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

[Samina Moiyadi]

If this is actually true then it is a very fair thing to happen. Big companies in developing countries often become complacent, and go on succeeding because of their contacts with powerful people even if their service is not the best. This further makes life difficult for start-ups.

[mark liu]

I have always thought it to be a strange oxymoronic dynamic that many countries in the west, traditionally capitalist, would allow large companies to fail. Ignoring the consumer impact, I feel it could be argued that when companies close to government fall, it may go on to destabilise government or at least regional governing bodies in extreme cases.

[Alice Fu]

I think there are both positive and negative features, however, I would generally say yes because it provides incentive for businesses to continue working hard and not slack off in quality over time.

[Eric Evans 2]

Yes, America should allow any business to fail. Our economy is built on innovation and forward thinking. Just because a company grew large, doesn't mean it should continue to exist solely on the fact that they provide jobs. Other innovators or new companies will take their place in the market if they fail to keep up with the times.

[Esther Deekor]

Large businesses failing helps keep the business owners striving knowing that if they relent, they could lose what they have. And I wouldn't really out is as the government allowing them to fail because it's not government owned and so the government shouldn't be held accountable. The only downside to it is the loss of jobs.

[Cristiano Bellucci]

There is not an easy solution. Enterprises can contribute importantly to GDP and employment, and it is useful to help them. It is also important to set boundaries, so that enterprise know that they are not allowed everything.

[Andrew Darlington]

I do not think it is good considering the impact these firms have on the economy of America.

[Dennis Kiage]

On one end, certainly! Some big firms turn out to be monopolies that in the end turn to some nefarious practices that hurt the end consumer in the long run. It's certainly good, but there's a catch.

[Dennis Kiage]

On one end, certainly! Some big firms turn out to be monopolies that in the end turn to some nefarious practices that hurt the end consumer in the long run. It's certainly good, but there's a catch.

To expand and explain further, the catch is that these firms turn out to be the biggest employers as well as boosters of the economy, and letting them fall may prove disastrous.

[Dennis Kiage]

I think there are both positive and negative features, however, I would generally say yes because it provides incentive for businesses to continue working hard and not slack off in quality over time.

Certainly! This isn't about black and white; there is a whole shade of Grey to consider.

[Dennis Kiage]

Yes, America should allow any business to fail. Our economy is built on innovation and forward thinking. Just because a company grew large, doesn't mean it should continue to exist solely on the fact that they provide jobs. Other innovators or new companies will take their place in the market if they fail to keep up with the times.

That's quite an interesting perspective. But don't you think that innovation also require the financial muscles these companies have for them to be successful?

[_Rhea Jacob]

I think some rules are required to keep big businesses in check and if necessary help them in times of need to help the employees that may suffer form layoffs, however, the business industry is pretty cut-throat and will lead to better creative and innovative ideas, and if it is not to the consumers' liking, then it will naturally decline.

[Dana Lawrence Lohn]

The concept of too big to fail is an important one. If we were a purely capitalist society, of course, we should allow it, but by that same token, we probably should've allowed something like 40% of small businesses and easily 60% of restaurants to fail in 2020 when the pandemic hit. That was a cost too brutal to bear. We aren't a purely capitalist society, of course - we keep elements of humanist with us. The second and third order effects of allowing large businesses to fail are too brutal to bear in our American imagination. I remember back in 2008 when the US Treasury asked JPM to buy Bear Stearns in a weekend. That stopped the collapse of a string of banks but what most Americans don't realize is, that move saved almost every car dealership in the country from going under simultaneously. Those banks handle most of the car financing in the US. No loans ... no sales ... no dealers. So yea, we need some guardrails around too big to fail, for sure.

[Bradley Twesten]

No, it is not good. However, the government will always do what benefits them. So at the end of the day, they do what they want.

Launchpad talks about how the government is used both for and against big business depending on the situation or the lobbyists at the time. I think another important topic is government operational performance itself: Understaffed IRS, FAA not monitoring the big boys so we have planes with all sorts of manufacturing defects, congressional inquiries and investigations that most of the public do not care at all about.

[Mari Thompson]

I think that if a company has a good product and generations are trained to keep the business going the business will not fail. When a company has a garbage product or the product is no longer needed in society then it is inevitable that the business will fail on its own. A product has to be needed by the people and it has to stay relevant to matter.