4 ms·

I mean, what industry is not consolidating at this point? It feels like just about every conceivable area is served by a handful of gigantic players, with the r

by rland 6y ago

I mean, what industry is not consolidating at this point? It feels like just about every conceivable area is served by a handful of gigantic players, with the rest competing for scraps. It's now at the point where new entrants don't even attempt to start small. They explicitly dump massive sums in a bid to break in. It seems that this is happening even in areas where it's not warranted (local food delivery???). It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more. It works, right up until it doesn't. I hope at some point, we make a big change in the level of corporate consolidation we allow.

bobthepanda 6y ago
> It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more. I've seen the theory that this is the result of QE's massive inflation of asset prices; it is now harder and harder and harder to beat the market, but institutions have ever larger sums of money that they need to park and invest somewhere. Like, Softbank actively managing $100B in startups was never really going to work, at least not without these startups being required to get to ludicrous amounts of scale.
- Xcelerate 6y ago
  > QE's massive inflation of asset prices; it is now harder and harder and harder to beat the market This is a really interesting theory that I’ve never heard before, but it makes sense. Does that imply deflation could instead encourage innovation?
  - jrumbut 6y ago
    Maybe, maybe not, but it would be a very painful way to do it (particularly since the average person has debt, owns some assets, but doesn't park huge sums in savings accounts or cash under the mattress like prior generations did). The general proposal to alleviate this problem is to increase the supply of assets. This means investing in the common good. Basic research to create whole new types of things to build, infrastructure to enable businesses to reach new markets, and workforce development so businesses have more effective employees. This is also often coupled with renewed enforcement of antitrust legislation, to give new players some oxygen and to discourage business models that rely on unprofitable scaling in order to reap monopolistic rewards. Then there is the side benefit that smaller companies have a harder time creating the conditions for regulatory capture.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      The largest economic expansions tend to be preceded by really painful destruction of wealth and savings (Great Depression and WWII preceding postwar booms, the largest US economic expansion in history preceded by a decades-long oil crisis)
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    I could see that. As money becomes more valuable, it becomes harder and harder to get. People have to become more and more clever to keep getting it. The only real problem is that if you screw up the mix, massive deflation has some really horrible downsides.
Sevaris 6y ago
> It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more. You say this like it's new. US anti-trust law started in the late 1800s because of a slew of consolidation in the railroad industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_competition_law#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_competition_law... The UK has had legislation to control monopolies for hundreds of years.
- rland 6y ago
  Well, yes, the concept is not new. What seems new to me is an increased focus on massive expansion in sectors that traditionally didn't operate that way. Of course railroads, oil, and steel were the first groups who naturally thought, "wouldn't it be great if we were the only people doing this, and we didn't have to deal with other people competing?" Since those businesses are big by their nature (capital intensive, worldwide market, often working directly with national governments). But now this attitude is everywhere. Dog walking, taxicabs, office space. Not to mention the traditional areas like insurance, healthcare, telecom, etc. It seems like everyone, across every sector, is trying to merge and congeal into a single blob that extracts a reliable stream of money each month. Those who aren't already around are trying to skip the "make a good/valuable business" part and skip straight to the money extraction step. And I think in many places, businesses are way more focused on this than on actually doing or providing valuable services/things for people. I'm speaking in really broad terms here. The cultural focus seems to have shifted from "how can we make the best product" to "how can we guarantee payment every month by consolidating/merging."

by rland 6y ago

bobthepanda 6y ago

> It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more. I've seen the theory that this is the result of QE's massive inflation of asset prices; it is now harder and harder and harder to beat the market, but institutions have ever larger sums of money that they need to park and invest somewhere. Like, Softbank actively managing $100B in startups was never really going to work, at least not without these startups being required to get to ludicrous amounts of scale.

Xcelerate 6y ago
> QE's massive inflation of asset prices; it is now harder and harder and harder to beat the market This is a really interesting theory that I’ve never heard before, but it makes sense. Does that imply deflation could instead encourage innovation?
- jrumbut 6y ago
  Maybe, maybe not, but it would be a very painful way to do it (particularly since the average person has debt, owns some assets, but doesn't park huge sums in savings accounts or cash under the mattress like prior generations did). The general proposal to alleviate this problem is to increase the supply of assets. This means investing in the common good. Basic research to create whole new types of things to build, infrastructure to enable businesses to reach new markets, and workforce development so businesses have more effective employees. This is also often coupled with renewed enforcement of antitrust legislation, to give new players some oxygen and to discourage business models that rely on unprofitable scaling in order to reap monopolistic rewards. Then there is the side benefit that smaller companies have a harder time creating the conditions for regulatory capture.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    The largest economic expansions tend to be preceded by really painful destruction of wealth and savings (Great Depression and WWII preceding postwar booms, the largest US economic expansion in history preceded by a decades-long oil crisis)
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  I could see that. As money becomes more valuable, it becomes harder and harder to get. People have to become more and more clever to keep getting it. The only real problem is that if you screw up the mix, massive deflation has some really horrible downsides.

Sevaris 6y ago

> It's as if the culture of every business has become captivated by the idea of becoming an oligopoly. My guess is because it's extremely attractive -- once you "make it" you don't have to compete any more. You say this like it's new. US anti-trust law started in the late 1800s because of a slew of consolidation in the railroad industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_competition_law#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_competition_law... The UK has had legislation to control monopolies for hundreds of years.

rland 6y ago
Well, yes, the concept is not new. What seems new to me is an increased focus on massive expansion in sectors that traditionally didn't operate that way. Of course railroads, oil, and steel were the first groups who naturally thought, "wouldn't it be great if we were the only people doing this, and we didn't have to deal with other people competing?" Since those businesses are big by their nature (capital intensive, worldwide market, often working directly with national governments). But now this attitude is everywhere. Dog walking, taxicabs, office space. Not to mention the traditional areas like insurance, healthcare, telecom, etc. It seems like everyone, across every sector, is trying to merge and congeal into a single blob that extracts a reliable stream of money each month. Those who aren't already around are trying to skip the "make a good/valuable business" part and skip straight to the money extraction step. And I think in many places, businesses are way more focused on this than on actually doing or providing valuable services/things for people. I'm speaking in really broad terms here. The cultural focus seems to have shifted from "how can we make the best product" to "how can we guarantee payment every month by consolidating/merging."