However size can determine whether you can do certain things. Unfortunately, small size prevents you from making profit from economy of scale, and so you must somehow differentiate with other attributes (such as personalized services).
But i think the market has spoken - large size business is more valuable and thus make more profit than a small sized business.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/businessfinance/a/sbatopten.ht...
9. Small businesses create more than 50 percent of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
From this it follows that "not-so-small businesses" create the other 50% of nonfarm private GDP, despite being only 0.03% of employers right? So what is the conclusion exactly?
This argument is like comparing the United States to the other 199 countries in the world and concluding that the US should represent 0.5% of world economic activity. It's mistakenly treating entities of vastly different sizes as equivalent in the same population set.
Not-so-small businesses do have slightly higher production per employee, but not that much more (assuming that "more than 50%" implies "less than the next round percent after 50").
What it really means is that 99.7small-business-size == 0.3large-business-size ==> not-so-small businesses average 330x as big as small businesses.
Which is perfectly understandable, for example my employer has something like 10k employees.
The market has spoken? Do you actually know anything about "the markets"? The first thing a company does when it can is start investing in politics so they can erect barriers against competition. The market hasn't said shit because it wasn't asked.