To follow up on my comments in the last thread, here's a little attempt at irony.
I'm sure that RDC will be along shortly to fact-challenge my assumptions. (Fact-challenged assumptions = common sense. ;)
The reason small businesses are conservative icons, is that I think conservatives know in their hearts that they are the quintessential pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, work hard and get ahead kinds of businesses.
Especially Mom and Pops.
I think in their heart of hearts, most conservatives realize that not all big business is purely capitalism. Because of their ability to buy patronage and campaigns and interests (otherwise known as lobbying) they are helped in their efforts to expand. There are monopolistic aspects to big business -- special prices, exclusives, favoritism, that seem to me undeniable.
Besides, no one has ever sufficiently explained to me why it is fair for big business to get better prices because they buy more; it seems a little too much like "might makes right" to me, no matter how you rationalize it.
If I was six foot four and you were five foot four, and I demanded two thirds of the watermelon, you'd hardly think it was right.
Anyway, most Mom and Pops get little or no help.
But the same conservatives who tout small business will often shop at big business because they save a few bucks. Even though they know that small businessman is a neighbor and is likely to spend his money locally.
They'll complain about small differences in prices.
Whereas, I'd be willing to bet that most of the Shop Local supporters are bleeding heart liberals.
Big business to me is not conservative -- it is aided and abetted by big government.
Small business is almost always a local thing --
So who's conservative and who's liberal?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Big business started out as small business.
Take a look at the big businesses of today. How many were big businesses 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago?
How many of big businesses have failed in the past 10 years?
The key is that you let businesses grow, you let them compete, you let them innovate and if they are not successful you let them fail.
Allowing companies to fail creates room for others to grow and new ones to be created.
Hate to burst your bubble burt there are no retail monopolies. There isn't one with over 20% market share for that matter. The largest Walmart topped out at 13.9% and has dropped back to 13.4%. Take a look at Walmart. When it started out it was a single store. It did not have the purchasing power it has today. It had much larger competitors such as KMart, Sears, etc. How was it successful. Basically by developing and executing a number of strategies:
1. It started by putting stores into areas that its competition thought was too small to support a store.
2. It focused on inventory turns and only stocked product that had high demand
3. It focused on its supply chain it went direct to manufacturers at a time when a lot of sales was done through middlemen, manufacturer reps, wholesalers, etc.
4. It built its own distribution system chopping out wholesalers in almost all product lines. Even when wholesalers are used (pharmaceuticals) it routes the product through its own warehouses.
5. It used the above methods to compete on price.
It was successful it growing to the number one sport, just as Sears did before it. Now its model is nolonger innovative and it is starting to lose share.
You are right in one aspect big government means big regulation and that favors large established companies.
However it is the Liberals tend to love regulation. If you really look at most regulations their impact is to make it more difficult for someone to enter or grow a business. Large companies may pay a price for regulation, but for small businesses the cost is often lack of ability to progress.
Take for example Sarbannes Oxley. The regulation put into place in response to Enron. A regulation that was designed to make it easier to prosecute CEO's of companies. Of course it has not been successful and the one major case (that of health south) that was brought under it failed to get a conviction (the Enron and other convictions occured under already existing prior law). Its real impact is that equivalent of money lost in the World Com and Enron scandals is spent each year by companies in complying with the law. Money that could be spent on many many other things. Also note that prior to Sarbannes Oxley companies could go public and have access to that method of funding once they reached around 200 million or so in sales, today they generally need to be in the multibillion dollar range.
Companies in that range is usually where a lot of jobs are created. I wonder how much of an impact that is having.
Duncan you have seen the changes in what a small business has to go through. When I started my first business you could start pretty much by filing a doing business as form and be off an running. Last time I looked it would cost probably 10X more even adjusted for inflation. How many people has the increased complexity prevented from trying to do a startup themselves.
Just try and start up a business in an area that has a state regulatory board (a board ususally staffed by existing business owners) Yep they really have an interest in making it easy for others to enter the business and compete.
I don't think I've put two minutes thought into regulation in all the time I've been in business.
It's a non-issue.
"Besides, no one has ever sufficiently explained to me why it is fair for big business to get better prices because they buy more"
It isn't a question of fairness; it's a question of having more bargaining muscle.
But most small businesspersons are conservative because (I believe) they see themselves as members of the capitalist class. Even though big business may be screwing them six ways from Sunday, they act politically as if their interests are identical. And right-wing politicians are good at exploiting this attitude.
"1. It started by putting stores into areas that its competition thought was too small to support a store."
And ruthlessly crushed the local competition for miles around -- you left out that part.
HBM,
Actually it grew by keeping moving the size of shopping hub cities from the 75,000 that K-Mart and other similar stores was using at the time, down to 25-50,000. THe kept tose consumers in the local town and kept them from traveling to the hub city.
AS far as crushing the competition, that is what businesses do, if they can.
Duncan,
Nice to know that you haven't had to concern your self about ADA especially when setting up a store or doing any remodeling.
Luckily Oregon doesn't have sales tax so you do escape a large chunk there.
Since all of your employees are part time you don't have to deal with the issues and regulations concerning Retirement plans and medical plans.
Being in retail you don't have to deal with state licensing board unlike a number of other businesses.
I would expect that you have spent far more then 2 minutes worrying about the IRS for Federal Income taxes, State Taxes, and FICA. You have certainly spent more time then that talking about tax issues.
The good news is that you are small enough that you don't have to file reports to OSHA and you haven't had to deal with workers comp.
"AS far as crushing the competition, that is what businesses do, if they can."
Yes, they do. There is no dispute that Wal-Mart's practices worked very well for Wal-Mart and the Walton family. Whether they worked so well for the communities Wal-Mart invaded is another question.
"AS far as crushing the competition, that is what businesses do, if they can."
That's just not true, on a local basis.
Lots of local business try hard not to be cutthroat. Some even attempt to cooperate.
I held off carrying new books for years because of the Book Barn. I've learned that Wabi Sabi consciously decided not to carry much anime and manga because I was carrying it.
And so on.
Bastards are bastards -- and the bigger the bastard, sometimes the bigger the store the bastard owns.
But he's still a bastard.
Screw that. I'm happy with myself and my approach to business...
The point is that businesses compete. They try and take market share if they decide to enter that business. Usually they tend to balance out. But now really do you think that one car dealer in town would not want or be willing to take business from another.
When you make a decision about the competition and decide not to stock product that is a decision. In most cases with your business you are not in a position to really take business away from another. If anything you tend to lose business to a business that focuses in a specific area.
Have you ever told a customer not to buy from your store but to go to another one because that store was on the verge of going out of business? I don't think so. You have often talked about start ups taking business away and how you adjusted your niche of product to compensate and how you have gotten business back when they failed. That is why you have been successful because you adjust the store to fit into a niche.
Now with that said there are some business that actually improve. for example studies show that if you have mlutiple fast food establishments close together overall volume goes up so it is not always a fixed sized pie situation.
Now in the case of WalMart they really do not target other businesses. They do not go and say that going to carry product X and drive this small store out of business. They do execute their business plan and they do try and attract shoppers. If in doing so other companies fail then it happens. if they do focus on competition it is with companies of similar scope (Target, KMart, etc.)
Post a Comment