A big company could offer their services at the lower cost and on a larger scale since they have the money to back them. The product offered by the bigger company doesn't even have to be the better product so long as it's the more readily available. The advertising a big company can put in can function to be more convincing that a person should buy their crap over any quality product.
If people want products that are more readily available, then it's the consumer who profits from buying more readily available products from the big corporations. Big corporations under a free market are big because people want their products. If you believe the products aren't worth their value in one way or another, then it's up to you to persuade others.
No they only have to make sure the people buying the product think this and they would be free to use any underhanded dirty tactic they want to in order to accomplish this.
Sort of like Mac computers?
We can't assume that everyone buying a product is misinformed as to what the quality of the product really is. Some people may want the product because it was cheaper, despite lower quality, some people may want the product because they have had good experiences with the company in the past, and others may want the product because they don't know better. However, we can't assume that everyone buys a product for the same reasons.
We must also understand that not all small businesses are good. If a big corporation sells a cheaper product that is less quality than the product coming from a small business, one could argue that we should regulate the big company so people will buy more of the expensive product. However, we must remember that the small company could be using incredibly expensive materials for products that don't need to be top tier quality.
For example, what if a small business used a rare metal for disposable razors that cost 4 times the price of disposable razors from big corporations? Now, the product may or may not last 4 times longer, but really it's up to the people to figure out what they need, not the government. If the people want to pay less for big corporation razors, then they can buy the cheaper razors.
Also, remember, every time you use the government to raise the price of a product to make the market more "fair", you're forcing consumers to pay more, which leaves them with less money to spend on other goods, which also harms other businesses.
A big corporation can use it's larger influence issuing bullying tatics to deface a small company trying to gain ground in the same area if unrestricted. A corporation has the bigger voice and has no issue using that voice to do whatever it wants to crush anyone who get's in their way.
Shouldn't advertising be considered a form of speech? If we can use speech to push our political agendas, then why not to push products? I believe marketing should be handled in the same way we handle free speech. If a business tells lies about another company, then we should handle it as if it was one person telling lies about another person.
From what I can tell we are regulating the wrong way around the big corporations are getting the free ride when they neither need nor deserve it, while the smaller companys are getting put under a strangle hold.
It's hard to determine what the "right" and "wrong" way to regulate is, especially since many of the best intentioned forms of regulation have results ranging from disastrous effects to subtle negative effect.
It's easy to look at the big corporations and to determine ways to help small corporations, but it's also easy to forget about the consumer. If the government wants to raise the prices of a big corporation's goods so that smaller businesses may thrive, then we must also remember that consumers have to pay more for goods. The more the consumer pays for these goods, the less he has to buy other goods.
As one get's more responsibilities in life we have to follow more rules. It's ridiculous to shut a little girls lemonade stand down because of the lack of a license but it isn't to do this to a big lemonade company that operates nation wide. You need the extra rules in place because more can go wrong on the larger scale.
It's like how a small group of people could operate effectively under an anarchy but use that on a large scale like a city and we end up with major problems.
Hope I explained myself okay that time.
I feel that that companies will naturally inherit responsibilities that are already present. If corporations are held liable for shipping problems, then so should the little lemonade stand. Obviously the lemonade stand doesn't ship, so there are no worries.
I saw a video about a woman who owned a small ice cream shop. She used real strawberries and other fresh ingredients. A health inspector said that her food didn't meet mold requirements and that she needed to fix the problem. He suggested that she start using strawberry syrup and other alternatives because it's nearly impossible to keep mold levels down otherwise. The problem is that all her customers have been satisfied with the ice cream.
Not only that, but bigger government will sometimes abuse their programs for personal agendas.
Illegal Apples.I'll look more into this event later because I'm sure I'm getting some of the terminology and details wrong, but the idea should be the same.
