Talk:Pentacon

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Photography

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Glass

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Biased viewpoint?

The article states: "It was deemed that company was grossly inefficient, employing six thousand staff when it could have sufficed with one thousand."

Deemed inefficient by whom? On what basis is this statement made? Surely profit is not the only way to judge efficiency.

It could be argued that privatization made the company far LESS efficient. If the goal of a company is to employ people and give them meaningful work, Pentacon, under communism, was extremely efficient. Prior to privatization, six thousand people made their living making high quality cameras and optics. After privatization, nearly all those people were laid-off and became unemployed, at a high cost to taxpayers. In addition, the company shipped jobs overseas and the quality of the product became far lower, to the point that Pentacon is no longer a big name in camera and lens production. Surely, in this case, privatization resulted in a drastic LOSS of efficiency.

Perhaps the word "inefficient" should be changed to "unprofitable". Ianbrettcooper (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)