5 ms·
You're suggesting the answer by asking the question, but yes, companies that consistently deliver moderate performance (are less extractive and don't maximize g
by Borealid 3y ago
You're suggesting the answer by asking the question, but yes, companies that consistently deliver moderate performance (are less extractive and don't maximize gains) would generally be better for the world as a whole than highly optimized, fragile corporations that deliver maximal returns by chewing up everything in their path.
They'd even, in the longer run, be better for their own shareholders and their descendants.
- MrGilbert 3y agoThey might even help in closing (or reducing) the gap between the rich and the middle class. But, as there are no incentives for such behavior in society any longer, I doubt we will see widespread adoption until it is inevitable.
- xattt 3y agoThank you for reply. I truly couldn’t tell whether underperformance was a threat to the longevity of a company.
- bobthepanda 3y agoThe question then becomes, are they moderately performant? Japan’s bubble resulted in deflation because a bunch of zombie firms spent decades paying down balance sheet debts rather than resolving things quickly through bankruptcy. And the Japanese keiretsu structure mostly disadvantages businesses outside of the massive conglomerates, particularly small and medium enterprises.