[aquova]

> It reminds me of something I'd read that one of the reasons modern capitalism is so borked is because the founding fathers weren't conceiving of things like "Amazon" existing, where one entity employs a staggeringly large number of employees. Or that a small number of companies would employ such a large percentage of workers.

I'm not quite sure I buy that argument. They lived in the time of the East India Company, which owned something like 50% of the world's trade at the time and ruled several nations.

[ye-olde-sysrq]

Yeah, there's definitely counterexamples. I thought of East India too. I really wonder what operating a huge company like that looked like in an era where the fastest way to transport messages was to have fresh horses pre-positioned every X miles and have someone gallop your message non-stop. I assume it was very different from Amazon employees peeing in bottles to avoid getting dinged for metrics.

[bell-cot]

> I really wonder what operating a huge company like that looked like in an era...

Lots of attempts to standardize procedures, etc., etc. - but East India agents far from home often had enormous latitude, and there were plenty of disasters and atrocities. (Not that either the British Government proper, or other European powers, were notably better. But they could certainly be worse - just look at the Spanish Conquest of the Americas, or the Belgian Congo.)

> ...the fastest way to transport messages was to have fresh horses pre-positioned ...

When there were enough short-but-important messages to be passed along a given route, they did have a far-faster-than-a-horse technology available - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph#India