[zozbot234]

The dirty little secret is that mom-and-pop stores are extremely inefficient compared to big chain businesses. A big business is also a lot more likely to actually pay taxes to the government, and it still manages to beat the mom-and-pop store on efficiency even after accounting for that!

[NoelJacob]

Yes, they are efficient, obviously as economies of scale. Add in consulting and quants and they'll rise in profitability. But the problem is decision making power lies in hands of select few. When you are a too large a corporate, you basically have no oversight over how much you can optimize in exchange for ill social effects. All corporates had humble beginnings, and over time hyper optimization for profits creep in. Maybe in the beginning, the synthetic preservative they add to optimize profits, was below the threshold, but over the years as need for profit and 'growth' grows and, managements and mindsets change, they could very well go above the threshold and, being big now be profitable enough even after they were caught and they had to deal with the repercussions. Well why would a rational actor not squeeze every dollar out of the customer when they can still be profitable even when accounting for the money they could pay as repercussions for fraud? I'm not saying mom-and-pop are defenders of righteousness or smth, but just from watching the news I can say I trust them over corporates, because they are A) are scared of law as they have more to loose as a percentage of what they have than INDIVIDUALS in the corporate B) feel better moral, idk attitude?, towards the customer, mostly and COMPARATIVELY than the corps. Of the top of my head, I think, cooperatives might be the current best solution or some decentralized frameworks/systems for stores considering efficiency vs power concentration.

> pay taxes to the government

Here, at their turnover local stores are exempt from income tax

[zozbot234]

> When you are a too large a corporate, you basically have no oversight over how much you can optimize in exchange for ill social effects

It's actually easier to have meaningful oversight over a single larger firm than a bunch of local stores. The thing is that what people often refer to as "ill social effects" of large businesses are not proven to any meaningful extent. At least the gain in efficiency is quite real and can be readily ascertained.

[NoelJacob]

So you are saying the individuals (not affiliated to any corporate) in a field are collectively doing/did more harm to people and environment, on purpose, than all the harm corporates in the same field are collectively doing/did, on purpose?

Corporates have power to sway governments/FDA/X in their personal favor (unlike a common individual for his own personal favor). As bigger the power of entity gets to the power of government, more government looses power over it, more at the discretion of its decision makers its users become. Why would a rational actor not do bad for profits if they can get away with it? Why would an entity, with a power, not exercise it, if net benefit to self is positive?

[eunos]

Mom and Pop shops likely won't invest in softwares for inventory or payrolls or analytics but big chains will. That means the more big chain markets swallowing mom and pop shops more capitals invested for software and other tertiary services. This boost GDP

[Gud]

It may boost GDP, but does that improve the life of the Moms and Pops who are now stacking shelves at the hypermarkets?

[eunos]

It'll give a good life for software developers