The company excludes people from having access to itself

A company is able to make a profit (for the management) by excluding other people from having access to its own infrastructure...

A person (initially outside the company) could make a living by working within the company, but in a sense being self-employed, not answerable to the boss. But of course they would not be "allowed" to do this because the company has the right to restrict their access to its internal structure and no suitable internal market exists... We do not have a "right" to work... It is more valuable to do a particular form of work within the company than outside of it...

What is it that the company has which makes tasks within it more valuable (to achieve) than similar tasks outside of it?

Clearly, if a company excludes people too much from having access to its infrastructure (at the right price), the company will lose out because other companies will take advantage... But generally they are able to keep other people out and retain the profits for themselves.

They might have advantages which are derived from the coercion of the State, or they might have advantages of being well established in the market, such as customer recognition and brand awareness... a trusted name. Or they might have a well-oiled and efficient machine. The only thing of value (other than State favours), that a company might have (which can be sold, and is more than its component parts) is recognition and trust... they have a high status.


Friday 17 April 2009