3 ms·

Oh no, I didn't mean to object the author's point of view, on the contrary I agree. Thanks to the current technological level, it's definitely much easier and l

Oh no, I didn't mean to object the author's point of view, on the contrary I agree. Thanks to the current technological level, it's definitely much easier and less risky than ever for small companies to undertake businesses which normally bigger companies are supposed to take. TV Broadcasting is an immediate example here. What I wanted to point was that there's a real and enormous effort by the governments to keep those "big companies" going no matter how much it costs. Apparently those big, unproductive and unsuccessful companies are being rewarded. I just wish the author had a thing or two to say about this irritating fact as it concerns thousands of billions of dollars being spent to help those biggies stay big a little more.

Kadin 17y ago
Steady, predictable employment is the opiate of the masses in a way that religion will never be. That's why there's so much political will to keep those big companies going: they keep, or kept, a lot of people steadily employed, and those employees vote. I think it's entirely possible that an economy consisting of fewer giants and more startups would have less overall unemployment and produce more real wealth, but it would also require workers to give up any remaining idea of lifetime employment and instead embrace careers as people in the IT field are frequently used to them: a string of engagements with different companies, hopefully helping you to develop personally and professionally. It's not necessarily an easy sell; to a lot of people, it looks a lot more risky and less certain than the jobs their fathers had at the steel mill or the auto plant. To the extent that such jobs exist anymore, there's going to be a lot of political pressure to keep them around at any cost.