3 ms·

Does industry consolidation ever make things better? There must be counter examples but I can’t think of any. Regulation can help, and it broke up the single

Does industry consolidation ever make things better? There must be counter examples but I can’t think of any. Regulation can help, and it broke up the single telecom where I am and really improved things (just wondering if I can justify a 8gbps connection…).

dartos 3y ago
It does sometimes, specifically with utilities. That’s why many utility companies in the US are government sanctioned monopolies.
- cogman10 3y ago
  That only applies when the utility companies are heavily and well regulated. Take that away or loosen enforcement and you get things like California's campfire. Or in my own case, a large water company purchasing smaller water companies and immediately applying for higher prices... to cover the cost of purchasing more of the local water companies (transparently so). Get a bunch of yes men on the board regulating a utility, though, and all the sudden it's easy for them to just approve whatever the utility wants to do regardless of public comment.
panick21_ 3y ago
Its because you cant see the effects. Consolidation is good lots of times. In the US they had an insane banking system regulation that resulted in the US haveing 10000s of banks. This lead to a lot of issues and was incredibly inefficent. I can name lots of examples. Before 1982 there were like 20+ companies who wanted to produce video game console. Did we need 10 different commercial unixs. Also, the consolidation results in companies that have the capital to invest. Having LM, MC, Boeing and Airbus all making widebodies didnt make sense and resulted in issues for both tri-jet producers. Airbus was the winner in that situation because neither company could invest in twin-jet widebody. The idea that the economy would be awesome if there were only small companies doesnt really hold up. So just saying consolidation bad 100% doesnt really hold up. The telecom are special because they were all state owned then privatized, they are mostly not the result of consolidation.
- bediger4000 3y ago
  I've got to disagree on the banking consolidation. In 1986, I got accounts with MegaBank and Colorado National Bank. By 2000, CNB was part of US Bank and they became so bound by policy that the tellers could do nothing. MegaBank got bought and bought again and ended up as part of BBVA, which got busted for ordering customer transactions to maximize overdraft fees. I am now a dedicated credit union customer.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    I didn't say bank consolidation is always good. I gave a specific example about banks from 1830ish to 1930ish, and the consolidation during the Great Depression. I didn't make that clear.
- gjvc 3y ago
  Did we need 10 different commercial unixes? I almost get the impression that wants and needs are confused here... Some people didn't want 10 different commercial types of UNIX, but some people did need a specific type of UNIX.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    They 'needed' them because different vendors were using producing hardware that only worked for one and were deliberately writing software so it wouldn't work on the others.

dartos 3y ago

It does sometimes, specifically with utilities. That’s why many utility companies in the US are government sanctioned monopolies.

cogman10 3y ago
That only applies when the utility companies are heavily and well regulated. Take that away or loosen enforcement and you get things like California's campfire. Or in my own case, a large water company purchasing smaller water companies and immediately applying for higher prices... to cover the cost of purchasing more of the local water companies (transparently so). Get a bunch of yes men on the board regulating a utility, though, and all the sudden it's easy for them to just approve whatever the utility wants to do regardless of public comment.

panick21_ 3y ago

Its because you cant see the effects. Consolidation is good lots of times. In the US they had an insane banking system regulation that resulted in the US haveing 10000s of banks. This lead to a lot of issues and was incredibly inefficent. I can name lots of examples. Before 1982 there were like 20+ companies who wanted to produce video game console. Did we need 10 different commercial unixs. Also, the consolidation results in companies that have the capital to invest. Having LM, MC, Boeing and Airbus all making widebodies didnt make sense and resulted in issues for both tri-jet producers. Airbus was the winner in that situation because neither company could invest in twin-jet widebody. The idea that the economy would be awesome if there were only small companies doesnt really hold up. So just saying consolidation bad 100% doesnt really hold up. The telecom are special because they were all state owned then privatized, they are mostly not the result of consolidation.

bediger4000 3y ago
I've got to disagree on the banking consolidation. In 1986, I got accounts with MegaBank and Colorado National Bank. By 2000, CNB was part of US Bank and they became so bound by policy that the tellers could do nothing. MegaBank got bought and bought again and ended up as part of BBVA, which got busted for ordering customer transactions to maximize overdraft fees. I am now a dedicated credit union customer.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  I didn't say bank consolidation is always good. I gave a specific example about banks from 1830ish to 1930ish, and the consolidation during the Great Depression. I didn't make that clear.
gjvc 3y ago
Did we need 10 different commercial unixes? I almost get the impression that wants and needs are confused here... Some people didn't want 10 different commercial types of UNIX, but some people did need a specific type of UNIX.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  They 'needed' them because different vendors were using producing hardware that only worked for one and were deliberately writing software so it wouldn't work on the others.