12 ms·

There is a natural garbage collection mechanism for corporations that become too inefficient. Inefficient government agencies can last much longer.

linksnapzz 1y ago
There was; now we have bailouts. "Too big to fail".
- FredPret 1y ago
  While true, you overstate the problem. Look up the companies in the S&P 500 today, 10 years ago, 20, 30, 50. There are dramatic changes with only a handful of long term survivors.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Retric 1y ago
    That overstates the difference as mergers hardly destroy the old companies in their entirety. Instead it’s the same kind of shakeups you regularly see in government agencies. Picking one small example, HERSA is a merger of the Health Services Administration (1973–1982) and Health Resources Administration (1973–1982). However currently one of its major functions is managing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program that showed up in 1990.
    - Robotbeat 1y ago
      There is a LOT more personnel churn in private sector than federal government.
      - Retric 1y ago
        That really depends on what you mean by churn. Lower levels of government are less stable than major corporations. Walmart stores don’t regularly all randomly shut down for a few weeks due to someone being unable to decide on a budget etc. I’ll grant you it’s really different kinds of instability though.
    - FredPret 1y ago
      A merger frequently involves major shakeups in both the acquirer and the acquired. You don’t have to, and shouldn’t destroy the old companies. You just want their resources redirected to more efficient uses every so often.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
- lenkite 1y ago
  Yea, the "too big to fail" principle needs to just go. Corporations should be prevented from becoming so big in the first place. There must be a limit on the revenue generation - once you cross a number, you should be broken up. Humongous companies just become national-level power brokers adversely affecting both the government and the free market.
chewbacha 1y ago
Monopolies have a bone to pick with you. They aren’t generally garbage collected as their wealth becomes self-perpetuating even in the face of inefficiencies as they can continue to raise prices and push others out. This was true during the gilded age and it’s become true again. It took systematic regulations, unions, welfare, and the Sherman antitrust act. If it wasn’t for a democratic government the oligarchs would still have been in control. They are corrupting the current institutions thought the DOGE coup. You see this in the self dealing of the billionaires such as Musks contracts as well as the tariff exemption grift. So please don’t flaunt a free market as a natural solution to inefficient systems, not even Adam Smith believed that.

linksnapzz 1y ago

There was; now we have bailouts. "Too big to fail".

FredPret 1y ago
While true, you overstate the problem. Look up the companies in the S&P 500 today, 10 years ago, 20, 30, 50. There are dramatic changes with only a handful of long term survivors.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 1y ago
  That overstates the difference as mergers hardly destroy the old companies in their entirety. Instead it’s the same kind of shakeups you regularly see in government agencies. Picking one small example, HERSA is a merger of the Health Services Administration (1973–1982) and Health Resources Administration (1973–1982). However currently one of its major functions is managing the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program that showed up in 1990.
  - Robotbeat 1y ago
    There is a LOT more personnel churn in private sector than federal government.
    - Retric 1y ago
      That really depends on what you mean by churn. Lower levels of government are less stable than major corporations. Walmart stores don’t regularly all randomly shut down for a few weeks due to someone being unable to decide on a budget etc. I’ll grant you it’s really different kinds of instability though.
  - FredPret 1y ago
    A merger frequently involves major shakeups in both the acquirer and the acquired. You don’t have to, and shouldn’t destroy the old companies. You just want their resources redirected to more efficient uses every so often.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
lenkite 1y ago
Yea, the "too big to fail" principle needs to just go. Corporations should be prevented from becoming so big in the first place. There must be a limit on the revenue generation - once you cross a number, you should be broken up. Humongous companies just become national-level power brokers adversely affecting both the government and the free market.

chewbacha 1y ago

Monopolies have a bone to pick with you. They aren’t generally garbage collected as their wealth becomes self-perpetuating even in the face of inefficiencies as they can continue to raise prices and push others out. This was true during the gilded age and it’s become true again. It took systematic regulations, unions, welfare, and the Sherman antitrust act. If it wasn’t for a democratic government the oligarchs would still have been in control. They are corrupting the current institutions thought the DOGE coup. You see this in the self dealing of the billionaires such as Musks contracts as well as the tariff exemption grift. So please don’t flaunt a free market as a natural solution to inefficient systems, not even Adam Smith believed that.