Except that instead of a big business doing those things, there could be a network of small businesses.
Each business does a small part of the whole, buying and selling what they need from other businesses.
The reason these networks don't come into existence is the problem of how an interdependent network gets bootstrapped. For example, suppose that gadgets are currently made by a large corporation, Acme, because making a gadget requires designing and making a widget, a vidget, and an xidget, a design for how to put the bits together, and the final assembly, and that is too much for a lifestyle business, and Acme doesn't buy or sell the parts as the whole process is vertically integrated. If there were widgets, vidgets, and xidgets on the market, and designs for building gadgets from them on the market, then there could be lifestyle business building gadgets - and likewise for any other part of the supply chain being removed. However, without any lifestyle gadget makers, there will be no demand for widgets (unless they are useful in another industry).
Maybe there is a business model for helping to bring a network of interdependent companies into existence simultaneously.
Innovation often simply requires more investment (in both human and financial capital) than what a few-man show can handle.
With only lifestyle business you'd also exclude everything that has negative cash flow in the initial stages - except if you think another lifestyler can run a VC without relying on "the market".
Seriously, there are a lot of things wrong in our society, but scalable businesses ain't one of them.
"Survival of the fittest", you mean. There are plenty examples of big companies that failed (or would have failed wasn't it for government intervention).
You're right. By biggest i mean profitability, reveneue, etc. Which is, for a company, an indicator of their 'fitness'. I'm not talking about the loss making whales that had to get bailed out and for whom we are all now paying for..
The big aren't successful because they are big, they are big because they are successful.
Of course, you could argue that the incremental value of an added employee is positive for successful companies.
But there's an opportunity cost, if employees in companies are not developing, taking risks, and focused like they would be if they were working for themselves.
Each business does a small part of the whole, buying and selling what they need from other businesses.
The reason these networks don't come into existence is the problem of how an interdependent network gets bootstrapped. For example, suppose that gadgets are currently made by a large corporation, Acme, because making a gadget requires designing and making a widget, a vidget, and an xidget, a design for how to put the bits together, and the final assembly, and that is too much for a lifestyle business, and Acme doesn't buy or sell the parts as the whole process is vertically integrated. If there were widgets, vidgets, and xidgets on the market, and designs for building gadgets from them on the market, then there could be lifestyle business building gadgets - and likewise for any other part of the supply chain being removed. However, without any lifestyle gadget makers, there will be no demand for widgets (unless they are useful in another industry).
Maybe there is a business model for helping to bring a network of interdependent companies into existence simultaneously.