Th End Of Choice, Volvo, et al

A thoughtful post.

Ford bought Volvo, Jaguar. (as my old dad used to say) "Dadgum", I hated
that.

So the notion is that consolidation is good. Mergers, buyouts, etc.
Consolidating redundant functions. Keep that theme in mind. One Accounting
dept, one IT department, one Marketing Dept., etc. (And we'll outsource
whatever we can, you know the "Almighty Dollar" and it's irrepressible
preferences for efficiency, and of course you know India is posed as a
nation to eclipse the entire middle class in all "Western" nations via
outsourcing. And why not, if it's better cheaper faster, etc. (Whatever,
that's another discussion.))

So, lets get sophistic, and take the example to the extreme.

Eventually, after uncountable mergers and buyouts, the is only one car
company... we'll call it the omni car. Everyone drives one of the 9
different models of the "Omni Car".

The free marketeers (Read conservative, if American read Republican) say
"Great!, more power to them!", economies of scale and the like, delivering
to the consumer a better product. The pure market at work. The market will
make us whole, the market is our mother, our father, our benefactor at
large.

So some would say that time was ripe for an upstart, a rival sprung from
the seeds of necessity, right place at the right time, etc ,etc. And that
would have been true prior to the tech-age we live in. The problem is that
we have a thing called the "Experience Curve" and an upstart could not
compete due to the impossibility of acquiring their own proprietary (as
their rivals cradle) technology. The "Omni" car would be very advanced,
after all. It would comprise, as proprietary data, 100 years of automotive
knowledge.

Would your banker give a loan on something other than one of the "Omni"
models?

It's rather depressing, sorry to have posted it.

 

Nah, I'm not sorry you posted it. I'm in full agreement, and have
additional comments that I'll hold for now (getting off-topic). I've
been mostly unemployed for a year and a half due to exactly the types of
principles and policies you described. And I don't think any part of
the marketplace is the better for it.

Bruce Pick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To send email, remove all < > and [ ] and the junk ~ between:
[brucepick1]
< a~t >
[comcast.net]

 

Sounds like the story of the American automobile industry post-WWII. The
major makers out incredible pressure on the small guys and effectively
killed them off. Too bad, since the Tucker was a better, more advanced
automobile than any of the other maker's models. Collapsible steering
column, seat belts, shatterproof glass, unibody construction, etc ...

Now the US only has the big three, and they are gobbling up the more
successful auto/vehicle manufacturers around the globe.

 

<snip>
We only had the Big 3 in thr U.S. until Japanese and European auto makers
brought new ideas to the U.S. market. Their competition forced the U.S.
companies to wake up and make better cars. B.t.w., one of the Big 3 was
bought by a German company, not the other way round.

As for jobs, it works both ways. I worked for alomst 20 years, until I
retired, for a U.S. comany that got half its sales and more than half its
profits overseas. The overseas sales created a lot of well-paying jobs in
the U.S.

When I toured India and Nepal, I saw the result of India's protectionism.
Indian citizens were smuggling foreign products in because the home-made
ones were so bad. They have changed their policies now. And it is creating
jobs for them. Until now, Indian citizens with engineering and science
degrees had to move to the U.S. or Europe to find jobs.