Yes, and one of the distortions was the continued use of big factories with centralized power sources that the steam era spawned, after the advent of electricity made decentralized self-contained workstations possible.
The legal structure of a corporation too is actually in itself a form of government-grant monopoly.
Economies of scale have their benefits, but also their limits, mainly with regard to product quality and organizational efficiency. I remember coming across the number of 125 people as the maximum that can efficiently cooperate as an organization, without deterioration of some sort taking place.
Smaller organizations that can maintain the human scale could be sufficient for employing all those who can't or won't be self-employed.
the issue here is not the size of the enterprise but the ownership of capital. most communists have no problem with big enterprises.
White Cloud:I remember coming across the number of 125 people as the maximum that can efficiently cooperate as an organization, without deterioration of some sort taking place.
Right, but numbers like that are arbitrary. There is no reason why firms can't become more efficient over time. It is not inconceivable that firms with 1000, or 10,000 are possible in a free market.
There are agent/principal issues in large firms, but that does not mean that agents should be removed in favour of an economy full of principals either. It is up to the market to determine the proper form and height of the division of labour. An economy comprised exclusively of principals is (in my opinion) undesirable.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
whats this fetish with small enterprise? these leftoids need to visit yemenese delis or talk to mexican pizzaboys before talking about corporations like a Tool cover band. as I said, small businesses are just as capitalistic as samsung or bmw.
I agree the market is perfectly capable of determining the optimal size of any given enterprise. I would expect a true free market to determine the average size a lot smaller than state corporatism does though. Very large firms have a natural tendency to get bureaucratized and institutionalized in the sense that Butler Shaffer talks about. In a free market this means less competitive, so it would soon be considered smart to spin off parts of a company before it becomes a leviathan.
I wasn't suggesting that all agents be removed in favor of principals, just that keeping a sense of human scale is beneficial to quality. I have no problem with capitalist ownership either, as long as it doesn't lead back to collectivism through a de-individuating, de-humanizing scale.
Some people have entrepreneurialism in their blood (like me), others couldn't live without a boss. I see plenty of win-win possibilities there that would naturally emerge from the market if only it weren't tied up in a gunvermint straitjacket. Some already do, in spite of all the restraint.
I'm no communist, and for me it's the other way around. Private ownership is fine with me, but enterprises do get too big under fascism and socialism.
I think anyone who's still a hard core communist in this day and age has missed the libertarian boat and isn't worth bothering with. My concept of the "radical left" doesn't quite extend that far, I guess.
White Cloud:I agree the market is perfectly capable of determining the optimal size of any given enterprise. I would expect a true free market to determine the average size a lot smaller than state corporatism does though.
See, I'm not sure I can get on board with that. Because while there are giant firms that survive in gigantor form because they are subsidized by the state, I don't think all large firms are subsidized by the state and small ones are not. Obviously, the corporate legal form is a big advantage, yet there are tens of thousands of small corporations. That too does not necessarily communicate something about size.
It's a libertarian hangup of mine, that while we don't judge a man by the colour of his skin, but by his actions, I don't think we should judge a company by its size, as much as how it operates. So the real analysis IMO should not be how big a firm is, but rather in what manner it operates, of which size is at best one of many characteristics of action.
White Cloud:Very large firms have a natural tendency to get bureaucratized and institutionalized in the sense that Butler Shaffer talks about. In a free market this means less competitive, so it would soon be considered smart to spin off parts of a company before it becomes a leviathan.
I agree. I think in a free market, there would be a lot more dynamism, a lot more creative destruction. The state suppresses change.
White Cloud:I wasn't suggesting that all agents be removed in favor of principals, just that keeping a sense of human scale is beneficial to quality.
Right, but what is a human scale? It sounds like a subjective preference I shouldn't have assumed your argument was for a very flat economy (which would suck IMO) but these sorts of arguments about firm size tend to lead in that direction. Agent/Principal is a problem to be dealt with, and some folks (not you) go to the extreme of saying eradicate it. Sort of like how some leftists refuse to acknowledge scarcity as reality.
White Cloud:I have no problem with capitalist ownership either, as long as it doesn't lead back to collectivism through a de-individuating, de-humanizing scale.
That's an interesting caveat. You're hedging against capitalism becoming non-capitalistic. What would the alternative be?
White Cloud:Some people have entrepreneurialism in their blood (like me), others couldn't live without a boss.
Even people who go to work for someone else are entrepreneurial, they are just expressing their entrepreneurship differently.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap