Far too often corporations are demonized for making money and are called greedy, selfish, and even oppressive. They have people at the top who make far more money in a one or a few years than most people will make in their lifetime. Corporations seem not to care about any individual employee in the workforce because there are just so many that they can either be replaced or ignored without too much of a problem at any given time. Corporations look for the way to make the most money and will up and leave any current location to go to any other if wages and other costs tend to be less. To a certain extent, all of the above can be true. All of these reasons and many other lead some people to say that corporations are an enemy.
Those who support corporations tend to say that corporations provide jobs for many people and thus having a corporation in your community increases the income of the entire town / region because of people having jobs and thus money to spend in their own towns. Corporations, unlike small shops, can afford the lofty costs of research and development in order to make advances in technology and refine existing methods and processes which cost vast sums of money and promise no guarantee of a return on such an initial investment. Corporations also buy failing small companies who have good ideas / employees but for some reason are failing (mismanagement, no marketable product, etc.) thus keeping ideas and workers employed. Those who make these and other similar claims are also correct.
Corporations are really no different than an individual in that we all look for a good deal, do not want to spend a lot, decide on a mixture of quality vs. costliness and want to do more with less. Many people frequent corporations and corporate enterprises like WalMart, Target, and so on because of the prices and possibly the selection. When people continue to frequent such places there is only one thing that can happen: the corporation makes a profit and thus grows. Then people, many times the same people who shop there, manufacture outrage at the idea of such a mega-corporation like WalMart who ‘puts smaller stores out of business’. So, as many people shop at the corporation we are reminded that they provide a service to people and the people respond to the offer of service by frequenting the stores; then we are reminded of the evils of the corporation as some smaller businesses fail because they can not compete.
Now let’s take a look at this situation as if you owned a small business, or if you work of any business at all. You have a product or service you wish to sell. You have a price which is competitive. You have either a marketing team or hire a marketing firm too help advertise to get your name and product / service know to the town / region. The competition revises their strategies as appropriate. You do well and take market-share away from some of the competition, resulting in one of your competitors to close their door. You and the rest of the remaining competition pick up that market share they still had as well as you hire some of the more adept staff from the old business in order to assist you in making money. This goes on for a few cycles and another competitor fall to the way side. You open up a larger web-presence and have people ordering from online. This online ordering can affect sales from around the country and indeed possibly the world. Competition is pinched again. You expand to a second location, forcing the competitors to take even more notice. You hire more people, sell more product, and things are good.
Question 1: When is it your duty, responsibility, or concern to help out the competition to keep them in business?
Question 2: Would your own employees like it if you couldn’t pay them, give them raises, etc. because you didn’t want to make more money?
Question 3: If you’re a publicly owned company, would your shareholders (read: partial OWNERS) appreciate you giving quarter to competition who would take your market share if possible?
Question 4: Would the town / region appreciate losing the jobs and tax revenue because you didn’t take the idea of making a profit seriously? There’s never a promise when a business leaves that another will take its place.
Some will argue that my scenario is for a more local or regional business and not a multinational corporation. They are wrong. The same situations apply, but they are on a larger scale. The worst thing we are seeing now is that we have loads of politicians, from both parties in the US, falling over themselves to give the money of the citizenry into the hands of either the inept or the corrupt in business. Two things should be remembered about why having a business go broke is not a bad thing: Either the business is not competitive and this the product should either be made elsewhere or not at all, or when the failing / corrupt are removed an entrepreneurial force may reform the business / product and bring new life and ideas to the table. Either way, the death of a business is a natural thing. Is anyone upset that the government didn’t bail out the horse-drawn buggy business because of the competition from the automotive industry? Should we have fed money to home-delivered milk services when they declined? Did people lose their jobs, career, and means of living? Did we, as a whole, do just fine in the end?
I’m opposed to government intervention on behalf of businesses because of that: The market (read: WE the people) speaks and if those listening are too slow / stupid / corrupt to act upon our words and actions, then we will go elsewhere until those businesses catch on, or fail and others come in and are more receptive. No business has my ‘loyalty’ because no business would ever be ‘loyal’ to me. They are not friends, though the people who work in one may be. They are not my enemies; I understand their purpose and function and know how to deal with them.
Government intervention to preserve failing businesses is an act of idiocy – this fact remains the same regardless of which party is for it. One of the biggest reasons that business is LESS dangerous than the government is that when a business is so obviously inept or corrupt the business will go under and die. When the government suffers from such ailments taxes are raised, services cut and excuses made. Both entities, government and businesses, want to preserve their being, but only one will fold under normal conditions, and so that is the one I will favor because of this mortality.
Remember these things when the government wants to get involved with businesses and provide services to us, the people. The government looks to preserve and for many, expand its existence — for better and worse.
Zeno Sees, Zeno Writes 