I don't disagree in the abstract. Massive entry costs and all sorts of structures can and do obstruct the "as intended" mechanics a lot of the time. It's a stru

I don't disagree in the abstract. Massive entry costs and all sorts of structures can and do obstruct the "as intended" mechanics a lot of the time. It's a struggle to term the revenue dynamics of an Alphabet, FB or JPM as "markets" at all. Chips though... chips are a market and it is working as a market. IMO chips are a rare example of Real economics in the modern economy, as opposed to the intangible-only economy that used to be mostly banking. A notable feature of the chip market is the persistent demand, the ability to demand/consume more computing than chip manufacturers can produce. Compare to cars, say 100 years ago. Most people didn't have one yet. Demand could keep up with supply, markets grow fast, and also make consistent efficiency gains,. Eventually though, the market saturates. People have cars and just need periodic replacements. The market isn't growing. People still want lower prices, or shinier cars. If they get lower prices, the market will shrink. Efficiency gains in mature markets can degrow a market, if demand is saturated. If car factories becomes twice as efficient, we'll probably have fewer of them. Our demand is not that flexible. Same thing happened with smartphones and laptops, to a degree. They do what they do well and we only need one each. In order to have a learning curve anything like Moore's law, the chip market has to grow every year. That requires a lot of demand, to offset all the efficiency gains. I don't think a lot of markets have the demand potential to support a Moore's law. In this scenario, market's working pretty well.