TED Conversations

chen xin

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

do you think that the world will end in the form of some big companies

after i read the book international investment ,i think maybe in the last we will all be involved in some big companies .how do yo think that .and please give your reasons .

Related Talks:
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • John Smith 30+

    • 0
    Oct 6 2012: Yes, definitely. Even today it's hard to find a store that's not owned by some franchise that's owned by a corporation that's part of a multinational megacorporation (or investment group). Car manufacturers have also fused, banks are getting even bigger then they already were. Technology corporations are fusing as well. Large corporations are more efficient, more ruthless, have larger reserves and can abuse loopholes more easily.
    • thumb

      Rick Ryan 10+

      • 0
      Oct 6 2012: That is directly in accordance with Game Theory about when there are 3 or more "players" in the "game", then agreements can be made between players to "gang up" on a competitor. Failures in the economic system can then occur, or acquisitions of the "losing" competitors by the "winning" competitors make those companies larger.

      But what happens if there is only ONE player? What if the world had one World Bank, with ONE "player" deciding how to manage the World Economy? Of course, this would only work if there were only one "country" too, with one "government"...a "United World" so to speak.

      Do the decision-making processes change then to prevent a total failure of the "United World"? What would we call that type of society/government? Democracy? Monarchy? Oligarchy? Anarchy? And what type of sub-category? Representative? Absolute? Aristocracy?

      Food for thought.

      • John Smith 30+

        • 0
        Oct 7 2012: As long as there is no libertarian coup antitrust legisaltion will prevent a monopoly. Why does game theory need 3 players, instead of 2?
        • thumb

          chen xin

          • 0
          Oct 7 2012: three is much better .or one .two is the worst
          i will give you a example i think when you are alone i think you are mostly peace .or when there are three just as the trangle theory stable !
          think your mother and your father may have a qurall when they are two ,while when you are born i think there are less qually especially when you grow up .because youcan stop them ,and you yourself is a side .maybe you should play the game 三国志 .i dont know how to say in english ,if you know please tell me
        • thumb

          Rick Ryan 10+

          • 0
          Oct 8 2012: Game Theory doesn't need 3 players. Two are fine. Three allows for "ganging up" against one, where two doesn't.



          I'm just confused by your first post. Antitrust legislation already exists, and when used as intended it works. But it hasn't prevented the fusing of smaller companies into bigger companies as you described in your first post. So I'm trying to figure out how you would apply it differently in Chen's "few big companies" topic.

          I can't figure out if you are saying it would be OK if the world ended up with just a few big companies or not.
  • thumb

    chen xin

    • 0
    Oct 6 2012: as we all know that many companies become strong in the way of eating other companies,like yahoo and google .i think as long as there is unequal ,however shtength ,assets,scope ,there will be eating .if we develope as this theory i think we wil all be involved in some big companies .and also there is a saying ： A good tree is a good shelter .do you think we can use these big things from the companies make a difference .
Showing all 6 comments