Is it good that America allows large and successful firms to fail?

[Tochukwu Nwaji]

The book clearly shows that America’s stable and secure entrepreneurial and political economy is perfect for attracting investment and competition. By allowing big companies to fail, it highlights two key points. First, the exit of established firms can create a gap in the market and lead to unemployment for their workers. But on the flip side, this policy pushes large companies to stay innovative and competitive, knowing they can't rely on favoritism and must keep their standards high to survive against startups.

[Colleado Keana Rose]

Size doesn't necessarily determine success or excellence. A smaller business can outshine a larger one by being better at what they do, and that's what truly matters. Quality and expertise should be the ultimate measures of prosperity, not just size or scale.

[chakri wang]

Just because a company is huge doesn't necessarily mean they're the best. If a startup business doing the same thing is actually doing it better, they deserve to be the one thriving.

[Benson Ken]

It's not good at all. Sometimes big companies are the reasons small ones thrive. For example if I start s mall business. And then I see a big company that does what I do. It may help me believe in myself because I'd they can do it, I can too. And what will happen when we allow these large companies fail ? Where will we get our inspiration?

[kingsley onyenwe]

I would say yes and no. Yes, if the company has proved over the years to be fraudulent. No, if the company has clean records and are out for the common human good.

[Udeh N]

In "Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters" by Howard Wolk, the concept of allowing large and successful firms to fail is likely discussed within the context of America's entrepreneurial ecosystem. The book might argue that this approach fosters a competitive environment where new ideas and businesses can thrive. By not bailing out failing companies, the market is allowed to self-correct, reallocating resources to more innovative and efficient enterprises. This process, although sometimes painful, ultimately drives economic growth and resilience. Additionally, it underscores the importance of adaptability and risk-taking in entrepreneurship, reinforcing America's reputation as a dynamic and innovative nation.

[Benny Rach]

Allowing large and successful firms to fail can be beneficial in promoting innovation and competition. It allows new, more efficient businesses to emerge, driving economic progress. However, the process can lead to job losses and economic disruptions. Balancing these factors is crucial, and America's approach, which embraces creative destruction while managing the fallout, has contributed to its dynamic economy.

[Emeka JohnObi]

It’s not really good but if the little business perform the job better why not give them a chance over the big shots.

[Rishaunda Lynnette Britton]

This question is too direct. Did America, in the actual sense, allow those firms to fail? I think we should consider a couple of underlying factors I areas of diving head-on o a particular causative factor.

[Deivid Ndudi]

Not good at all. The big Gus should be allowed to flourish they earned their place

[Pascal Junior]

Despite the risk of job loss and impact on social safety nets, the United States' dedication to competition and innovation drives firms to develop and adapt. This competitive pressure propels economic development by stimulating the creation of new technology, services, and business models.

[Pascal Junior]

The issue over the acceptability of huge corporations going bankrupt is complex, with some believing that it is required in a competitive free market, while others feel it contributes to unemployment and economic instability. Sun Capital's bankruptcy of the Friendly's restaurant chain is an example of this issue. While bankruptcy can encourage innovation and employment growth, it also has drawbacks such as job losses and economic ripple effects. Thus, strong social safety nets and economic policies are essential.

[Ruka N]

In the first chapter, we read that "as America spawns more unicorns than other countries, it also is more lenient in allowing large and successful firms to fail". I think that allowing big, successful businesses to fail is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is bad as it can cause massive layoffs, increasing pressure on the people who become unemployed and on the social insurance system. On the upside, it creates the need for big and successful businesses to keep on their toes for any external and internal threats to their success and existence. Had there been no such threat, the big businesses could stagnate and impede economic progress.

I agree. It's has it pros and cons.

[Nwachukwu Chrysogonus_]

While giving companies the freedom to excel can be beneficial, it's important to acknowledge the potential impact on unemployment. Instead of simply allowing companies to operate without accountability, implementing sanctions or consequences for underperforming companies can provide a necessary incentive for them to improve and stay competitive.

[Chibyke Icarus]

Yes, there’s nothing wrong with allowing big companies to fail. Sometimes, there are smaller firms who can do much better if given the opportunity. This creates room for competition and innovation which will in return foster economic growth.