Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What do you think of the world around us?

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 7:46am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,118 posts

Knight

That's a dumb question. You can't compare the Internet which bring many good things and opens us to knowledge, narrows the borders with the music industry or drugs and insurance companies who abuse and treat their customers like garbage. I mean come on.

It's not a dumb question. Apple create the computers or phones you use to get onto the net for example, and yet we use them rather double standardly. Doesn't that show badly upon your view?

The music industry is solely an evil entity? People enjoy music as far as I know.

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 9:08am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,118 posts

Knight

That's a dumb question. You can't compare the Internet which bring many good things and opens us to knowledge, narrows the borders with the music industry or drugs and insurance companies who abuse and treat their customers like garbage. I mean come on.

I am not just comparing the Internet, but Internet devices. We
use devices made by Apple and other firms to get on the Internet for our benefit, yet these companies have histories of abusing their workers. Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? The clothes we wear, the fridge, TV, food we use, many are the products of companies that abuse their workers and the environment, yet we turn a blind eye to them. We can't claim to have the moral high ground, or condemn these companies without tainting ourselves with the same dirty brush. They all bring good things to us like you said, but they too are bullies. And so? Should we be quick to label all these corporations eveil without a tinge of shame?

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 11:47am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

I am not just comparing the Internet, but Internet devices. We
use devices made by Apple and other firms to get on the Internet for our benefit, yet these companies have histories of abusing their workers. Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? The clothes we wear, the fridge, TV, food we use, many are the products of companies that abuse their workers and the environment, yet we turn a blind eye to them. We can't claim to have the moral high ground, or condemn these companies without tainting ourselves with the same dirty brush. They all bring good things to us like you said, but they too are bullies. And so? Should we be quick to label all these corporations eveil without a tinge of shame?

I hear ya, buddy. But twill be a while before the Age of the Corporation falls and small businesses take back the market. Not only did the bigwigs take the technological side of things; smiths, lumberjacks, bowyers, gunsmiths, clothiers, merchants, they all fell to corporative power.

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 12:49pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,118 posts

Knight

I hear ya, buddy. But twill be a while before the Age of the Corporation falls and small businesses take back the market. Not only did the bigwigs take the technological side of things; smiths, lumberjacks, bowyers, gunsmiths, clothiers, merchants, they all fell to corporative power.

It's not a bad thing for corporations to exist based on economics, suh as economics of scale. People who slam them and think that only SMEs are good are daft.

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 1:00pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

It's not a bad thing for corporations to exist based on economics, suh as economics of scale. People who slam them and think that only SMEs are good are daft.

How so? Which would you prefer; an Italian teeshirt made of New Zealand wool, or a Chinese-made polyester shirt from Adidas?

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 1:20pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,118 posts

Knight

How so? Which would you prefer; an Italian teeshirt made of New Zealand wool, or a Chinese-made polyester shirt from Adidas?

I would prefer whichever has decent quality and is cheap. By far the most important aspect and advantage a large firm can reap is the numerous economies of scale as it moves to it's  minimum efficient scale.
Economies of scale are the cost advantages that a business can exploit by expanding their scale of production.  The effect of economies of scale is to reduce the average (unit) costs of production.

Large-scale businesses can afford to invest in expensive and specialist capital machinery. For example, a supermarket chain such as Tesco or Sainsbury’s can invest in technology that improves stock control. It might not, however, be viable or cost-efficient for a small corner shop to buy this technology.

A large firm can spread its advertising and marketing budget over a large output and it can purchase its inputs in bulk at negotiated discounted prices if it has sufficient negotiation power in the market. A good example would be the ability of the electricity generators to negotiate lower prices when negotiating coal and gas supply contracts. The major food retailers also have buying power when purchasing supplies from farmers and other suppliers.

Larger firms are usually rated by the financial markets to be more ‘credit worthy’ and have access to credit facilities, with favourable rates of borrowing. In contrast, smaller firms often face higher rates of interest on overdrafts and loans. Businesses quoted on the stock market can normally raise fresh money (i.e. extra financial capital) more cheaply through the issue of shares. They are also likely to pay a lower rate of interest on new company bonds issued through the capital markets.

A tiny firm won't be able to expand to national and global levels; we'd all be paying much more expensive prices for many products. For instance; computers. It would be implausible to have thousands of firms making and selling only a dozen units each day; firms won't be able to produce at cheap rates, which means the consumer pays high.

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 1:26pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

Your logic stops at Apple. Mass-produced, worldwide, but expensive.

Before the battle between small companies and large companies, it was just a battle of basic prices between similar trades. This was much more beneficial to the consumer, as most of the items were of the same quality, but the producer was lowering the price to compete with the "smith across the street".

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 1:40pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,118 posts

Knight

Your logic stops at Apple. Mass-produced, worldwide, but expensive.

Expensive yes, BUT it could have been much higher. A few years ago, phones cost a bomb, now they're expensive, but they're much cheaper. Ignoring basic economics in favor of relative arguments is also, a poor reasoning.

Before the battle between small companies and large companies, it was just a battle of basic prices between similar trades. This was much more beneficial to the consumer, as most of the items were of the same quality, but the producer was lowering the price to compete with the "smith across the street".

Yet in such "hacylon days" one did not have the vast range of choices we had today. One did not get to enjoy products that required piecing together all over the world. One could not purchase, say something as complex as a mouse, since a mouse is made up of so many components that is only made possible by a large corporation.

No, quality was not the same. Arrows, swords, etc, there was no way to guarantee a reliable quality check. Corporations with their scale production methods made this a possibility.

Small firms are still ideal in service industries, or niche markets; but larger companies do much more good than bad.

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 1:47pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,118 posts

Knight

Lets also tackle your "Apple is expensive" argument. A small firm will never be able to negotiate cheap prices with raw materials owners. This leads to increased costs. A small firm will also never be able to undertake the scale of R & D required to go into the making of such a product. A small firm will find it expensive to purchase equipment that is meant to churn out large amounts of phones due to the problems of indivisibilities. Some resources are not divisible and can not be purchased or operated under certain thresholds. Research facilities and advertising campaigns, for instance, require a minimum size.

Large companies are able to breakdown the production into smaller and separated tasks, employing the resources more efficiently. This efficiency comes both from the specialized workforce and from the specialized equipment and manufacturing processes. In a small firm, to assemble, make, research, market, design, pack the phone, it would likely take overlapping of labour which leads to increased inefficiency and hence increased cost of production.

A small firm also would likely to be viewed as less credit worthy than Apple; banks don't loan willingly, business fails.

 

Posted Sep 15, '12 at 1:48pm

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

Yet in such "hacylon days" one did not have the vast range of choices we had today.

Especially since in those days there were no brands, ergo no uniformity in clothing.

One did not get to enjoy products that required piecing together all over the world.

Like IKEA, the hated Scandinavian furniture store?

One could not purchase, say something as complex as a mouse, since a mouse is made up of so many components that is only made possible by a large corporation.

I don't know about you, but I buy my pets from breeders.

No, quality was not the same. Arrows, swords, etc, there was no way to guarantee a reliable quality check. Corporations with their scale production methods made this a possibility.

But back then you could kill the false dealer. What better incentive to work hard then death?

Small firms are still ideal in service industries, or niche markets; but larger companies do much more good than bad.

Agreed. What happens when they take the niches, though?

 
Reply to What do you think of the world around us?

You must be logged in to post a reply!