3 ms·

I know hardly anyone likes the MSM (myself included), however is this stat so bad? Is it anything unusual for any other industry? Mature industries consolidate

• alexandercrohde 9y ago
  Yes it's bad. It doesn't really matter if it's "usual" or not, that's a different question. Most industries consolidate into large behemoths that are incredibly inefficient and only stay in business due to patents and buying up all the resources (e.g. cell-phone companies, comcast, certain chip-makers). Innovation dies. And you're right, it's happening right now with youtube defeating the these corporations, and that's good. But if one of these companies somehow bought youtube from google, that'd be bad, because consolidation (especially around distribution of information) is typically bad.
  • _red 9y ago
    >But if one of these companies somehow bought youtube from google, that'd be bad, because consolidation (especially around distribution of information) is typically bad. So youtube2.com can never be created? How long has Instagram been around? Furthermore, your premise is financially flawed. How is the bankrupt NYT going to buy google? The MSM is turning into the "horse buggy whip" situation. Its an old, out-dated industry that is dying. Who cares if eventually only 3 businesses controls "ACME Horse Buggy Whips" -- its not really something to panic about.
    • alexandercrohde 9y ago
      The point is that big companies with financial backing will use market advantage to stifle competition before it gets a chance (e.g. buying up the spectrum for cell phones, lobbying to prevent broadband competitors, patenting very basic concepts, buying up competition in its infancy). You can argue they missed the boat on buying youtube and putting it to their own ends (e.g. YouTube prime is only comcast subscribers). It sounds like you want to disagree with me, but my two points are [and you haven't really provided arguments against either] 1. There is insufficient competition in the market (cell phones, ISP, computer parts, and many others). Much of this is due to deliberate actions by larger companies to protect their pie. 2. The consolidation of media is bad for consumers, and its death is good. The level playing field of a public internet made all the difference.
      • TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        We need to start enforcing the Clayton Act again. It forbids any mergers or acquisitions that might substantially lessen competition in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country. Taken literally that would prevent almost all acquisitions of any large companies that in any way compete with each other.
• kartan 9y ago
  > Is it anything unusual for any other industry? Isn't that a big problem? Monopolies and oligopolies are crippling capitalism. The "too big to fail" conglomerates become just a part of the political system instead of the economic one. With the media industry, it gets worse, as it has an important role in keeping the democratic and economic powers in check. > No doubt the voices behind such "X mega-corps control Y" are in fact just advocating for legislation changes to mandate that they get a seat at the table. Is not that fair? Shouldn't all parts of society be represented in the industry that consolidates the cultural values of a nation? Why should only economic power have representation in the media? It is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.
  • _red 9y ago
    >Is not that fair? Shouldn't all parts of society be represented in the industry that consolidates the cultural values of a nation? Why should only economic power have representation in the media? It is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote. Your dollar is your vote. You choose what industries you support by where you spend your dollars (or cast your eyes in this case). You have the ability to hurt these corporate boogey-men by simply not giving them money / attention. You already have this power, you don't need a politician to give it to you. Use it.
    • retr0grad3 9y ago
      The 'vote with your dollars' premise is flawed; the very nature of monopoly is to erode choice by consolidating market position and using influence (government, market) to maintain position which tends to mean creating barriers for more choice / new players to enter the market.
  • adventured 9y ago
    > Monopolies and oligopolies are crippling capitalism. There's nothing happening now that is new. That has been repeating for 150 years post the Civil War industrial boom in the US. There are few examples of new, high competition industries not consolidating down to several big companies that stand above the rest. Retail? Mom & Pop shops -> Walmart, Target, Sears, Amazon, BestBuy, Kroger, Costco, CVS, Walgreens, etc. Software? Little companies circa 1970s, 1980s -> Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, SAP, etc Search engines? Lycos, Hotbot, AltaVista, Yahoo, Excite, MSN, Inktomi, GoTo, etc. -> Google Steel? Dozens of steel makers -> US Steel Oil? Dozens of refiners -> Standard Oil Automobiles? Hundreds of car makers -> Ford & GM Thousands of radio stations -> SiriusXM, Pandora, Spotify, Apple, Google, Amazon Hundreds of auction companies -> eBay A thousand newspaper classified ad sections -> Craigslist A thousand computer makers -> Dell, HP, Gateway, IBM, Apple, etc These are all the same conceptual scenario playing out. That process is not in fact a bad thing. The only bad thing is if you allow the enlarged companies / winners (ie the companies with superior products/service/price/combination), to then prevent new competition through regulation (or direct violence). If you do that, then you get obnoxious airlines, or companies like Comcast, or crap automobiles such as what GM and Ford were producing for a few decades until a wave of foreign competition arrived (GM and Ford being prime examples of utilizing government to aggressive prevent competition). There's no scenario where even bad Capitalism (usually a combination of abusive government and abusive companies conspiring) doesn't kill itself. US Steel for example was killed by potent, nimble, cheaper foreign competition. GM and Ford had to figure out how to make higher quality cars again, as Toyota (and others) stole a huge amount of their market. I can't think of even a few examples where such consolidation has occurred, resulting in a horrible dominant product/company, in which the government hasn't played a primary role in ensuring said company's survival via regulatory protection. External to that, the market topples the eventual winners time and time again. Kodak was a monster in photo/camera, now where are they? Sears, toast. US Steel, toast. Pennsylvania Railroad? Doesn't exist. Pan-am? Doesn't exist. Standard Oil? A bit player, split into pieces, in a far larger global oil market. Microsoft? The Windows empire has been largely neutralized by Apple, Android, Linux in general, etc. Intel? The ARM army has put them in a box. Cisco? They're being made increasingly irrelevant by innovations such as those by Facebook in the datacenter, software is eating their pricey hardware. IBM? Who? Xerox? Irrelevant, largely toppled by Japanese competition. Alcoa? Smashed by China etc. Ford and GM? A dozen big foreign competitors took half their market.
• njarboe 9y ago
  For market competition to flourish having at least a few dozen competitors seems necessary to me. People in the same business talk and run in the same circles. If just half a dozen people control a market then unspoken rules can develop and signaling can be done with prices on the open market. If there are 50 competitors then active organized collusion will be necessary, like the trusts of the Gilded Age.