do you think there should be legislation on company size

piggeh

BT were split in half were they not? From memory due to anti-competitiveness.

I think in key industries it's important to ensure that monopolistic positions are not abused. At the same time collusion is even worse (eg Orange juice prices - the illusion of competition whilst in fact they've all agreed to charge similar).

bendix

lethal0r wrote: »

There wouldn't need to be bailouts if they weren't huge. Thats my whole point. Right now if a companies big enough, then "should" goes out the window.

So successful companies that grow through producing products people want at prices they are happy to pay should be curtailed? Are you related to Lenin, by any chance?

What do you do? Stop them selling? Stop them hiring?

Anyway, the debate is academic. Governments should keep their noses out, full-stop. If they fail, they fail. We either believe in capitalism, or we don't. What we have now is a state-sponsored authoritarianism meddling with capitalism, and it's ridiculous.

Either the state runs business (disastrous), or the market runs business. Every few decades capitalism will run wild and gorge itself and problems will occur as they do now; let it happen. It's a natural process. It will come back stronger as a result.

All this papering over the cracks is the worst possible strategy.

1echidna

Wouldn't work with natural resource companies which require large amounts of capital for specific investments.

Thrugelmir

lethal0r wrote: »

do you think the government should pass legislation to stop companies growing to such a size that they "cannot fail"? i.e. if they did fail they would cause such huge problems to the economy that they are bailed out by the government instead.

i am aware of anti-competitive measures such as the ones microsoft has fallen foul of, but dont think there are ones specifically to do with company size. perhaps they would specify a company is allowed no more than a certain % of whichever market they are in.

im not talking about banks specifically but I think this would be a great example of where such legislation would help.

thoughts?

Companies come and go.

Below are are the top 50 companies by market valuation as at 31st December 1984.

British Telecommunications
British Petroleum
“Shell” Transport & Trading
General Electric
BAT Industries
Imperial Chemical Industries
Glaxo Holdings
B.T.R.
Marks and Spencer
Beecham Group
Grand Metropolitan
Hanson Trust
National Westminster Bank
J. Sainsbury
Cable and Wireless
Barclays
Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation
Great Universal Stores ‘A’
Unilever
Bass
Land Securities
Plessey
Prudential Corporation
Racal Electronics
Boots
Standard Telephones & Cables
Imperial Group
Associated Dairies Group
Lloyds Bank
Royal Insurance
Sears Holdings
Trusthouse Forte
Allied Lyons
Distillers
Guardian Royal Exchange
Thorn E.M.I.
B.O.C. Group
Britoil
Trafalgar House
Consolidated Gold Fields
General Accident Fire & Life
Sun Alliance & London Insurance
Midland Bank
Reuters Holdings ‘B’
Legal and General Group
Reckitt & Colman
Hawker Siddeley Group
Whitbread
Cadbury Schweppes
Associated British Foods

Some familar names but surprising how many others have long disappeared.

lethal0r

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8119399.stm

it seems mervyn king agrees with my idea.

Thrugelmir

lethal0r wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8119399.stm

it seems mervyn king agrees with my idea.

Took him a few months to come out publicly and agree.

kennyboy66_2

bendix wrote: »

Are you related to Lenin, by any chance?

What do you do? Stop them selling? Stop them hiring?

.

Yet it is America who led the way in breaking up companies that were deemed to be to large.

Standard Oil
AT & T Bell.

In general we should only do it if the current status quo leads to less competition.

Thrugelmir

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Yet it is America who led the way in breaking up companies that were deemed to be to large.

AT & T Bell.

But the Belles are now owned by monopolistic companies (4 of 7 owned by same Company). So the regulations were bypassed in time.

purch

So the regulations were bypassed in time

Times change.

Once AT&T was too big.

So it was broken up

Then the smaller company's proved too small to compete in the rapidly changing 'digital' age.

So they merged/bought into larger company's

And so the cycle continues.