Corporate Leaders: Helping the World Stay Productive?

Zukin’s discussion of Westchester County and the power held by corporate leaders raises a discussion on the pros and cons of our country essentially being led by the people who convince us to buy things, instead of say, politicians. Well actually, I suppose one could argue that politicians also fall into that category, as where are they without campaign contributions (buying them…) and ultimately, corporations. Poor Dennis Kucinich. Anyway, a lot of writing gets focused on the problems of corporate leaders “playing a disproportionate role in planning the future of the country” (164), but how about the positive aspects of it? Especially in this day and age of a software and computers, isn’t it ultimately a good thing that there’s primarily two operating systems out there (Windows and Mac) and not forty? Imagine how expensive it would be for smaller software companies to get anywhere if they had to recode everything to match that many operating systems. Personally, I like how things work.

Take design: yes, you have Autodesk out there controlling a major portion, but smaller companies like Bentley and Graphisoft are still able to compete and survive purely because software has reached a point where it can be developed with a small enough staff to still give you something the competition doesn’t as long as there’s people to come up with the ideas. A few companies, and healthy competition reigns. Too many companies (aka no ‘corporations’) and it’s just a thousand voices screaming to make a point or tell you to buy their product. Survival of the fittest narrows such companies down to a select few in our economic system, and it seems to work well.

Thus, consumers like choice, to an extent. While a straight monopoly is rarely a good thing (Ticketmaster can charge whatever the heck they want), it seems that having a few companies ‘in charge’ can help standardize an industry and ultimately make the world a more productive place.