You wrote , see below, Tresy:
I know small business is still business.  Big succeeds by a number of devices:
underpaying, cornering supply, cornering capital  etc.  None in my definition
of efficiency.
My view, hard-come -by, is that small business persons are really workers.
They do not exist on capital.
wcm
>
> Also, the one obvious thing to note is that the world of small business
> evolved into the world of big business.
>
> ----------
> > From: Tresy Kilbourne <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Demand?, wcm
> > Date: Friday, June 20, 1997 2:06 AM
> >
> > You, William Meecham, wrote:
> >
> > >How (see below) do corp.s take over small businesses.  Typically they
> > >do so by underpaying their labor.  Small business provides the typical
> > >owner with a middle class life.  After takeover not so for the remaining
> > >workers.
> > It's ironic to see us waxing nostalgic for the small businessperson, just
> > like all Republicans and Democrats do. Beware when everyone agrees on
> > something. It's usually untrue. John K. Galbraith has some pungent things
> > to say about this nostalgia. Basically, he argues that large corps are
> > less likely to lay off their workers during a downturn than small
> > business (precisely because they are large and less susceptible to
> > short-term market forces), more likely to discriminate against women and
> > minorities, offer better working conditions, etc., etc. Basic reason is
> > that big corporations are more efficient; that's why they tend to drive
> > smaller businesses out. JKG is no shill for capitalism (no marxist
> > either, but then neither's Noam); I tend to respect the freshness of his
> > observations. Something to consider.
>