They believed that scale was a good in itself and they pedestalized it. Whether glorifying powerful states or leaning into the depersonalized aesthetic, the intellectuals of the 19th century wanted grand scale and large physical size in almost every part of life. While the philosophers of the 19th century were living in a beautiful human-sized world allowed by the freedom-promoting philosophers of the 18th century, they planted the seeds for the 20th century's embrace of scale in every aspect of life. The natural climax of the industrial revolution was thought to be an ever-increasing scale and ever-distinguishing division of labor. Empires were still growing, and continental philosophers provided the intellectual justification to do so. Röpke thought that this idolization of size for itself was dangerous spiritually, but also recognized how it could lead to impractical outcomes in governance and business.

Röpke saw both imperialism and the beginnings of the growth of bureaucracy that would define the rest of the 20th century. While most international imperialism has depleted since Röpke wrote, the bureaucracy that he witnessed in western countries has only grown since he wrote about it. He recognized the incentive of the state to increase, but thought that the 20th century presented an even deeper problem. Both the Nazis and the socialists made big government central to their regimes as an extension of the 19th century philosophers that Röpke was so skeptical of. In both systems, the power of the state was believed to be the center of both safety and societal renewal. People in the grips of the great depression followed the philosophers of the 19th century to their natural conclusion and demanded a government that comprehensively dealt with their most fundamental problems. Röpke believed that the philosophical emphasis on scale led people to hand over too much power to a state that could not sustainably deliver the outcomes it promised. 

Although Röpke recognized that in some industries scale was helpful, he believed that it was the cult of the colossal rather than actual industrial effectiveness that led so many businesses to seek scale over all else. Scale often comes at great cost, and it cannot just be assumed that it will pay off. Röpke believed that intellectual pride rather than business need caused so many industrialists to create large factories in centralized locations. For many businesses, scale adds little, and is often an expensive luxury. In some situations, high levels of regulation make it more cost-effective to start a larger business where a smaller one would have been more competitive in a less-regulated environment. Even in stable conditions, smaller producers are not necessarily less productive than larger ones, but in times of shock, small producers gain an edge. Smaller producers are often more nimble and able to adjust to changes in external conditions more effectively than larger producers. Firms with fewer people who each understand a greater part of the business are able to adjust tasks and processes as needed. Scale is often an irrational choice, and a recognition of that can unlock real business value and resilience.

Although arbitrary increases in the size of government and business add impacts to productivity and the effectiveness of government, it has much more serious long-term effects. Röpke believed that high levels of scale in social and economic life could lead humans into patterns of irresponsibility and a regressive emergent order. While he believed that economic and societal conditions were not the primary drivers of human behavior, he saw how an impersonal society could lead to far more abuses of freedom than a smaller society with a richer network of relationship relationships. Adam Smith recognized the ability of a high trust society to increase the effectiveness of commerce. Trust is difficult to attain when an economy and government are so large that they make extended social relationships nearly impossible. Size itself is not efficient and Röpke recognized that thinking so can mistakenly lead to larger governments and businesses than necessary. As the US deficit continues to grow, and the dollar continues to inflate, the warning of 80 years ago still holds true. Making something that does not work bigger merely multiplies the problem rather than solving it. As people get used to a larger government, they become gradually less able and willing to govern themselves.