zlacker

> The point is they could have probably kept going up if they hadn't done that.

No company goes up forever. They all eventually strangle themselves with bureaucratic inefficiency.

>>Walter+(OP)
> No company goes up forever. They all eventually strangle themselves with bureaucratic inefficiency.

So they should act to strangle themselves faster? It feels like your reasoning is equivalent to, "Eventually you'll die, so there's no point taking care of your health. Go save money by avoiding the doctor, take up smoking, and eat junk food all the time."

>>Walter+(OP)
Forever is a long time, but eg Nintendo has been around in some form or another since 1889, so that doesn't seem like a given.

>>palmot+I2
> So they should act to strangle themselves faster?

Come on.

>>fragme+g5
> in some form or another

I.e. they've been reinventing the business. They were probably burned to the ground in WW2 and had to rebuild the business from scratch.

>>Walter+(OP)
Perhaps that's the trick to longevity then, not seeking endless growth. All the oldest companies on earth seem to small, geographically contained entities (e.g., hotels, restaurants) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies

>>Walter+g8
Being relentlessly focused on the short term will do that, eventually.

You seem to think the assumption "all companies die" means you can simplify away their journey, but it matters if they get there faster or slower (at least to society, if not the decision-makers to maximize their personal profit while hoping to not being the ones left holding the bag).

>>Walter+(OP)
But there's a lot of variance in how long it takes for a company to reach that point.

Some fight it off longer than others.

>>palmot+Vv
Old companies die and new ones take their place. This is not a problem for society. In most cases creative destruction is a net positive.

>>nradov+BG
> Old companies die and new ones take their place. This is not a problem for society. In most cases creative destruction is a net positive.

That's what they say, but I don't think it's true (at the high end, at least). For instance: if Boeing dies, the market will not replace it. It'll be an Airbus monopoly for large jets, and maybe the the communists will eventually build a competitor (Comac). IIRC, it's too expesnive for Embraer to make the jump into that market.

>>Walter+(OP)
...which is why the market is supposed to have competition. Company strangles themselves with bureaucracy -> next company is ready to take over. But when a monopoly strangles itself with bureaucracy, there is no next company to take over and you get rent-seeking behaviour and unmotivated employees that just phone it in because they have nowhere else to go. End result: the public foots the bill for less quality at higher prices.