It seems we have been propelled into some sort of corporate dystopia between the USSR in the 1940s and the USA in the 1870s: government-sponsored corporations have once again taken over. However, unlike in the past, when change was made by group action--boycotts, sit-ins, rallies, and strikes--corporations have gotten wise to public activism and devised a system which seems impenetrable to the threat of public malcontent. I speak of the advent of the franchise.
The idea of the franchise is simple, really. It helps cut down on corporate organization by putting the workings of individual shops, stores, restaurants, and stations into the hands of an independent owner. In a franchise, the owner of the individual shop buys all their goods from the corporate HQ. The owner's job is to see that the consumer gets the goods that they are selling. The owner sets prices in order to make a profit. If returns are low, the owner is the only one affected. Corporate keeps their prices the same, and any trouble the owner has is up to the owner to fix by means of layoffs, downsizing, and financial reorganization. If the owner can't make the business work, the owner and his employees are the only people affected.
Now, the big, bad corporation doesn't have to worry about employment issues, balancing income, dealing with the IRS or the labor board; instead, the CEOs and CFOs can worry about the big picture and can cut out the small details. They can work on marketing, importation, and production and don't need to see their product go to the consumer. Any organized effort against their company is really an organized effort against small business owners dangling between the rage of the masses and the demands of the corporation.
So, if there were, say, a protest against buying Exxon/Mobile gasoline on a given date, the only people to feel the effect of the protest would be the small business owner. The corporation's fiscal charts wouldn't reflect any drop in sales because all their sales reflect the sales to businesses which are concerned chiefly with stocking their product with respect to corporate. The corporations wouldn't feel any blow to their wallets as the small business owner scrambles desperately to get out of the red--cutting pay and laying off workers.
It seems that franchise business is the new age of monopolies and trusts. But this time we face the difficult problem of balancing corporate greed with small business dependency. How can we preserve the businesses of the little guy while shaking up the corporation upon which he relies? Thus far, I don't have any answers, just questions and observations.
Think!!! How did the corporations get there products in the first place. FROM SMALL INDEPENDENT jane and joe's just like you and I. So you want to get rid of BIG BROTHER GREED, then start supporting your independent farmers, start helping your lowely inventors by setting up a site to fund there ideas which can be sold by franchise owners. It's a start, the same start corporations use to gain power. Buy them out, obtain copy rights, mass produce.
But what about oil companies?
--Mike
A boycott would work, it would just take longer and more people would get hurt. Sure, the small gas stations of America would get hit first, but then they would stop buying the boycotted gas because it no longer sells. Now the big oil companies are getting hit because their sales are now dropping. But by this time, the gas stations are screwed or they switched to a new gas.
Not true, because they still have the commercial buyers. The only people that would be hit hard would be the gas station owners/operators and the truckers and delivery people who rely on gas to make their living.
--Mike
Sorry, I assumed that boycott meant that everyone who bought gas from one place would stop, including other companies.
In addition, is the profit that companies get from other companies greater than the profit from selling to gas stations?
The delivery people would start delivering gas from other companies (if they are still in business).
Don't forget, these aren't gas companies, these are oil companies--petroleum companies. So they supply petrol for making plastics as well.
It's probably not greater, but it serves for a fair portion. More than just automobiles require petrol.
By delivery people, I meant delivery drivers in general--FedEx and the like who rely on gas to make their living.
--Mike
Remember that corporations could also get involved in the boycott so that they do not get boycotted either.
A boycott of all gas companies will never happen because it will never work. As I said in another blog, cars are necessary for life in today's world. Therefore, delivery people will have gas.
One company boycotting another is corporate suicide. That company would lose all of the help of its competators (like mutual storage facilities) because no other company would trust that company.
--Mike
Not necessarily. If the boycott is big enough and wide spread, the company may escape being targetted by buying from a competitor of the boycotted company. I do not understand your argument? What are you trying to say? Competitors do not help each other.
I do not see why one company boycotting another would mean that no other company would trust them.
Oil companies use each others' refineries because its just easier and more cost effective for everyone (because otherwise each company would have to set up oil refineries across the US). Should one oil company decide to boycott another (by not using its refineries and refusing their refineries) they not only take an economic dive, but the competitors (I'm not so sure that competitor is a good word) would see this as a disruption in the balance, and might take action against the maverick company.
--Mike