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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.