Yes, and that's why we should be taxing the hell out of these companies. It's not just about raising revenue. It's about allowing other companies to compete with them.
Anybody can compete, but apparently most of us choose not to. Who forces a young talent to settle for a job instead of taking the risk to innovate ? Maybe risk-taking for innovation is what could be the encouraged through taxation.
That's what some EU members think. Ask us how that's going :)
That's why most of the big and wealthy companies hare are around 100 years old or more, vs about 30 years old in the US.
Here in Austria you can get various government and EU grants for your startup and tax waivers on social security, and if by some miracle, you don't crash and burn like 95% of startups and manage to produce a semi-profitable company in the end, then you have to pay to the government retroactively all the social security contributions and taxes that have been previously waived over the past years, which is the final nail in the coffin for most companies here never growing or scaling beyond a couple of guys from uni in an apartment kind of company.
Therefore most of the innovation happens nearly exclusively within academia, as "outside" it's a pretty hostile tax environment that mostly favors those 100 year old companies that already have solid revenue streams.
I think that taxing large companies more than small ones might. The bedrock of capitalism is competition, and that is significantly stifled if big players with large amounts of capital can simply buy out anything innovative.
But I don't think we are evolved enough to deal yet. We'd just end up in a communist prison life or something as people selfishly try to get more for themselves. Roddenberry thought an event like finding extraterrestrial life would be the push humans need, but I'm not so sure anymore.
but dont quote me.
its also a plot device to let them talk about economics.
If someone can run a profitable business when money is hard to come by as a non-public company, it makes sense for a public company to buy them because they can get money much more easily and expand the smaller company's operations and make an even bigger profit. They can even run the company poorly and still make money because their money is cheaper.
Essentially, it's an information and regulation problem.
The best thing yet invented, taxwise, to counteract this advantage that big businesses have in attracting money is Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS)[1]. It' a great tax incentive program because it massively rewards people for investing in startups. It is highly targeted to encourage that and not be a general loophole.
[1]https://www.sba.gov/blog/qualified-small-business-stock-what...
Also, big companies are needed because there are technologies that cannot be produced by small companies. I do not understand recent tendency to make them look bad. Big companies are good for country and economy. Punishing companies for success is harmful for the progress.
I think letting market decide is better choice. Overregulation leads to decrease in competition and production.
Also, what is bad in it of big companies need to compete for talents? This competition leads for better opportunities and bigger salaries. I think it is good that person has a freedom of choice were to go.
Of course a lot of processes also scale with size. With a decent welfare system this greater efficiency could also be tapped to achieve widespread prosperity.
I don't see what makes cars more "democratic" or anti-trust as firmly on the "yeoman" side of things.
Not intrinsically, obviously, as anti-trust clearly shows. I am not anti-big intrinsically, for many of the reasons identified.
But I do think there are obvious downsides to be guarded against. If anything, as technology improves, technological barriers to entry should decrease and less big companies will be needed to work on certain advanced technologies.
A better way to promote innovation might be through cultivating a spirit of entrepreneurship in young people, supporting startup accelerators, and handing out grants to promising candidates like the one in the article.
I thought it was an interesting story as I heard it repeated among the students at the tournament. Many of the teams have sponsors who donate $1000s so the schools/clubs can buy parts, etc. They are trying to encourage interest in STEM. But if the story is true, one company could spend $1000000 and inspire 1000s of students, generating lottery psychology. Of course, one person could just make up such a story for $0 and achieve the same thing. But it amuses me to think of some altruistic billionaire having a little fun and doing such a thing.
Taxing large corporations seems like it would be an excellent way in which to fund such grants.
The 2-20%. Especially those who are W2 employees and have limited options for offsetting their taxable income.
And we know they’ve engaged in anticompetitive behavior among themselves when it comes to recruiting. I would be unsurprised to find out it still takes place.
But I think the point was monopoly power from their core products is the real issue, and that enables the astronomical salaries.
The fact that they pay the highest prices for people means they sure suck at it.