4 ms·
There was; now we have bailouts. "Too big to fail".
by linksnapzz 2y ago
There was; now we have bailouts. "Too big to fail".
- FredPret 2y agoWhile 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 2y ago[deleted]
- Retric 2y agoThat 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 2y agoThere is a LOT more personnel churn in private sector than federal government.
- Retric 2y agoThat 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 2y agoA 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 2y ago[deleted]
- lenkite 2y agoYea, 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.