start from the enterprise and push it step by step.

Enterprises exist because the market operation has transaction costs. When the transaction costs of the market are greater than the organizational costs of enterprises, resource allocation will be carried out by enterprises as economic organizations. This can save transaction costs. However, when the scale of the enterprise continues to expand, the marginal income of management decreases and the price of factor supply increases, which will increase the transaction cost of the organization and further limit the boundary expansion of the enterprise. This is Coase's theory.

popular point, that is, the establishment and scale expansion of enterprises have transaction costs, and enterprise expansion has scale boundaries, which are different in different industries and fields.

in areas where economies of scale and scope exist, we will intensify mergers and acquisitions and integrate resources. For example, the car you mentioned, you will find that the car manufacturers in each country are several big oligarchs. A few days ago, China Changan Group was reorganized with Hafei and Changhe under AVIC. Another example is the integration of central enterprises, which will be reduced to 81 in the future (there are still 132). That is to say, in industries with economies of scale and scope, there will gradually be only some large enterprises in the future, which is a direction and can save social resources. However, we will not allow only one enterprise, and the competition mechanism must exist, otherwise it will lead to inefficiency. For example, in the refined oil market, the state will let PetroChina compete with Sinopec and not long ago allowed CNOOC to enter; Another example is the telecommunications industry, where China Mobile Unicom will exist. But we can't introduce too much competition, otherwise we will lose economies of scale, which proves from another aspect that there will be several large enterprises in some industries.

for some competitive industries, we will continue to encourage competition, and we will do so in the future, so as to maximize social welfare (the more competitive the market, the closer it is to efficiency, and correspondingly, the more effective the resource allocation). Such as food and beverage, textile and clothing, catering and entertainment, electronic information and so on. In these industries, competition will encourage innovation and make the market develop efficiently. Innovation is the soul of a nation, and efficiency is the pursuit of the market. For example, in our country, our state-owned capital will gradually withdraw from these industries, and competition will make these industries full of vitality, continuous development and innovation. Moreover, the existence of small and medium-sized enterprises can encourage individuals to start their own businesses, and at the same time, it can promote the rise of emerging industries and bring new growth points and excitement to the economy. Look at our country's Growth Enterprise Market and you will know that no matter what the result is, the original intention is always good.

many people have their own opinions and conclusions about the problem of * * * productism you mentioned, even if they don't think from the perspective of economics. If we think from the perspective of economics, economics is based on the scarcity of resources (if resources are infinite, obviously economics is not necessary, because we have everything we want), and the scarcity of resources is relative, that is, people's desire for resources exceeds the resources they can get. Then what is desire? Scarcity forms and determines that every economic resource has a price greater than zero. The conclusion is that * * * capitalism can exist in a society without scarcity. It's just a personal opinion, and there may be many defects. ^O^