zlacker

>>gwintr+(OP)
Personally, I want capital markets that are dynamic enough that some fraction of $n00 billion businesses become $(n-k)00 billion businesses (check out the aggregate market cap today of GE’s progeny).

I’m not even sure there’s a counterfactual world where GE is a $m trillion business: The global economy has largely evolved beyond these massive, diverse conglomerates, and likely all to the good.

What does a “wow, GE really has been managed wonderfully since 1980” story even look like? I imagine they split up much earlier, each spinoff establishes their own brand, and there’s no “GE” to talk about.

>>twoodf+Vf
I think GE is a tragic story in that they painfully and successfully navigated the transition from legacy giant manufacturer to the global economy, but overdid it.

Growing up in an area with a big presence (one of their division HQ), I did alot of early career business with them. They were shady everything was purchased with weird leasing agreements with themselves, etc.

The business strategy was good, but the demands to return growth powered by financial engineering ultimately killed the company.