Why is it inherently a good thing that a larger company survives the pandemic and a smaller one doesn’t? That seems like a negative to me. And in part it may only happen because of the $4 Trillion fire hose of cash pointed at large companies. Something smaller companies can’t access.

The negatives of consolidation aren’t relating to being in a pandemic situation but the before and after, normal times. Things such as reduced labor choices, killing cheaper products and your competitors that would supply them, etc. that’s what’s been bad about the consolidation. (See that great example about how Covidian killed the cheaper ventilator.)

If Starbucks survives and local stores close and all we have in 5 years are Starbucks everywhere why is that good? Why is it good that Starbucks benefits from the pandemic this way? Why isn’t it better if there is no behemoth Starbucks to crowd out those local stores, so that they end up being able to be reborn in the aftermath of this as more new local stores? Or why isn’t it better to just have lots of local stores and if them closing and having to reopen is a problem you point the $4 trillion fire hose at your small businesses instead of large businesses? Such as how some other countries have done by backstopping payroll and other things.

> Why is it inherently a good thing that a larger company survives the pandemic and a smaller one doesn’t?

That is the wrong framing of my argument. Here is a better one:

It is inherently good that some companies survive rather than none. The ones most likely to survive are big, and Americans are increasingly reliant on big companies during the lockdown. Therefore we should be glad we didn't break up those big companies, and after the pandemic we should be more skeptical of calls to break them up.

Do you not see how it is dangerous to leave the whole economy in the hands of a few large companies? Or are you ignoring that for the sake of argument?

It’s not size but industry that’s determining who’s hurt and who hardly notices.

Starbucks and United Airlines have been hit much harder than many small tech companies that have seen minimal impact.

No company of any size can do well when the government orders it to stop doing business. It doesn't tell us much about small versus big.

Most Starbucks stores were ordered to close by the government, and the government has advised against (and in some cases banned) air travel. Of course those companies are suffering.

Furthermore, I'd argue that Starbucks is more likely to survive this than local cafe chains, and United is more likely to survive than regional discount airlines.

Smaller tech companies are already seeing the impact from the pandemic, and they will soon see more impact. Tech employees can work from home, so the companies are still producing things. However, most tech companies will have dramatic drops in revenue for the next few quarters and larger ones are more likely to be able to stick it out until the economy recovers.

To clarify, it’s not just government orders in play. Size can have some positive knock on effects, but it’s far less import than often portrayed.

High end/home toilet paper is in increased demand because people are using fewer public toilets which use the cheaper bulk toilet paper. Inversely, Starbucks voluntarily closed many stores because they served areas like collages that where going to be devoid of people.

So, while there is plenty of spin around both topics the reality is significantly different from how things things are being reported.