4 ms·

That's such an incredibly shortsighted view of the downsides. In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to b

That's such an incredibly shortsighted view of the downsides. In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with, encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability, any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired, but can instead only scale on their own revenues.

bruce511 8d ago
It's worse than that. When the owner retires, all staff lose their jobs. That's a fairly big bummer. I'm currently part of a "small" business/factory (around 50 employees). The owner is nearing retirement. Are all 50 of us gonna hit the streets tomorrow? Should our customers, many longstanding over 20 years get their contracts terminated? Do they get any warning? Can they easily switch to other suppliers? Is our offering somewhat unique? Frankly, I think the thought-experiment is very incomplete if you can't see major downsides.
- Xirdus 7d ago
  Recently, the owner of the factory my grandfather worked for the last 30 years has retired and sold their business, as a single package, fully operational, with employees and pending orders. It was still shut down and all employees were let go without any severance. From what I know, this is the norm for retirement sales, not the exception. In this thought experiment, the result would be very similar to what happened, except with less wealth concentration, and with fewer Boeing-McDonnell Douglas mergers that ruin good companies in pursuit of short term profits (because short term profits are harder to realize by design). Lost jobs are also a lot less of a problem in countries with functioning safety net.
Xirdus 7d ago
> In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with Or you get a loan. Or you get an investor on board. How is that different from the current situation? > encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. It's happening anyway. My last vaccination was done 100% at Walmart. > Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability How is that different from the current situation? > any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired Acquisitions are a relatively recent inventions, acqui-hires even more so. People have been doing massive inventions at rapid pace for like 200 years before being bought out by FAANG was a viable business strategy. > but can instead only scale on their own revenues. And loans. Don't forget loans.

bruce511 8d ago

It's worse than that. When the owner retires, all staff lose their jobs. That's a fairly big bummer. I'm currently part of a "small" business/factory (around 50 employees). The owner is nearing retirement. Are all 50 of us gonna hit the streets tomorrow? Should our customers, many longstanding over 20 years get their contracts terminated? Do they get any warning? Can they easily switch to other suppliers? Is our offering somewhat unique? Frankly, I think the thought-experiment is very incomplete if you can't see major downsides.

Xirdus 7d ago
Recently, the owner of the factory my grandfather worked for the last 30 years has retired and sold their business, as a single package, fully operational, with employees and pending orders. It was still shut down and all employees were let go without any severance. From what I know, this is the norm for retirement sales, not the exception. In this thought experiment, the result would be very similar to what happened, except with less wealth concentration, and with fewer Boeing-McDonnell Douglas mergers that ruin good companies in pursuit of short term profits (because short term profits are harder to realize by design). Lost jobs are also a lot less of a problem in countries with functioning safety net.

Xirdus 7d ago

> In your model, the only possible business owners would be those with major capital resources to begin with Or you get a loan. Or you get an investor on board. How is that different from the current situation? > encouraging the spread of existing businesses into a sprawl: Walmart is now your doctor, pharmacist, and pharma manufacturer. It's happening anyway. My last vaccination was done 100% at Walmart. > Nobody would start a small business because they'd have to carry all liability How is that different from the current situation? > any new ideas are limited to spread at a glacially slow pace, because companies can't be aquired or acqui-hired Acquisitions are a relatively recent inventions, acqui-hires even more so. People have been doing massive inventions at rapid pace for like 200 years before being bought out by FAANG was a viable business strategy. > but can instead only scale on their own revenues. And loans. Don't forget loans.