At 07:04 AM 3/11/03 +0100, Thomas Shaddack wrote: >> Comie fantasy. >> That theory is Marx's "monopoly capitalism". Commies have been >> loudly announcing Marx's prophecies to be coming true, even >> though after 1910 they no longer took the prophecies seriously >> themselves. > >Open your eyes and look around yourself. Take any bigger, established >market - news, radio, TV stations, retail chains are the first examples
>coming to my mind - take its top 80-90%, and count the number of players >there. Do the same with the situation 10, 20, and 30 years ago. Actually there are a lot more heavy-duty news channels (FWIW) now than when there were 3 US broadcasters. But more importantly, there are optimal sizes for an organism (company) in a given environment. Buying things in bulk is cheaper, for instance; and some costs are amortized more widely. Its just physics/economics. For an animal, its things like heat loss vs. size, available calories, predation that influence optimal size. The merging of N companies into 1 can be more productive (efficient) than maintaining N companies. Its a simple fact. You might regret it or embrace it, depending on which side of the cash register you're on. (Ma and pa shops vs. Walmart: Ma und pa's perspective differs from the customer who evidently prefers Walmart) You will >see the number of players is dramatically diminishing. The news >announcements of high-profile mergers and acquisitions can be another clue >for you. The dot-com bomb (and other tech/social 'bubbles') can be thought of as one of the paleobio radiation / contraction events in geological history. When things are good, plenty of plans are tried out. A few asteroids later, you are left with pruned innovation. NASDAQ's IPOs and delistings are the Burgess Shale of tech. (Modulo some irrational exuberance :-)
