I found the article odd. The stats of how many people work for companies greater than 250 can be accounted for without claiming companies get weaker as they big

I found the article odd. The stats of how many people work for companies greater than 250 can be accounted for without claiming companies get weaker as they bigger. Why do almost half of the population work for small companies then? Because that is how companies start. You don't create a new company with over 250 employees overnight. So your looking at a flow: companies start small and then grow, either by hiring more people or by getting swallowed up by a larger company. So if it's a flow then we should see huge megacorps periodically die? Well, a lot of company deaths are at the small end, where there is churn. Plus the system as a whole is growing - there is more money and "stuff" coming into existence every day. IBM still exists. The reason we don't have a ministry of food is not because such a ministry would be unstable as an organization (which seems to be the connection...). In fact such a ministry might be scarily stable, and produce food at a very low cost (efficiently). The reason we dont want a ministry of food is not related to efficiency or cost. Seems like the author just wanted to take a stab at the government. What's the takeaway here? We should have the water distribution system managed by thousands of tiny botique companies? City states with their own laws?