> No, they don't. Left alone, they grow until they collapse from internal bureaucracy and inefficiency.
Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me.
If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to outcompete them purely because they have market power.
Big companies are the engines that drive an economy with productivity and employment. Small companies are the future big companies. A healthy economy needs both.
Trying to bias an economy towards small business means your economy will be backward and unproductive.
> If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient
I did not say that. Small companies become big companies by being more efficient than existing big companies. As time goes on, big companies slowly get strangled by bureaucracy and inability to adapt to changing times, and come unglued.
But the economy needs their efficiency when they are young.
Eventually, maybe. But it usually takes far too long and if we speed up the process (and smooth out a boom/bust cycle at the same time) then that seems like a win to me.
If we agree that smaller companies are more efficient then we should actively bias the economy towards them rather than allowing big companies to outcompete them purely because they have market power.