Individual corporate entities have their own flaws but the competition between them is a structure that eventually forced inefficient entities out. So Intel eventually finds themselves overtaken by a TSMC. But with govt entities, no such structure exists.

I understand the argument, but it seems large companies are seldom, or never, overtaken by others. They entrench themselves by regulatory capture, advantages of economy os scale, and survive virtually indefinitely even in shrinking markets

If we don't count "missing the boat" (as happened regarding search/mobile/social media), which arguably happens because of disruption from the newcomers and not mismanagement/underperformance at the oldtimers, what large companies have failed in the last 20 years?

Core to this point is that mega companies are only at threat from disruption, and it doesn't matter whether they're private or state owned for that

(I am of course ignoring companies that go under from criminal, as in corruption, mismanagement. I guess those are much more prevalent between the state-owned, for obvious reasons)

The state can own the capital/resource and make multiple corporate entities compete (efficiently) as workers.

There's a shortage of key mineral reserves, but an abundance of corporate entities.

In capitalism, competition is on a higher level of abstraction than the employee’s (even the CEO)’s performance.

The entire company will go up or down according to output, even if due to external circumstances. Capital gets reallocated to better performing companies.

Examples: IBM, HP, Dell went from dominating to the doghouse; Microsoft made excellent strategic choices and remained relevant; Apple went from the doghouse to dominating, and so on.

This filters down to the employees. There is much more turnover and harder work (and higher pay) in private companies than at the government.