Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

joanwestenberg.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 313 posts

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#61

Post by jariel »

howaboutnope wrote: post #4

> The so-called accumulation of capital which gave birth to the bourgeoisie changed the very conception of property and wealth: they were no longer considered to be the results of accumulation and acquisition but their beginnings; wealth became a never-ending process of getting wealthier. The classification of the bourgeoisie as an owning class is only superficially correct, for a characteristic of this class has bee…

"a Commonwealth based on the accumulated and monopolized power of all its individual members necessarily leaves each person powerless,"

? It was like that way before the 'bourgeois' ever even existed.

Roman Empire? Charlemagne? Louis XIV? Habsburgs?

The problem with these Enlightenment era definitions is they fail to take into consideration that the quest for power has been there since the start, it was just never generally available to the merchant class.

i.e. the notion that the Roman Empire wouldn't fit any of these social distinctions doesn't quite add up - it's just that those wanting power had to take on perfunctory civic roles and be involved in politics in order for their mercantile quests to thrive.

The other thing missing from these quotes is ahem Adam Smith: trade, economies of scale, division of labour, comparative value etc. create enormous value and most of that value ends up in the hands of consumers.

The Nobility were beaten by the Merchants because the Nobility were only interested in control, the Merchants created a lot of value.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#63

Post by quasirandom »

kevincox wrote: post #52
quasirandom wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cases, growth is evidence that you've solved a problem in a way people find compelling. Look at Signal. I think its growth is a really positive development.

But you can only grow for so long. There is a limited demand for basically any good. Signal is clearly not at that level, so I am glad that they are growing, especially if they aren't sacrificing much just for growth. (Although IM isn't the best example either because more adoption makes the product better in a way that many products don't). However look at Apple. For a large part everyone in the US who wants an iPho…

It's true. At some point marginal incentives tilt away from problem solving and towards something else.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#65

Post by beyondcompute »

Just remember that during the “growth” company apparently delivers useful goods and services (otherwise people wouldn’t pay it money). In the process company might increase customers’ standard of living and productivity which in turn causes positive effects and growth elsewhere.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#66

Post by rtx »

kevincox wrote: post #48
RivieraKid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maximizing profit is a good thing.

Why? The only answer I see is that you make more money. But it is well understood that money doesn't lead to happiness. What if your company was making enough money that you could pay everyone worked there generous salaries and your customers are happy. If you product is complete I don't see the need to add more. Why not let everyone work half time, and continue to deliver an excellent and focused product. Slowly add…

We could add more people to share the happiness.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#67

Post by bmitc »

lnsru wrote: post #16

There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.

Your analogy does not work. The growth of a forest is different from the growth of a company, which seeks to maximize revenue and profit, often via more customers or exploring existing customers.

A forest on the other hand maintains a steady state. Okay, trees continue to grow, but forests have natural ways of ensuring that trees and the other flora do not over occupy. A forest maintains balance, whereas many companies want to eat the world.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#68

Post by jeofken »

RivieraKid wrote: post #27
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes – until you bring the stock market and investors into the picture. Oftentimes, companies will have a legal obligation to their stockholders to (attempt to) maximise profit…

Maximizing profit is a good thing.

It’s a virtuous cycle which allows anyone to spend part of their wage investing and one day retire.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#69

Post by bmitc »

sxg wrote: post #49
lm28469 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same with business: business is growing or dying I know plenty of people with small businesses that are neither growing nor dying, just paying the bills and making enough money to live happily. I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest... Not everything has to be the next facebook and have 100% yoy growth

Maybe those companies don't have net growth, but they still need some sort of growth. Regardless of what industry you're in, every business will face inevitable losses—customers will decide to leave, inflation will occur, equipment will need to be repaired/replaced, etc. Those losses need to be offset by growth. While net positive growth isn't necessary, it is a major motivator for launching your own business. If you…

That’s not what people mean by growth of a company. That’s maintaining a balanced, viable system.

Re: Businesses should try to be the best, not the biggest

#70

Post by lnsru »

lm28469 wrote: post #32
lnsru wrote: post #16

There are 2 states in the forest: growing trees and rotting trees. Nothing in between. So this cancer analogy is a bit absurd. The same with business: business is growing or dying, I am not buying “we don’t want grow” argument.

> The same with business: business is growing or dying I know plenty of people with small businesses that are neither growing nor dying, just paying the bills and making enough money to live happily. I'm kind of scared that people can't even imagine this is a possibility to be honest... Not everything has to be the next facebook and have 100% yoy growth

It’s weird when 30 years old company has only 10 employees while working in wide industrial automation field. The owner is just too lazy to go out of town and look for some new customers.
Post reply on HN