Because they have the money to do so. Those who have it simply pay good people. You should know this if you’ve ever dealt with large companies. It doesn’t take good management—just the money to pay the people who do the work.

The problem isn’t the resources to execute, its forming a coherent strategy, and actually following through with it while balancing their own interests against their co-conspirators that are also all trying to do the same thing. Many times the failure is simply not forming the right initial question. If that step is messed up, then the best implemented plans are solving the wrong problem or addressing the right problem only incidentally at best.

You should also know that giant online corporations like Meta have an incredibly small number of employees compared to industrial companies,

What is leading you to that conclusion? Unless you’re intentionally omitting many offshore resources, the biggest tech giants rival large industrial companies. Meta has more employees than Exxon Mobile. Alphabet has more than 4x the number of employees as Bechtel. Microsoft has 100,000 more employees than Koch Inc.

Are there tech firms with a smaller headcount than other industrial firms? Sure. Even then, I’m not seeing where you’re going with the headcount-to-successful-conspiracy metric.

and labor is the biggest cost factor in any business.

I agree labor is the biggest cost of nearly all businesses. What does that have to do with the ability for a core group of leadership in multiple competitive organizations successfully coordinating a worldwide conspiracy?

What do you actually do for a living? You claim to have insights. Where did you get them?

I agree with your prior statement for myself too : “I’d be an idiot to say here what I do for a living”

If you want to dismiss my observations because I’m not presenting my bona fides, you’re welcome to.