shirgall Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 It's definitely the case that if large organizations can see value in limiting competition by engaging the state more cheaply than competing, they will do it. In fact, it is their fiduciary responsibility to do so. I have a niggling feeling that the key problem here is limited liability and a lack of mindfulness amongst stockholders. If everyone in an organization is personally liable for the effects of that organization, I suspect no organization could afford to get so large as to encounter this vicious circle. 1
TheRobin Posted September 4, 2014 Posted September 4, 2014 In a free market, all you try to do (and all you can do) is create a good enough win-win-situation with your customers by offering them something they value more than the money it costs for them to buy it. The end of another company not being able to make as good an offer is hardly then end of their emplyees. If that kind of competition to try and create the most positive situation for customers is a problem then we'd also stop having wifes/husbands as that would just be another way of comepting. (Or everyone would need to be morally obligated to sleep with everyone who wants them, yikes). In my opinion, just like Alfie Kohn, you seem to not seperate the win-lose competition (like a sportsmatch) from win-win creating competition (like trying to satisfy customers more than other people). (p.s that' just after watching the first 4 minutes, so if you retract those statemends ideas later, then ,obviously, forget waht I said)
Recommended Posts