Corporatism Generali Style

Generali

I've had a bee in my bonnet for a while about the modern corporatism that has replaced Capitalism.

Basically my argument boils down to the fact that if you introduce expensive obligations for companies to follow then only big firms can afford the compliance costs, smaller firms are driven out of business.

The advantages are great: the party of Government gets to show how they are tough enough to force through tough stuff to bring Fat Cat Business to heel; small companies are driven out of business allowing big companies to push up their margins at the expense of customers.

Here's an example:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2151795

On the face of it, the small BS is the villain of the piece - jacking up rates and tearing up contracts. The reality is that the Government has decided to screw the little solvent guys in favour of the big insolvent ones and force the little firms towards insolvency by their actions.

It stinks.

purch

It stinks

Sounds like somebody is feeling homesick for snow, ice, freezing fog and traffic chaos :eek:

Thrugelmir

These are exceptional times. Many believe that QE has fixed the banks. Low interest rates for borrowers are a given right. When all we seem to be doing is creating yet more problems for the future. If people are complaining now I wonder what will happen when times really do get tough.....

There's already a couple of threads on N&P. So won't go over the ground again. Except to say that as a mutual society N&P has a duty to treat all its members both savers and borrowers is a fair and equitable manner. On commercial grounds it makes sense for them to change the rules. As much as those with low rate life time trackers complain about it.

( I have a life time tracker with offset facility, with another small mutual building society myself. So in effect am shooting myself in the foot by agreeing with the N&P's proposals).

abaxas

So bascially you are talking about anti Thatcherism?

No inovation and hence no GDP growth?

Stagflation it is then.

Wookster

One of the hallmarks of today's world is that competition means that those doing better grow bigger and become stronger. We are now in a place where monopolies of sort have come to dominate the high street: e.g. Tesco/ Sainsbury/ Cisco/ Lloyds/Hbos etc.

Having 4 dominant players control 95% of a particular market share is pretty much a monopoly in my eyes.

I think the real barrier to entry is around purchasing power and economies of scale, rather than regulations, though the regulatory framework certainly doesn't help.

This is the biggest problem with capitalism - that there are no perfect or free markets. So far there no really good remedies to this problem.

abaxas

Wookster wrote: »

One of the hallmarks of today's world is that competition means that those doing better grow bigger and become stronger. We are now in a place where monopolies of sort have come to dominate the high street: e.g. Tesco/ Sainsbury/ Cisco/ Lloyds/Hbos etc.

Having 4 dominant players control 95% of a particular market share is pretty much a monopoly in my eyes.

I think the real barrier to entry is around purchasing power and economies of scale, rather than regulations, though the regulatory framework certainly doesn't help.

This is the biggest problem with capitalism - that there are no perfect or free markets. So far there no really good remedies to this problem.

I would disagree.

The issue with large business is that they cant move quickly enough to market conditions. One slip up and they are doomed. Take for example, AT&T, Microsoft, Yahoo, BT, Marconi.

Time change, markets change. Most big business cant cope with that.

Also never underestimate the power of bad publicity. One slip up and a huge company can go under.

Pennywise

Banks are happy to lend money to venture capitalists etc but won't lend to small businesses.

Small businesses are proportionally hit hardest by the regulations and bureacracy. Once a firm has grown big enough to be able to have in-house accountants and HR managers, employing more staff is fairly painless, except for cost. Compare that with the huge impact of the "one man" business employing his first employee. We've more "one man" businesses than ever before, but they aren't growing and we have to ask ourself why? The private sector has become polarised. At one end we have the likes of Tesco et al and at the other end we've millions of tiny businesses. The middle ground has all but disappeared. There is a real pain barrier for the smallest of businesses to grow and there is precious little real support for them to do so, neither from the banks nor the government agencies who are supposed to help them.

I keep saying it, but if only half of the smallest of businesses were somehow encouraged to take on just one employee, we'd have virtually no unemployment. That first employee is the pain barrier and the businesses would have fewer problems taking on their second, third, fourth employee etc. How about some proper support from the likes of Business Link - how about them issuing a "starter pack" with pro-forma employment contracts, H&S statements, unambiguous checklists showing what has to be done, etc - all they do at the moment is say "you need a contract of employment" and leave it to you to make it yourself, buy something off the net or engage an expensive solicitor - not really much help at all. Same with food hygiene, planning permissions, business rates, etc - all the likes of Business Link do is tell you that you need to check and refer you to the local council, who often can't give a definitive answer, so you spend hours ringing around trying to find someone who can give a proper answer. We need people in the business support agencies who know what's what - it's no good them just having a list of other agencies for you to contact.

Wookster

abaxas wrote: »

I would disagree.

The issue with large business is that they cant move quickly enough to market conditions. One slip up and they are doomed. Take for example, AT&T, Microsoft, Yahoo, BT, Marconi.

Time change, markets change. Most big business cant cope with that.

Also never underestimate the power of bad publicity. One slip up and a huge company can go under.

I don't think this applies to all sectors but to a great many. The search engine market is slightly different as its more technology based than based on an economy of scale, however, can anyone really take Bing (Microsoft) or Yahoo! as serious players in this market? Google owns >50% of all searches and the others are fighting over the scraps.

Yes, times and markets change, but it takes a long time for businesses to go under, especially if they are big and have significant cash reserves.

abaxas

Wookster wrote: »

I don't think this applies to all sectors but to a great many. The search engine market is slightly different as its more technology based than based on an economy of scale, however, can anyone really take Bing (Microsoft) or Yahoo! as serious players in this market? Google owns >50% of all searches and the others are fighting over the scraps.

Yes, times and markets change, but it takes a long time for businesses to go under, especially if they are big and have significant cash reserves.

What about dixons?

They are more f'ed than f'ed thing.

Thrugelmir

abaxas wrote: »

I would disagree.

The issue with large business is that they cant move quickly enough to market conditions. One slip up and they are doomed. Take for example, AT&T, Microsoft, Yahoo, BT, Marconi.

Time change, markets change. Most big business cant cope with that.

Also never underestimate the power of bad publicity. One slip up and a huge company can go under.

Many small businesses are spawned from larger ones. Where the market for a particular product or service is not considered worthwhile for the Corporate entity to invest in.

Generali

purch wrote: »

Sounds like somebody is feeling homesick for snow, ice, freezing fog and traffic chaos :eek:

Summer Christmas is effing weird. Very odd. My 4 y/o has come home singing this:

[SIZE=-1]Dashing through the bush
In a rusty Holden Ute
Kicking up the dust
Esky in the boot
Kelpie by my side
Singing Christmas songs
It's summer time and I am in
My singlet, shorts & thongs

[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]CHORUS:
OH, JINGLE BELLS, JINGLE BELLS
JINGLE ALL THE WAY
CHRISTMAS IN AUSTRALIA
ON A SCORCHING SUMMER'S DAY
JINGLE BELLS, JINGLE BELLS
CHRISTMAS TIME IS BEAUT
OH WHAT FUN IT IS TO RIDE
IN A RUSTY HOLDEN UTE[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Engine's getting hot
Dodge the kangaroos
Swaggy climbs aboard
He is welcome too
All the family is there
Sitting by the pool
Christmas day, the Aussie way
By the barbecue![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]CHORUS[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Come the afternoon
Grandpa has a doze
The kids and uncle Bruce
Are swimming in their clothes
The time comes round to go
We take a family snap
Then pack the car and all shoot through
Before the washing up[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]CHORUS[/SIZE]

Ute = pick up truck
Kelpie = dog
Singlet = vest
Thong = flip flop
Swaggy ~ hitch hiker

abaxas wrote: »

So bascially you are talking about anti Thatcherism?

No inovation and hence no GDP growth?

Stagflation it is then.

Thatcher had the right idea IMO, economically at least. Balance the budget and allow businesses to thrive by leaving them alone.

Socially she was an idiot or at least promulgated idiocy.

Wookster wrote: »

This is the biggest problem with capitalism - that there are no perfect or free markets. So far there no really good remedies to this problem.

You don't need 'perfect capitalism' as such, just better capitalism.