature operates in moderation, in finite systems. We should apply the lessons) Details DMCA
The merger of T-mobile and Sprint is a bad idea. It was blocked in the Obama Era. The Trump administration is allowing it.
Bigger"---"-too-big is problematic. It is not desirable. Nature operates in moderation, in finite systems. We should apply the lessons of nature to the way we regulate businesses. Too big is abnormal. It is malignant"---"-a kind of gigantism.
While I believe that bigger is unhealthy, bad for consumers, bad for democracy, and even bad for capitalism, I do believe that companies can cooperate with each other to be more successful.
The problem is, our economic system still operates in what is becoming an archaic top-down model. The future is bottom-up. That means that instead of fighting for total domination, at the top of the hierarchy, companies should be seeking to succeed with interdependence and cooperation"---"-bottom-up traits.
That DOES mean that companies will not get so big. But there are ways that strong, growing corporations can take bottom-up approaches to synergize, cooperate and coordinate with other strong or struggling companies.
This is not obvious because there is little or no research on this, few if any models of how to do it. We need to invest a lot"---"-literally billions of dollars"---"-into research and development, into academic exploration, of how to keep businesses smaller.
I believe that when this research is done, it will show that smaller is much better, based on many parameters. They include effects on local communities, profitability, worker quality of life, product and economic diversity and consumer choices.
Let's look at some of the arguments FOR mergers, as described in an article by Kimberlee Leonard, The Advantages of Company Mergers.
Leonard points out that mergers can help:
-companies big and small to break into new markets-- categories or regions.
-companies better serve customers by adding products and services
-facilitate financially and resource-wise the development of new products
-tap personnel skills and knowledge resources to build markets, create products
-with economies of scale: "meaning the cost to produce and distribute the same item reduces as the market share increases. Additionally, as companies merge, overall revenues increase, making the end company much stronger financially to obtain credit, investors and strategic alliances."
It seems screamingly clear to me that all of these advantages could easily be achieved by applying the basic bottom-up concepts of cooperation, interdependence, open-ness, transparency and sharing.
Mergers are driven by top-down ideas and values, including domination, control, secrecy, exclusion, elite, centralization, with unsustainable unlimited growth and the goal of winning by elimination of the competition. These approaches are bad for people, for the environment, for workers, for competition and even for capitalism, which depends on a wide-open market, not megalithic giants that have the power to distort balances.
Humanity, living under top-down authoritarianism as a cultural norm, may see bigger as better, bigger as desirable. But it was not always that way and it is a dead-end that is far from the only option.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).