4 ms·
No, it is not. This is the reason big conglomerates should be split with an axe and left to the vultures. They are super inefficient because they have incompet
by forgottenpaswrd 15y ago
No, it is not. This is the reason big conglomerates should be split with an axe and left to the vultures.
They are super inefficient because they have incompetents in place that can't measure the real value created by their workers but also because as a company grows bigger and bigger you forget who is your customer and start playing the Soviet Russia central planning trick of "looking like you work is more important than working".
When those big companies like banks show looses, we join them together creating bigger monsters that parasites real economy even more. They then use tricks and more tricks to hide the reality(GM or Enron) so the party continues one more day.
But one day the party will be over for them.
- tatsuke95 15y agoBig companies are incredibly efficient at generating wealth. Look around you. >They then use tricks and more tricks to hide the reality(GM or Enron) so the party continues one more day. You cherry pick two large companies, only one of which can actually be considered a failure (if you think GM has been a failure, I don't know what to tell you). You don't think fraud goes on on a massive scale at the small business level? And what about the other 498 companies in the fortune 500?
- onemoreact 15y agoThe fortune 500 list is a moving target with plenty of large scale failures on a regular basis. Compare Profits from these lists: 1995: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1995/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/fu... 2000: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/2000/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/fu... 2005: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/2005/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/fu...
- william42 15y agoGM was at least on the verge of bankruptcy a few years ago, but I'm pretty sure that can be attributed more to massively underestimating how much healthcare would cost in 2008 during a union negotiation several decades prior than to any sort of dirty tricks.
- jbooth 15y agoThank you.
- tatsuke95 15y agoRight. And prior to that they produced trillions in revenues over 100+ years of being in business, selling more cars worldwide than ANY other company. The 2008 bailout is naught but a blip on the radar, so implying that GM hasn't been a good company, and putting them in the same sentence as Enron is sort of out to lunch. GM has been a wealth generation machine for a long time. That's my point.