3 ms·
Why is it inherently a good thing that a larger company survives the pandemic and a smaller one doesn’t? That seems like a negative to me. And in part it may on
by erentz 7y ago
Why is it inherently a good thing that a larger company survives the pandemic and a smaller one doesn’t? That seems like a negative to me. And in part it may only happen because of the $4 Trillion fire hose of cash pointed at large companies. Something smaller companies can’t access.
The negatives of consolidation aren’t relating to being in a pandemic situation but the before and after, normal times. Things such as reduced labor choices, killing cheaper products and your competitors that would supply them, etc. that’s what’s been bad about the consolidation. (See that great example about how Covidian killed the cheaper ventilator.)
If Starbucks survives and local stores close and all we have in 5 years are Starbucks everywhere why is that good? Why is it good that Starbucks benefits from the pandemic this way? Why isn’t it better if there is no behemoth Starbucks to crowd out those local stores, so that they end up being able to be reborn in the aftermath of this as more new local stores? Or why isn’t it better to just have lots of local stores and if them closing and having to reopen is a problem you point the $4 trillion fire hose at your small businesses instead of large businesses? Such as how some other countries have done by backstopping payroll and other things.
- twblalock 7y ago> Why is it inherently a good thing that a larger company survives the pandemic and a smaller one doesn’t? That is the wrong framing of my argument. Here is a better one: It is inherently good that some companies survive rather than none. The ones most likely to survive are big, and Americans are increasingly reliant on big companies during the lockdown. Therefore we should be glad we didn't break up those big companies, and after the pandemic we should be more skeptical of calls to break them up.
- smolder 7y agoDo you not see how it is dangerous to leave the whole economy in the hands of a few large companies? Or are you ignoring that for the sake of argument?