How can a corporation remove suspicion from its plans while preserving its clandestine monopoly?How does Santa protect himself from IP lawsuits?How would a culture develop if it had to cover its hands at all timeHow to plausibly build a worldwide oligopoly regarding pretty much all areas?How could a private corporation take over the British governmentWhat kind of industries would legal and regulated necromancy spawn and require?Economic systems for micronations in spaceGreat Old Ones Limited, or Why does Cthulhu need a Company?Hostile takeover of a bank by a state possible?How can a colony of teleporters make the most money while keeping their teleportation a secret?Minimum level of technology to have a modern tax system?

Masyu-making game

What's the largest an Earth-like planet can be and support Earth's biosphere?

Project Euler # 25 The 1000 digit Fibonacci index

What is this green alien supposed to be on the American covers of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?

Align the contents of a numerical matrix when you have minus signs

What is the function of "mal" in saying "Das nenn ich mal ein X"?

"This used to be my phone number"

Making a Dataset that emulates `ls -tlra`?

Why are flying carpets banned while flying brooms are not?

You have no, but can try for yes

How to decide print orientation?

Suggestions for how to track down the source of this force:source:push error?

Improving an O(N^2) function (all entities iterating over all other entities)

Three Subway Escalators

When a ball on a rope swings in a circle, is there both centripetal force and tension force?

How electronics on board of JWST can survive the low operating temperature while it's difficult to survive lunar night?

Company looks for long-term employees, but I know I won't be interested in staying long

What is a Kravchuk transform and how is it related to Fourier transforms?

Linux ext4 restore file and directory access rights after bad backup/restore

Simplest instruction set that has an c++/C compiler to write an emulator for?

How important are the Author's mood and feelings for writing a story?

Evaluate the limit the following series

Do Australia and New Zealand have a travel ban on Somalis (like Wikipedia says)?

How slow ( not zero) can a car engine run without hurting engine and saving on fuel



How can a corporation remove suspicion from its plans while preserving its clandestine monopoly?


How does Santa protect himself from IP lawsuits?How would a culture develop if it had to cover its hands at all timeHow to plausibly build a worldwide oligopoly regarding pretty much all areas?How could a private corporation take over the British governmentWhat kind of industries would legal and regulated necromancy spawn and require?Economic systems for micronations in spaceGreat Old Ones Limited, or Why does Cthulhu need a Company?Hostile takeover of a bank by a state possible?How can a colony of teleporters make the most money while keeping their teleportation a secret?Minimum level of technology to have a modern tax system?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1












$begingroup$


The elder god Mickeyruth seeks to enter our reality and dominate humankind. To accomplish this, he has used his loyal cult of followers to found a company called Disney. Throughout the decades, this company has used disreputable business practices to achieve power in the world. Through its business acquisitions, such as Fox entertainment, and its practice of wage slavery among its workers, it has managed to gain a foothold in society, all the while maintaining its image as a kid-friendly corporation. Its good-guy image, maintained by its putting out subpar comic book films, to its excessive theme parks, has lulled idiotic parents into a fall sense of security, blinding them from the evil of the entity while it takes pleasure in our suffering.



However, there are flaws in Disney's plans that prevent it from achieving the domination that it desires. Worthless politrickans grow concerned that the Mouse is becoming too powerful, and took action by putting in place anti-trust laws. These laws were put in place to prevent companies from gaining too large a foothold in an industry. These laws protect the consume from exorbitant prices and encourage healthy competition between companies. They help prevent actions such as:



Market allocation- a scheme devised by two entities to keep their business activities to specific geographic territories or types of customers.



Bid Rigging- The illegal practice between two or more parties who collude to choose who will win a contract.



Price fixing- when the price of a product or service is set by a business intentionally rather than letting market forces determine it naturally.



Hefty fines and jail time result from the violation of these laws, putting a kink in the Mouse's plans. To avoid this, Disney has established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control. Companies, such as Apple, Amazon, and Mickey Ds (sometimes known as "McDonalds") don't directly compete with each other and operate in different industries to avoid suspicion. However, the executives of each entity are loyal followers of Disney, operating under its umbrella. Soon, the Mouse will cross over into our reality and enslave us all.



These separate companies continue to support each other clandestinely while avoiding the anti-trust laws that would ultimately expose them. How can these companies operating in different industries protect themselves?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    "Established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control:" that's an organized conspiracy to break the law; it's not a matter of commercial law, it's a matter of criminal law. The executives would be risking serious penalties -- the lawmen are quite annoyed by organized crime.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    At first, I thought MickeyRuth was Mickey Mantle + Babe Ruth but then I saw the thing about Disney. What's with the ruth at the end?
    $endgroup$
    – DJ Spicy Deluxe
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mikey and shub nigguruth equals mickeyruth
    $endgroup$
    – Incognito
    4 hours ago

















1












$begingroup$


The elder god Mickeyruth seeks to enter our reality and dominate humankind. To accomplish this, he has used his loyal cult of followers to found a company called Disney. Throughout the decades, this company has used disreputable business practices to achieve power in the world. Through its business acquisitions, such as Fox entertainment, and its practice of wage slavery among its workers, it has managed to gain a foothold in society, all the while maintaining its image as a kid-friendly corporation. Its good-guy image, maintained by its putting out subpar comic book films, to its excessive theme parks, has lulled idiotic parents into a fall sense of security, blinding them from the evil of the entity while it takes pleasure in our suffering.



However, there are flaws in Disney's plans that prevent it from achieving the domination that it desires. Worthless politrickans grow concerned that the Mouse is becoming too powerful, and took action by putting in place anti-trust laws. These laws were put in place to prevent companies from gaining too large a foothold in an industry. These laws protect the consume from exorbitant prices and encourage healthy competition between companies. They help prevent actions such as:



Market allocation- a scheme devised by two entities to keep their business activities to specific geographic territories or types of customers.



Bid Rigging- The illegal practice between two or more parties who collude to choose who will win a contract.



Price fixing- when the price of a product or service is set by a business intentionally rather than letting market forces determine it naturally.



Hefty fines and jail time result from the violation of these laws, putting a kink in the Mouse's plans. To avoid this, Disney has established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control. Companies, such as Apple, Amazon, and Mickey Ds (sometimes known as "McDonalds") don't directly compete with each other and operate in different industries to avoid suspicion. However, the executives of each entity are loyal followers of Disney, operating under its umbrella. Soon, the Mouse will cross over into our reality and enslave us all.



These separate companies continue to support each other clandestinely while avoiding the anti-trust laws that would ultimately expose them. How can these companies operating in different industries protect themselves?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    "Established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control:" that's an organized conspiracy to break the law; it's not a matter of commercial law, it's a matter of criminal law. The executives would be risking serious penalties -- the lawmen are quite annoyed by organized crime.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    At first, I thought MickeyRuth was Mickey Mantle + Babe Ruth but then I saw the thing about Disney. What's with the ruth at the end?
    $endgroup$
    – DJ Spicy Deluxe
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mikey and shub nigguruth equals mickeyruth
    $endgroup$
    – Incognito
    4 hours ago













1












1








1





$begingroup$


The elder god Mickeyruth seeks to enter our reality and dominate humankind. To accomplish this, he has used his loyal cult of followers to found a company called Disney. Throughout the decades, this company has used disreputable business practices to achieve power in the world. Through its business acquisitions, such as Fox entertainment, and its practice of wage slavery among its workers, it has managed to gain a foothold in society, all the while maintaining its image as a kid-friendly corporation. Its good-guy image, maintained by its putting out subpar comic book films, to its excessive theme parks, has lulled idiotic parents into a fall sense of security, blinding them from the evil of the entity while it takes pleasure in our suffering.



However, there are flaws in Disney's plans that prevent it from achieving the domination that it desires. Worthless politrickans grow concerned that the Mouse is becoming too powerful, and took action by putting in place anti-trust laws. These laws were put in place to prevent companies from gaining too large a foothold in an industry. These laws protect the consume from exorbitant prices and encourage healthy competition between companies. They help prevent actions such as:



Market allocation- a scheme devised by two entities to keep their business activities to specific geographic territories or types of customers.



Bid Rigging- The illegal practice between two or more parties who collude to choose who will win a contract.



Price fixing- when the price of a product or service is set by a business intentionally rather than letting market forces determine it naturally.



Hefty fines and jail time result from the violation of these laws, putting a kink in the Mouse's plans. To avoid this, Disney has established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control. Companies, such as Apple, Amazon, and Mickey Ds (sometimes known as "McDonalds") don't directly compete with each other and operate in different industries to avoid suspicion. However, the executives of each entity are loyal followers of Disney, operating under its umbrella. Soon, the Mouse will cross over into our reality and enslave us all.



These separate companies continue to support each other clandestinely while avoiding the anti-trust laws that would ultimately expose them. How can these companies operating in different industries protect themselves?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The elder god Mickeyruth seeks to enter our reality and dominate humankind. To accomplish this, he has used his loyal cult of followers to found a company called Disney. Throughout the decades, this company has used disreputable business practices to achieve power in the world. Through its business acquisitions, such as Fox entertainment, and its practice of wage slavery among its workers, it has managed to gain a foothold in society, all the while maintaining its image as a kid-friendly corporation. Its good-guy image, maintained by its putting out subpar comic book films, to its excessive theme parks, has lulled idiotic parents into a fall sense of security, blinding them from the evil of the entity while it takes pleasure in our suffering.



However, there are flaws in Disney's plans that prevent it from achieving the domination that it desires. Worthless politrickans grow concerned that the Mouse is becoming too powerful, and took action by putting in place anti-trust laws. These laws were put in place to prevent companies from gaining too large a foothold in an industry. These laws protect the consume from exorbitant prices and encourage healthy competition between companies. They help prevent actions such as:



Market allocation- a scheme devised by two entities to keep their business activities to specific geographic territories or types of customers.



Bid Rigging- The illegal practice between two or more parties who collude to choose who will win a contract.



Price fixing- when the price of a product or service is set by a business intentionally rather than letting market forces determine it naturally.



Hefty fines and jail time result from the violation of these laws, putting a kink in the Mouse's plans. To avoid this, Disney has established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control. Companies, such as Apple, Amazon, and Mickey Ds (sometimes known as "McDonalds") don't directly compete with each other and operate in different industries to avoid suspicion. However, the executives of each entity are loyal followers of Disney, operating under its umbrella. Soon, the Mouse will cross over into our reality and enslave us all.



These separate companies continue to support each other clandestinely while avoiding the anti-trust laws that would ultimately expose them. How can these companies operating in different industries protect themselves?







economy law corporations






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









Cyn

17.1k2 gold badges35 silver badges76 bronze badges




17.1k2 gold badges35 silver badges76 bronze badges










asked 9 hours ago









IncognitoIncognito

9,5659 gold badges80 silver badges140 bronze badges




9,5659 gold badges80 silver badges140 bronze badges











  • $begingroup$
    "Established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control:" that's an organized conspiracy to break the law; it's not a matter of commercial law, it's a matter of criminal law. The executives would be risking serious penalties -- the lawmen are quite annoyed by organized crime.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    At first, I thought MickeyRuth was Mickey Mantle + Babe Ruth but then I saw the thing about Disney. What's with the ruth at the end?
    $endgroup$
    – DJ Spicy Deluxe
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mikey and shub nigguruth equals mickeyruth
    $endgroup$
    – Incognito
    4 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    "Established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control:" that's an organized conspiracy to break the law; it's not a matter of commercial law, it's a matter of criminal law. The executives would be risking serious penalties -- the lawmen are quite annoyed by organized crime.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    At first, I thought MickeyRuth was Mickey Mantle + Babe Ruth but then I saw the thing about Disney. What's with the ruth at the end?
    $endgroup$
    – DJ Spicy Deluxe
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Mikey and shub nigguruth equals mickeyruth
    $endgroup$
    – Incognito
    4 hours ago















$begingroup$
"Established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control:" that's an organized conspiracy to break the law; it's not a matter of commercial law, it's a matter of criminal law. The executives would be risking serious penalties -- the lawmen are quite annoyed by organized crime.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
"Established seemingly separate corporations that remain under its control:" that's an organized conspiracy to break the law; it's not a matter of commercial law, it's a matter of criminal law. The executives would be risking serious penalties -- the lawmen are quite annoyed by organized crime.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago













$begingroup$
At first, I thought MickeyRuth was Mickey Mantle + Babe Ruth but then I saw the thing about Disney. What's with the ruth at the end?
$endgroup$
– DJ Spicy Deluxe
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
At first, I thought MickeyRuth was Mickey Mantle + Babe Ruth but then I saw the thing about Disney. What's with the ruth at the end?
$endgroup$
– DJ Spicy Deluxe
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
Mikey and shub nigguruth equals mickeyruth
$endgroup$
– Incognito
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Mikey and shub nigguruth equals mickeyruth
$endgroup$
– Incognito
4 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

There is no such thing as a clandestine Monopoly, corporate law does not forbid conglomerates



A monopoly is a company or enterprise that is the sole supplier in a particular industry, or commodity.



You are describing companies that are not monopolies but rather a conglomerate, in other words a single company in control of other companies that operate in separate markets (although you mention yours is secretly so).



You would find your evil elder god has made a serious error: conglomerates or their equivalents rarely work very well (although with supreme effort, some do). There has actually been a trend recently away from conglomeration, when there was a peak trendiness of them in the 1980's.



This is for some very good reasons, mainly to do with the strengths of business in a competitive environment:



  • Companies rarely excel at doing everything, well - even ACME companies (companies that do everything) actually only do a little, for instance Kmart is simply a good large retailer although it stocks a wide variety of products.

  • Companies normally grow in a methodical manner to adjacent industries. Too diverse a company may be too capital intensive for little gain.

  • A company that does everything diverts too many resources in different directions - it is expensive to have disparate overheads and personnel costs. Also, the Board of directors may simply not understand all of its diverse operations, so the company would not be as optimised as it could be if it was a more focussed company.

  • Diversification can work, but only in complementary fields. A building company may do developing, or can do design, but a building company alongside a fast food company will not yield any cross-benefit, but simply have more overheads and costs.

  • If a sub-company fails and needs artificial support from the others, it begs the question why it exists in the first place, and may give a false sense of security that damages its competitiveness. In other words, often owners should let the company fail rather than keep pumping money into it.

  • Why not just invest in diverse interests? That's much easier than attempting a super-entity, and much lower risk.

Your evil elder god should simply invest in industries she/he wants influence in, like a standard investor (preferably a controlling proportion), this would be much easier, and in fact is what most investors strive for.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    3












    $begingroup$

    If the executives of the separate business entities are loyal followers, what's the problem? They don't need some kind of clandestine arrangement; they can support each other quite openly.



    For instance, Evil!Amazon needs a cash infusion. Evil!Disney doesn't have to arrange for covert support: they simply invest openly in Evil!Amazon using any number of entirely plausible explanation ("We sell a lot of our product through the Amazon service, so it's good business sense to help them through this rough patch"). They can always sell the stock later on the open market, or Evil!Amazon could even buy it back. All legal, all above board.



    The important thing is to keep it subtle and to have a perfectly valid reason to invest that any company not controlled by Mickeyruth could also use to justify an investment.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
      $endgroup$
      – Joe Bloggs
      3 hours ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f151294%2fhow-can-a-corporation-remove-suspicion-from-its-plans-while-preserving-its-cland%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    There is no such thing as a clandestine Monopoly, corporate law does not forbid conglomerates



    A monopoly is a company or enterprise that is the sole supplier in a particular industry, or commodity.



    You are describing companies that are not monopolies but rather a conglomerate, in other words a single company in control of other companies that operate in separate markets (although you mention yours is secretly so).



    You would find your evil elder god has made a serious error: conglomerates or their equivalents rarely work very well (although with supreme effort, some do). There has actually been a trend recently away from conglomeration, when there was a peak trendiness of them in the 1980's.



    This is for some very good reasons, mainly to do with the strengths of business in a competitive environment:



    • Companies rarely excel at doing everything, well - even ACME companies (companies that do everything) actually only do a little, for instance Kmart is simply a good large retailer although it stocks a wide variety of products.

    • Companies normally grow in a methodical manner to adjacent industries. Too diverse a company may be too capital intensive for little gain.

    • A company that does everything diverts too many resources in different directions - it is expensive to have disparate overheads and personnel costs. Also, the Board of directors may simply not understand all of its diverse operations, so the company would not be as optimised as it could be if it was a more focussed company.

    • Diversification can work, but only in complementary fields. A building company may do developing, or can do design, but a building company alongside a fast food company will not yield any cross-benefit, but simply have more overheads and costs.

    • If a sub-company fails and needs artificial support from the others, it begs the question why it exists in the first place, and may give a false sense of security that damages its competitiveness. In other words, often owners should let the company fail rather than keep pumping money into it.

    • Why not just invest in diverse interests? That's much easier than attempting a super-entity, and much lower risk.

    Your evil elder god should simply invest in industries she/he wants influence in, like a standard investor (preferably a controlling proportion), this would be much easier, and in fact is what most investors strive for.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      3












      $begingroup$

      There is no such thing as a clandestine Monopoly, corporate law does not forbid conglomerates



      A monopoly is a company or enterprise that is the sole supplier in a particular industry, or commodity.



      You are describing companies that are not monopolies but rather a conglomerate, in other words a single company in control of other companies that operate in separate markets (although you mention yours is secretly so).



      You would find your evil elder god has made a serious error: conglomerates or their equivalents rarely work very well (although with supreme effort, some do). There has actually been a trend recently away from conglomeration, when there was a peak trendiness of them in the 1980's.



      This is for some very good reasons, mainly to do with the strengths of business in a competitive environment:



      • Companies rarely excel at doing everything, well - even ACME companies (companies that do everything) actually only do a little, for instance Kmart is simply a good large retailer although it stocks a wide variety of products.

      • Companies normally grow in a methodical manner to adjacent industries. Too diverse a company may be too capital intensive for little gain.

      • A company that does everything diverts too many resources in different directions - it is expensive to have disparate overheads and personnel costs. Also, the Board of directors may simply not understand all of its diverse operations, so the company would not be as optimised as it could be if it was a more focussed company.

      • Diversification can work, but only in complementary fields. A building company may do developing, or can do design, but a building company alongside a fast food company will not yield any cross-benefit, but simply have more overheads and costs.

      • If a sub-company fails and needs artificial support from the others, it begs the question why it exists in the first place, and may give a false sense of security that damages its competitiveness. In other words, often owners should let the company fail rather than keep pumping money into it.

      • Why not just invest in diverse interests? That's much easier than attempting a super-entity, and much lower risk.

      Your evil elder god should simply invest in industries she/he wants influence in, like a standard investor (preferably a controlling proportion), this would be much easier, and in fact is what most investors strive for.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        There is no such thing as a clandestine Monopoly, corporate law does not forbid conglomerates



        A monopoly is a company or enterprise that is the sole supplier in a particular industry, or commodity.



        You are describing companies that are not monopolies but rather a conglomerate, in other words a single company in control of other companies that operate in separate markets (although you mention yours is secretly so).



        You would find your evil elder god has made a serious error: conglomerates or their equivalents rarely work very well (although with supreme effort, some do). There has actually been a trend recently away from conglomeration, when there was a peak trendiness of them in the 1980's.



        This is for some very good reasons, mainly to do with the strengths of business in a competitive environment:



        • Companies rarely excel at doing everything, well - even ACME companies (companies that do everything) actually only do a little, for instance Kmart is simply a good large retailer although it stocks a wide variety of products.

        • Companies normally grow in a methodical manner to adjacent industries. Too diverse a company may be too capital intensive for little gain.

        • A company that does everything diverts too many resources in different directions - it is expensive to have disparate overheads and personnel costs. Also, the Board of directors may simply not understand all of its diverse operations, so the company would not be as optimised as it could be if it was a more focussed company.

        • Diversification can work, but only in complementary fields. A building company may do developing, or can do design, but a building company alongside a fast food company will not yield any cross-benefit, but simply have more overheads and costs.

        • If a sub-company fails and needs artificial support from the others, it begs the question why it exists in the first place, and may give a false sense of security that damages its competitiveness. In other words, often owners should let the company fail rather than keep pumping money into it.

        • Why not just invest in diverse interests? That's much easier than attempting a super-entity, and much lower risk.

        Your evil elder god should simply invest in industries she/he wants influence in, like a standard investor (preferably a controlling proportion), this would be much easier, and in fact is what most investors strive for.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        There is no such thing as a clandestine Monopoly, corporate law does not forbid conglomerates



        A monopoly is a company or enterprise that is the sole supplier in a particular industry, or commodity.



        You are describing companies that are not monopolies but rather a conglomerate, in other words a single company in control of other companies that operate in separate markets (although you mention yours is secretly so).



        You would find your evil elder god has made a serious error: conglomerates or their equivalents rarely work very well (although with supreme effort, some do). There has actually been a trend recently away from conglomeration, when there was a peak trendiness of them in the 1980's.



        This is for some very good reasons, mainly to do with the strengths of business in a competitive environment:



        • Companies rarely excel at doing everything, well - even ACME companies (companies that do everything) actually only do a little, for instance Kmart is simply a good large retailer although it stocks a wide variety of products.

        • Companies normally grow in a methodical manner to adjacent industries. Too diverse a company may be too capital intensive for little gain.

        • A company that does everything diverts too many resources in different directions - it is expensive to have disparate overheads and personnel costs. Also, the Board of directors may simply not understand all of its diverse operations, so the company would not be as optimised as it could be if it was a more focussed company.

        • Diversification can work, but only in complementary fields. A building company may do developing, or can do design, but a building company alongside a fast food company will not yield any cross-benefit, but simply have more overheads and costs.

        • If a sub-company fails and needs artificial support from the others, it begs the question why it exists in the first place, and may give a false sense of security that damages its competitiveness. In other words, often owners should let the company fail rather than keep pumping money into it.

        • Why not just invest in diverse interests? That's much easier than attempting a super-entity, and much lower risk.

        Your evil elder god should simply invest in industries she/he wants influence in, like a standard investor (preferably a controlling proportion), this would be much easier, and in fact is what most investors strive for.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 7 hours ago









        floxflox

        8,1878 silver badges27 bronze badges




        8,1878 silver badges27 bronze badges























            3












            $begingroup$

            If the executives of the separate business entities are loyal followers, what's the problem? They don't need some kind of clandestine arrangement; they can support each other quite openly.



            For instance, Evil!Amazon needs a cash infusion. Evil!Disney doesn't have to arrange for covert support: they simply invest openly in Evil!Amazon using any number of entirely plausible explanation ("We sell a lot of our product through the Amazon service, so it's good business sense to help them through this rough patch"). They can always sell the stock later on the open market, or Evil!Amazon could even buy it back. All legal, all above board.



            The important thing is to keep it subtle and to have a perfectly valid reason to invest that any company not controlled by Mickeyruth could also use to justify an investment.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
              $endgroup$
              – Joe Bloggs
              3 hours ago















            3












            $begingroup$

            If the executives of the separate business entities are loyal followers, what's the problem? They don't need some kind of clandestine arrangement; they can support each other quite openly.



            For instance, Evil!Amazon needs a cash infusion. Evil!Disney doesn't have to arrange for covert support: they simply invest openly in Evil!Amazon using any number of entirely plausible explanation ("We sell a lot of our product through the Amazon service, so it's good business sense to help them through this rough patch"). They can always sell the stock later on the open market, or Evil!Amazon could even buy it back. All legal, all above board.



            The important thing is to keep it subtle and to have a perfectly valid reason to invest that any company not controlled by Mickeyruth could also use to justify an investment.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
              $endgroup$
              – Joe Bloggs
              3 hours ago













            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            If the executives of the separate business entities are loyal followers, what's the problem? They don't need some kind of clandestine arrangement; they can support each other quite openly.



            For instance, Evil!Amazon needs a cash infusion. Evil!Disney doesn't have to arrange for covert support: they simply invest openly in Evil!Amazon using any number of entirely plausible explanation ("We sell a lot of our product through the Amazon service, so it's good business sense to help them through this rough patch"). They can always sell the stock later on the open market, or Evil!Amazon could even buy it back. All legal, all above board.



            The important thing is to keep it subtle and to have a perfectly valid reason to invest that any company not controlled by Mickeyruth could also use to justify an investment.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            If the executives of the separate business entities are loyal followers, what's the problem? They don't need some kind of clandestine arrangement; they can support each other quite openly.



            For instance, Evil!Amazon needs a cash infusion. Evil!Disney doesn't have to arrange for covert support: they simply invest openly in Evil!Amazon using any number of entirely plausible explanation ("We sell a lot of our product through the Amazon service, so it's good business sense to help them through this rough patch"). They can always sell the stock later on the open market, or Evil!Amazon could even buy it back. All legal, all above board.



            The important thing is to keep it subtle and to have a perfectly valid reason to invest that any company not controlled by Mickeyruth could also use to justify an investment.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 5 hours ago









            Keith MorrisonKeith Morrison

            8,9051 gold badge16 silver badges35 bronze badges




            8,9051 gold badge16 silver badges35 bronze badges











            • $begingroup$
              Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
              $endgroup$
              – Joe Bloggs
              3 hours ago
















            • $begingroup$
              Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
              $endgroup$
              – Joe Bloggs
              3 hours ago















            $begingroup$
            Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
            $endgroup$
            – Joe Bloggs
            3 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Ai ai C’thulhu ftaghn. Now that’s out of the way can I convince you to invest in my new tech startup?
            $endgroup$
            – Joe Bloggs
            3 hours ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f151294%2fhow-can-a-corporation-remove-suspicion-from-its-plans-while-preserving-its-cland%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            The fall designs the understood secretary. Looking glass Science Shock Discovery Hot Everybody Loves Raymond Smile 곳 서비스 성실하다 Defas Kaloolon Definition: To combine or impregnate with sulphur or any of its compounds as to sulphurize caoutchouc in vulcanizing Flame colored Reason Useful Thin Help 갖다 유명하다 낙엽 장례식 Country Iron Definition: A fencer a gladiator one who exhibits his skill in the use of the sword Definition: The American black throated bunting Spiza Americana Nostalgic Needy Method to my madness 시키다 평가되다 전부 소설가 우아하다 Argument Tin Feeling Representative Gym Music Gaur Chicken 일쑤 코치 편 학생증 The harbor values the sugar. Vasagle Yammoe Enstatite Definition: Capable of being limited Road Neighborly Five Refer Built Kangaroo 비비다 Degree Release Bargain Horse 하루 형님 유교 석 동부 괴롭히다 경제력

            Sahara Skak | Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: SaharaWikivoyage raisfeerer: Sahara26° N, 13° O

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу