6 ms·
Corporate consolidation has been going strong since the late 90s/early 2000s, at least in my lifetime I saw the dwindling number of actual independent companies
by piva00 4y ago
Corporate consolidation has been going strong since the late 90s/early 2000s, at least in my lifetime I saw the dwindling number of actual independent companies, the vast majority of big companies I was a customer during my lifetime have coalesced into some large conglomerate-ish... And in multiple countries, it really feels it's happening everywhere, even though seems more prominent in the USA.
- DeathArrow 4y agoWith time they'll all fusion into one mega-corp.
- pjc50 4y agoChaebol.
- cyann 4y agoBrawndo
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoThe Earth Corporate. Or E[vil]-corp for short. Edit: I realised a missed opportunity for a Mr. Robot reference.
- doitLP 4y agoBuy-n-Large
- dr_dshiv 4y agoSemi—Automated Luxury Communism, Inc
- antibasilisk 4y agoMore like Communo-Capitalism, i.e: quasi-communism operating within a nominally capitalist system
- red-iron-pine 4y agothat's called socialism
- antibasilisk 4y agoIt would be a type of socialism, as is the case with any variant of communism
- dgb23 4y agoSocialism is a _very_ broad term that ranges from anarcho syndicalism and libertarian socialism to democratic socialism, market socialism and many others. The key commonality of these is that you have some form of worker owned economy AKA you have some say and direct responsibility in all aspects of life, including your work. What is described here is some variant of state capitalism or state monopoly capitalism, which is an extremely controversial form in socialist circles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
- hugs 4y agoGooglezon (From the short film Epic 2014)
- imhoguy 4y agoE Corp
- lsllc 4y agoZorg Industries
- fsagx 4y agoOmni Consumer Products
- favaq 4y agoMaibatsu Corporation
- orangepurple 4y agoAnd people are still joking about the New World Order and One World Government
- altgeek 4y agoWeyland-Yutani
- selimthegrim 4y agoI was sort of hoping the user themselves would say this one
- bannedbybros 4y ago[dead]
- spariev 4y agoTessier-Ashpool
- lsllc 4y agoMr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong
- javier2 4y agoBanking as well as food industry. Almost all of food industry seems to be captured by a couple of mega conglomerates.
- Scoundreller 4y agoHere’s the best article I found on that topic: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/jul/14/food-monopoly-meals-profits-data-investigation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/... At least banking has credit unions everywhere, although the ones around me in Canada are also consolidating rapidly.
- WillAdams 4y agoAt least credit unions remove the profit motive --- I wish that there was a similar movement to farmer's co-operatives, or setups like "Southern States", which is a farmer-owned co-operative for supplies.
- kibwen 4y agoThis is a natural consequence of markets (and proof that economies of scale work). On a long enough timeline, they trend towards consolidation. This is why constant government intervention is necessary, to break up monopolies and restore competition. A government that refuses to engage in trust-busting is broken.
- frandroid 4y agoIt's also the result of a low tax and low interest rate environment. When you can borrow money for free, or functionally for less than your rate of profit, why wouldn't you buy out your competitors?
- hedora 4y agoI’m not so sure. The US has markets that are resistant against consolidation. I think this is a natural consequence of letting the biggest companies control the politicians that set the rules. (What you say is true for pure free markets, but the banking industry is incredibly regulated, and the government routinely picks winners and losers in it.)
- Supermancho 4y ago> The US has markets that are resistant against consolidation. I don't see why they are special and the trends are clear, despite the claim. If govt regulation results in a few winners who have played by the rules and are seen as more reliable or it's free market monopolists (or duo, etc), the result is the same.
- robertlagrant 4y ago> This is why constant government intervention is necessary, to break up monopolies and restore competition. A government that refuses to engage in trust-busting is broken. Conversely, more regulations mean more monopolies due to larger first-mover advantages, and the only viable route is to build until you get bought by a parent company who can sort out the admin. Constant government intervention isn't what makes competition. It being worth it to start and build a company without, in the slim chance you make it, being a verbal and financial punching bag for future politicians, is.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]