This is really a pointless article. The author just repeated a bunch of semi related well publicized memes and there you go. No research, no data, no insight. A

This is really a pointless article. The author just repeated a bunch of semi related well publicized memes and there you go. No research, no data, no insight. Are giant companies really returning? God knows. But I would still like to note the little lies and half truths the Economist loves to peddle so much. The first it that deregulation helped the emergence of small companies. Not exactly true. You can cite deregulations that may have helped smaller companies, but a lot of regulations helped small companies too. The most important one is antitrust regulation which severely restricted IBM and resulted in the emergence of the personal computer. Another regulation that really helped small companies were the laws that required telecoms to allow small ISPs to use their equipment. That allowed affordable Internet which really helped popularize the internet. That law was removed later on and that really hurt small companies driving many ISPs out of business. The other huge half truth (or lie by omission) the Economist commits has to do with the whole idea of how it complains that governments are propping up failing companies like General Motors. That is a lie by omission because the Economist does not criticize (and it actually actively supports) the governments propping up much larger failing companies -- the banks. General Motors is peanuts compared to the banks in terms of government resources needed to prop it up. But the Economist complains about General Motors non stop in order to build up its libertarian cred and then brazenly supports much bigger subsidies to the banks.