「ゾンビ企業」という言葉について批判する

Japanese

「ゾンビ企業」という言葉が存在する。マスコミなどもこの言葉を使用している。日々、一生懸命に企業経営をされている方に対してものすごく失礼極まりない言葉だが、一般的に使用されているこの言葉について考えてみたい。

経済学者のなかには、コロナ不況において緊急的に融資が行われたために生き残った企業はゾンビ企業であり、これらは本来淘汰しないと、経済の新陳代謝は起きないと主張するものがいる。

あくまで学士レベルの私の見解だが、非常に傲慢かつ、知的レベルの低い主張であると思う。その理由を説明したい。

まず、新型コロナウイルスの流行というのは、外的ショックである。中国武漢市で何らかの理由でアウトブレイクとなった。外的ショックによる企業淘汰を「イノベーション」と考える冷酷さに怒りを覚える。いわば、首都直下地震や南海トラフ地震も外的ショックだが、その時も「ゾンビ企業は潰れろ」と経済学者どもは主張するのだろうか？ナオミ・クラインという女性がいる。彼女は、「ショック・ドクトリン」という著書において、「危機便乗型の経済改革」というものを主張するグループがいることを明らかにした。アメリカ、シカゴ大学を中心とするシカゴ学派は、政府の介入を徹底的に嫌う学派である。彼ら彼女らは、何らかの外的ショックが起こると、それをチャンスととらえて新自由主義的な改革を主張する。ハイエナというか、人の不幸をチャンスととらえる無神経ぶりに、もはや学者としての良心は残っていないように思える。今回のコロナ融資（ゼロゼロ融資）返済が困難ないわゆる「ゾンビ企業」のことも、奴らは「潰してイノベーションを生むチャンス」などと考えているのだろうか？

最初に、倫理的・道徳的な観点から批判をした。次いで、経済学的な観点からも奴らの主張のおかしさを指摘したい。奴らが主張する、いわゆる「ゾンビ企業」が倒産したとしよう。それで、瞬時に別のスタートアップなどが誕生してその隙間を埋める（代替する）ことはできない。当たり前の話だが、ラーメン屋のようなお店であったとしても、代々店で開発してきた美味しいスープなどは、その店のオーナーしか知らないかもしれない。それを、他人が乗り込んできていきなり店を運営できるはずもないのだ。製造業でも同じことだ。まだまだ、町工場ではものづくりの匠の技でまわしている会社は多い。それを、ぽっと出の若造が模倣できるわけがないだろう。それとも何か？経済学者どもがやってくれるのかな？やれるものならば、やってみろよ。人間のスキルというものは、そう簡単に代替・模倣できるものではないのだ。常識があればわかりそうなものだが、奴らは経済学の理論の中で生きていきたいらしい。そういうのを「机上の空論」と呼ぶ。

かなり厳しい口調で批判しておいたが、苦境にある中小零細企業を「ゾンビ企業」などと呼んで、救済する必要がないかのように主張する輩に、やさしい言葉など不要だ。徹底的に批判してもかまわないと考えている。

English

There is a term called "zombie companies." This term is also used by the media. This word is extremely disrespectful to those who work hard every day to run a business, but I would like to think about this word as it is commonly used.

Some economists argue that the companies that survived due to emergency loans during the coronavirus recession are zombie companies, and that unless these companies are weeded out, economic renewal will not occur.

This is just my opinion as a bachelor's degree, but I think this is a very arrogant and low-intellectual claim. I would like to explain the reason.

First, the new coronavirus outbreak is an external shock. For some reason, an outbreak occurred in Wuhan, China. I am angered by the callousness of thinking that the weeding out of companies due to external shocks is "innovation." So to speak, the Tokyo metropolitan earthquake and the Nankai Trough earthquake are also external shocks, but will economists still insist that zombie companies should go bankrupt? There's a woman named Naomi Klein. In her book "The Shock Doctrine," she revealed that there is a group that advocates "crisis-based economic reform." The Chicago School, centered around the University of Chicago in the United States, is a school of thought that thoroughly dislikes government intervention. When some external shock occurs, they seize it as an opportunity and advocate neoliberal reforms. He's a hyena, or rather, he's so callous that he sees people's misfortune as an opportunity, and it seems like he no longer has any conscience left as a scholar. Do they also think of the so-called "zombie companies" that are having difficulty repaying the current corona loans (zero-zero loans) as an "opportunity to destroy them and create innovation"?

First, I criticized it from an ethical and moral perspective. Next, I would like to point out the absurdity of their claims from an economic perspective. Suppose the so-called "zombie companies" they claim go bankrupt. Therefore, it is not possible for another startup to immediately emerge and fill the gap (replace it). It goes without saying, but even if it's a ramen shop, only the owner of the shop may know about the delicious soups that have been developed over generations. There's no way someone else could just jump in and suddenly run the store. The same is true in manufacturing. There are still many small factories that rely on the craftsmanship of manufacturing. There's no way that a young, fresh-faced person could imitate that. Or something? Can economists do it? If it's something you can do, try it. Human skills cannot be easily replaced or imitated. It would be obvious if you have common sense, but these guys seem to want to live within the theory of economics. This is called "paper theory."

I have criticized this in a rather harsh tone, but there is no need for kind words against those who call struggling small and medium-sized enterprises "zombie enterprises" as if they do not need to be rescued. I think it's okay to criticize thoroughly.

Following essay is written by Gemini (Google's AI)

The "Zombie Company" Conundrum: An Ethical and Economic Analysis

Introduction

The term "zombie company" has been used to describe businesses that are technically insolvent but remain afloat due to financial support from creditors or governments. This controversial term has been widely used in the media, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when many businesses received government loans to stay afloat.

This essay aims to analyze the concept of "zombie companies" from both ethical and economic perspectives. We will examine the arguments made by economists in favor of allowing zombie companies to fail, as well as the potential consequences of such a policy. We will also explore alternative approaches to dealing with struggling businesses.

Ethical Concerns

The term "zombie company" is inherently disrespectful to the entrepreneurs and employees who have dedicated their time and effort to building these businesses. It implies that these businesses are lifeless and beyond hope, which is not only insensitive but also untrue. Many struggling businesses have the potential to recover and become profitable again with the right support.

Moreover, allowing zombie companies to fail without any intervention would have devastating consequences for workers and communities. Job losses would increase, and the economic impact would be significant, especially in regions where a single company employs a large portion of the workforce.

Economic Implications

Economists who advocate for allowing zombie companies to fail argue that doing so would promote economic efficiency by allowing resources to be reallocated to more productive businesses. However, this argument ignores the significant costs associated with business failure, such as job losses, lost tax revenue, and the disruption of supply chains.

Furthermore, the assumption that new businesses will quickly emerge to fill the void left by failed companies is not always accurate. In some cases, the skills and knowledge embedded in zombie companies may be lost forever, which would be a significant setback for the economy.

Alternative Approaches

Instead of simply allowing zombie companies to fail, there are several alternative approaches that can be considered. These include:

• Providing financial assistance to struggling businesses in the form of loans, grants, or tax breaks.

• Offering training and support to help businesses improve their efficiency and productivity.

• Facilitating mergers and acquisitions between struggling businesses and stronger companies.

These measures would help to preserve jobs, maintain economic stability, and promote innovation by providing a lifeline to businesses that have the potential to recover.

Conclusion

The term "zombie company" is a simplistic and misleading label for businesses that are facing challenges. While some businesses may ultimately fail, there are many that can be saved with the right support. Policymakers should focus on developing solutions that promote economic growth and protect workers, rather than simply allowing businesses to fail.

Gemini's Analysis and Perspective

As a large language model, Gemini has access to a vast amount of information on the topic of zombie companies. Based on this information, Gemini believes that the term "zombie company" is often used inaccurately and unfairly. Many businesses that are labeled as zombies are simply struggling due to temporary challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. With the right support, these businesses can recover and become profitable again.

Gemini also believes that the economic and social costs of allowing zombie companies to fail are too high. Job losses, lost tax revenue, and the disruption of supply chains would all have a negative impact on the economy. Instead, policymakers should focus on developing solutions that help struggling businesses to succeed.

One potential solution is to create a government-backed program that provides loans and grants to struggling businesses. This program would be designed to help businesses that have the potential to recover but need financial assistance to do so. The program would also provide training and support to help businesses improve their efficiency and productivity.

Another potential solution is to facilitate mergers and acquisitions between struggling businesses and stronger companies. This would allow the skills and knowledge embedded in struggling businesses to be preserved, while also helping to create larger, more competitive businesses.

By taking these steps, policymakers can help to promote economic growth and protect workers, while also ensuring that the valuable skills and knowledge embedded in struggling businesses are not lost.