So I have a company that currently makes about as much as like... say Apple, but is expanding in multiple markets. It's probably going to have a monopoly on several product types in the next couple years. Good for me.

Here's the thing, I want to take over the world. How can I do it in a way that won't make people hate me (i.e. no military stuff, and they can't know that it's actually my goal here.)

Also, by the end of the plan no other government should exist, so bribing every single senator/beuracrat/head of state/etc won't work.

I do have a small black ops force and am completely willing to go for assassinations or destabilizing smaller countries and dictatorships a la what America does all the time, but nuking DC, London and Beijing is a no-go.

To recap: The tools are approx. 300B dollars of profit a year (plus whatever else the company makes that it plugs back into itself) and more on the way, a lot of influence in social media and the news, a small black ops team, and some white hat hackers plus whoever else you can think to hire in our regular modern world. Your goal is a peaceful takeover that results in a corporate hegemony that people don't want to violently overthrow.(i.e. you need good press)

How might a corporate hegemony be achieved by a company with these circumstances(i.e. realistic ones)?

Cheers, and all hail our corporate overlord.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is your question to do with PR (the "not wanting people to hate you" question) or is it to do with logistics, or power. At the moment without stating a single clear problem your question is likely to get closed as too broad. Oh, and by the way, that's the goal and task of the writer, not of anyone else. $\endgroup$ – Tantalus' touch. Jun 5 '19 at 18:21
  • $\begingroup$ 300B a year to take over the world? If it were that cheap and easy, a nation state would have done it long ago. Maybe if you just wanted to control a few countries you'd be OK, though. $\endgroup$ – Starfish Prime Jun 5 '19 at 18:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This isn't a worldbuilding topic; it's storybuilding: "I have a character(s) that wants to achieve X. How can they go about doing it?" $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Jun 5 '19 at 19:02
  • $\begingroup$ Please read our meta posts about high concept questions and open-ended questions. The problem with questions like this is they are broad, not objective and you've provided no criteria for judging a best answer. Please remember that SE is not a discussion forum. As written, this question is both too story-based and too broad. What specific question do you have? $\endgroup$ – JBH Jun 5 '19 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your edit, but you're still asking us to tell a story. How do I get from X to Y? questions are on-topic, but they're meant to help you develop the rules of your world, not your plot. Per our help center, "the goal of the site is to help you build your world, not to tell your story." Also, please review what it means to be primarily opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – JBH Jun 5 '19 at 22:17

Your company's goal rests on the Compound Annual Growth Rate of its profits. If the CAGR is positive for an indefinite length of time, then they will eventually own everything that can be owned, and by implication employee everyone that is employable.

How long it will take will be a function of the average value of its CAGR. The rule of thumb is the number of years it takes to double value is 72/CAGR. So if your business had a CAGR of 72%, then it would double in size every year. And a 1% CAGR will double every 72 years. You can lock at google finance or yahoo stocks listings and see the predicted CAGR for many corporations.

The problem is, in the real world, the larger you are, the harder it is to grow. One reason for this is mature markets have fixed sizes, or are least slow growing until the time comes when they begin to die. And, to grow in mature markets you must take market share away from your competitors -- this is known as eating their lunch. But, competitors are stationary beasties and want their lunch, and yours too, if they can get it. So you get this constant churn of products and innovation as each business tries to outperform the other and grow their market share.

So this means, as you observed, your business moves into additional opportunities. This is easier said than done since markets are specialized. Oilmen ... sorry, oil-people know about finding, drilling, and selling oil. They aren't so good at baking bread -- generally speaking. Being really successful in one space can impede success in other spaces.

But, assuming your business is fully informed on topics raised by The Innovators Dilemma, Crossing the Chasm and Parkinson's Law -- and other observations about business management then they can set out to dominate the world by creating a business that lets people safely pay for things on the internet, then start making electric cars, and then start a business commercializing space travel. They might even get into the rapid transits business by proposing to build long evacuated tunnels between major citys and efficient and quickly let people travel across a state or country as easy as using a bus or subway. THese are of course just a few ideas. They might start more modestly, selling books from thier garage and grow from there.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ It's actually approximately 69.3/CAGR ($\frac{100\%\cdot \ln(2)}{\text{CAGR}}$). The 72 is used because it often makes the math simpler, not because it is correct. (E.g. 72/6 is 12 while $\frac{\ln(2)\cdot 100\%}{6\%}$ is an irrational number). So at 1%, it will double every 69.3 years assuming frequent compounding (e.g. daily). $\endgroup$ – Brythan Jun 5 '19 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Brythan, thank you for the correction. $\endgroup$ – EDL Jun 6 '19 at 17:41

Not possible

Now, I could go on for a while and explain why it's not possible because very powerful countries like America have anti-monopoly laws and countries like China use state-owned everything, so they're basically impossible to contend with. I could explain that having successful monopolies on several product would lead to competitor sabotage which you aren't in a position to handle with a paltry 300 billion considering that you'd be fighting literally all the other companies combined. I'd explain that logistics and shipping routes are secured by governments which could tariff you into oblivion, and that even a slow methodical plan which gradually forms a super-conglomerate wouldn't work, because you'd end up owning a lot of things without the ability to directly intercede and if you did that would spoil the shell companies because corporate overlords have a habit of ruining companies they buy if they directly interfere (see, history).

Or I could just say that if it were possible, Apple/Google/Microsoft/Amazon/insert supercorp here would have already done it. That also works.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The management of stock companies looks at the shareholder reaction to the next quarterly earnings report or dividend. A company owned by a few partners is a whole different ballgame. They can look at the next decade, or beyond. $\endgroup$ – o.m. Jun 5 '19 at 18:27

Watch the Lego Movie, remove the "remove lord Business" part and you have something along the lines of what you want I would think.

They'd have to basically erase most of history that doesn't make people like them, glorify themselves, and soup up all their good deeds. Dominate the air and basically have a secret force that secretly crushes any opponents that may appear.

Basically, have no one know any other way of life and hear of no other way of life. Could be a more socialist regime, borderline dictatorship.

Oh and censor, Censor, CENSOR!

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.