Re: Sustainable competition LO1682

jack@his.com
Mon, 19 Jun 95 21:41:38


Doug Blair questioned my assertion that capitalism contains a grow or die
imperative. He asked: "Why is this an imperative? The need to improve and
compete, yes. But to grow? I don't particularly see it." He then
declared: "I suspect we just don't hear about successful stable privately
held ones, and assume they don't exist. Since they are interested in
income rather than growth (often read as capital appreciation), they tend
to be quiet regional or local partnerships and family owned operations."

When I speak of capitalism, I mean of course businesses that are based on
the investment of capital with a hope of return. Such businesses, whether
large or small, must grow or die. Family businesses, in which the
investment constitutes little more than a worker's purchase of his tools
will also have to grow as the family grows. Those of us who grew up in
them know about that first hand.

Indeed, many successful family businesses have grown to be very large
companies only to perish when the families involved refused to expand
further, since that would have meant external investment (going "public")
and dilution of family ownership/control.

I know this is going very far afield for this list, but since it is clear
that many of us have an interest in the "competitive" position of
businesses, we need to explore what we mean and expect out of
"competition". I know assertion does not make it so, but I have never met
a businessman who sought stability by denying growth.

--
Jack Hirschfeld
jack@his.com

Would you like to swing on a star, carry moonbeams home in a jar and be better off than you are? Or would you rather be a mule?