All of fraidykluofficer.com's Comments + Replies

65. You will prevent yourself from even having thoughts that could lower your status. Avoid blocking yourself off just so people keep thinking you’re cool. 

 

What does that mean?

4Darkside
It's a statement about the dangers of self-censorship. If, for instance, your friend group has a common disdain for pop music, you might find that even in your private thoughts you are unwilling to consider whether or not you might like the latest Taylor Swift album. This type of thought avoidance can be very subtle and insidious, and difficult to notice if you're not actively looking for it.

You still seem to be missing the key point: if you want to claim that industries tend toward concentration in general, citing particular concentrated industries isn't going to cut it.

 

Well... I gave you some examples in trillion-dollar industries and asked for counter-examples.

Many of your counter-examples -- car dealerships, spas, hair salons, etc -- are niche markets.

Few of them were multi-billion industries, and they provide more examples of consolidation.

Just google for "consolidation in restaurant industry" and you will find articles like "6 reas... (read more)

 Electronics isn't.

 

Isn't it? Think of a subcategory.

I could go on and on.

 

Retail has a long tail.

Retail is a prime example of consolidation -- think of Walmart,  

Sales by the 20 largest food retailers totaled $515.3 billion in 2016, accounting for 66.6 percent of U.S. grocery store sales, up from 42.2 percent in 1996. Amazon acquired Whole Foods in the summer of 2017. (Source)

Fast forward to 2020, "Amaz... (read more)

4johnswentworth
You still seem to be missing the key point: if you want to claim that industries tend toward concentration in general, citing particular concentrated industries isn't going to cut it. You need to argue that industries which don't concentrate don't exist (or are at least rare), not merely that industries which do concentrate do exist. That requires a more comprehensive view. You cannot get there just by picking particular industries and arguing that they're concentrated.

Of course there have been particular cases where an industry consolidated during a particular period.

 

That period being... any moment in time.

 

You made a much stronger claim: that industries in general tend toward consolidation. Pointing to two or three examples where industries consolidated does not provide much evidence for such a claim.

 

I didn't point to "two or three examples", but eleven business sectors dominated by huge conglomerates.

 

On the other hand, pointing to examples where industries did not consolidate provides significan

... (read more)
4johnswentworth
Services are not "one sector", they're generally considered a category of sectors, and they comprise a majority of all first-world economic activity. If something is true of the service sectors, then it's true of the majority of the economy. Your eleven business sectors are not all dominated by huge conglomerates. Automotive production is, but automotive sales aren't. Construction isn't. Electronics isn't. Finance is mixed bag, depending on the sub-sector. Healthcare isn't. Insurance has big conglomerates on the backend, but lots of small independent salespeople on the frontend. Internet infrastructure is dominated by large companies, but the volume of small e-companies operating on that infrastructure is massive. Oil and gas is more concentrated than most of these sectors, but I'd still guess that you've never looked at the numbers enough to notice the long tail of medium-to-small oil producers (I have seen some of those numbers). Pharma is also relatively concentrated, and there the pressure toward aggregation is real. Retail has a long tail. Telecoms is concentrated, though it's become less concentrated in recent decades. Note that, in each of these sectors there do exist large conglomerates. That does not mean that the industry is dominated by conglomerates. The big conglomerates are highly visible and salient; the small companies are not. So out of these, you're right on maybe half of them if I'm generous. Overall, it sounds like you're making a really strong claim without ever having looked at the data, and the data does not back the claim.

Restaurants, car dealerships, spas and hair salons, construction, plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers.

 

What you are saying is that services can be provided by small companies.

Fair enough.

But we still can see consolidation there.

Starbucks uses a tactic known as ‘clustering’. They’ll build several cafes right in the same area to obliterate competition. This costs a lot of money, but they can afford it... They even use a strategy called ‘predatory real estate’. They pay more than market rate rents to keep competitors out of a location. 

&n... (read more)

3johnswentworth
Of course there have been particular cases where an industry consolidated during a particular period. You made a much stronger claim: that industries in general tend toward consolidation. Pointing to two or three examples where industries consolidated does not provide much evidence for such a claim. On the other hand, pointing to examples where industries did not consolidate provides significant evidence against such a claim.

There are many industries where companies do not tend to consolidate

 

Can you give me a few examples? I'll list a few important industries:

  • Automotive
  • Construction
  • Electronics
  • Financials
  • Healthcare
  • Insurance
  • Internet
  • Oil and gas
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Retail
  • Telecommunications

 

In each one of these, you'll find a bunch of big players.

For example:

  • Automotive
    • Volkswagen (Germany)
    • Toyota (Japan)
    • Daimler (Germany)
    • Ford (US)
    • Honda (Japan)
    • General Motors (US)
  • Internet
    • Google
    • Facebook
  • Retail
    • Walmart
    • Amazon
    • Costco

 

Even if you consider new entrants (such as Tesla) we are still talking... (read more)

3johnswentworth
Restaurants, car dealerships, spas and hair salons, construction, plumbers and electricians, doctors and lawyers. Every industry dominated by small businesses. Even in some of the sectors you list - like automotive manufacturing - we haven't seen much net consolidation. We haven't seen a lot of new entrants, but's it's not like the number of car manufacturers is rapidly decreasing either. It's at an equilibrium, and that equilibrium has a lot more than just one company - which is not something you'd see if economic forces generally favored consolidation.

By ‘lockdown’ we refer to the thing that the US, UK and China have been doing, and what Sweden didn’t.

 

You should also mention that the approach in the US is not uniform.

Although many states had blanket lockdowns, some were a patchwork of rules, with cities and counties mandating their own restrictions.

Also, a hard lockdown demonstrated to be very useful to flatten the curve in New York.

The average number of life expectancy years lost for a death by COVID is estimated to be ~10 years so 50k COVID deaths ~= 500k QALYs lost. 

 

Where did this number come from?

The life expectancy of a 65 years old man is 19 years.

Source: Life Expectancy Calculator

Now, you must consider that Peru managed to reduce their death rate to ~0.1% with a lockdown. The situation is terrible but it could have been worse -- if they didn't act.

So: your analysis is minimizing the cost of a death and failing to take into account the reduction in the number of deaths thanks to the lockdown.

3mattyy
Here's an example paper estimating the number of years of life expectancy lost is ~10 years. https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa159/5901977   Note that in the UK for example the average age of COVID deaths is around 80 with many of those from care homes where their life expectancy is particularly low. This statistic makes the figure of ~10 years of life expectancy lost fairly plausible.

What we see in reality is that companies tend to consolidate into bigger and bigger conglomerates.

It's easy to see why.

As small companies compete, you naturally get market leaders. As these companies get larger they become more efficient at producing goods and services. They invest in mass production techniques in order to produce goods more cheaply than their competitors. They buy raw materials at cheaper prices because they buy in bulk. They expand specialization amongst their workforce. The bigger they get, the easier it is to make money.

When two market... (read more)

4johnswentworth
I recently finished reading a book on theory of the firm, a branch of economics which studies where the boundaries of companies end up and why they end up there. For instance, why do companies in-house some functions and outsource others? What's the equilibrium number of companies in an industry? Why don't companies end up larger or smaller than observed? Based on that background knowledge... your empirical claim here is true only in a relatively narrow subset of industries, and the "easy to see why" part is just wrong. There are many industries where companies do not tend to consolidate, and even in industries where companies do consolidate there's usually an equilibrium with new companies constantly entering the industry. Larger companies are not always more efficient at producing goods and services - size introduces inefficiencies of its own, and industries vary in the extent to production costs decrease at scale (sometimes production is cheaper at smaller scale!). On the "why" side of things, there's no inherent reason why large-scale production has to take place within a single company - many of the benefits of scale can be achieved via multiple independent companies pooling resources (as is commonly the case in e.g. the finance industry). This was the first and primary insight which really kickstarted the theory of the firm - why do some industries see a few giant companies, rather than many smaller companies with resource-pooling agreements? Presumably there are trade-offs between the overhead of contracts and the overhead of company management, and those trade-offs are exactly what the theory of the firm studies.

Let's say we have N players. The first consequence would be the existence of a unique price.

 

That's not true if one of the players has a monopoly.

A monopoly will extract as much as it can, delivering as little as possible.

It will be able to charge different prices from different customers. In a free and unregulated market, the monopoly can award you ("prime" customer!) or punish you -- it is the lawmaker, juror and executioner.

 

At this point, everyone will specialize in one good (banana or coconut) based on whether each one values banana/coconut

... (read more)

Destroying your production capacity is a strategic mistake, and exposes you to blackmail in the future. A smart owner (or a smart centralized government) would not let that happen. If you want to give me free bananas, okay, I will take them; but I will still keep my banana plantation ready. 

 

The article clearly suggests that the inefficient farmer should stop working on coconuts and work full-time (8.5 hours a day) on bananas; so he wouldn't have time to keep the secondary plantation ready.

That's the recipe to become dependent from a stronger par... (read more)

Last week we learned there is plausibly a simple, cheap and easy way out of this entire mess. All we have to do is take our Vitamin D.

 

Please read this article: There's Only Weak Evidence For Vitamin-D As a COVID-19 Preventative, But Scientists Are Trying to Learn More

tldr;

Taking vitamin D supplements can help, if you are deficient, but it is not a cure.

There is no "simple, cheap and easy way out of this entire mess".

Excerpt:

To protect himself from COVID-19, Dr. Anthony Fauci has long said he’s skipping hugs and handshakes, wearing a mask, and staying... (read more)

The author discusses impossibly perverse behaviors such as blowing up one's island, but forgets to mention the most common anti-competitive practices such as dumping and product tying.

For example, the other guy would price coconuts and bananas well below the Zone of Possible Agreement (dumping), and you would be so glad to buy everything from them -- destroying your industry and increasing his comparative advantage.

Of course, he is not altruist, so, when you are completely dependent, he will raise his prices above the ZOPA -- and you have no option because... (read more)

3Viliam
In this example it is assumed that the entire island is literally owned by one person. So, if you wish, this person may be a metaphor for a strong centralized government. Destroying your production capacity is a strategic mistake, and exposes you to blackmail in the future. A smart owner (or a smart centralized government) would not let that happen. If you want to give me free bananas, okay, I will take them; but I will still keep my banana plantation ready. That way, I get free bananas today and keep my ability to produce bananas tomorrow. (And the other side of the same coin is that a smart owner -- or centralized government -- will try to expand their future production capacities. For example, if today it is for me more profitable to grow bananas than to write computer software, I might strategically decide to write software anyway, at least part-time, because two or three years later my software-writing skills are likely to increase dramatically, while my banana-growing skills would probably remain the same. So the comparative advantage of tomorrow may reward me for writing software, but in order to get there, I need to accept some disadvantage today.) That said, another question is whether subsidies are the best way to keep your production capacity, and what amount of subsidies is optimal. (Of course, the farmers will always say "more is better" for obvious reasons.) If we discuss real-life agriculture, I would even challenge which types of products should we subsidize: if the goal is to prevent starving, we probably do not need to protect our meat production -- if the other countries keep giving us cheap meat, let them; and if they suddenly stop doing that (in the unlikely case that all meat-subsidizing countries would coordinate to do this in the same year), we may have a year or two of mostly vegetarian diet, but no one is going to die. In other words, although some protection of production capacity is strategically important, it doesn't necessarily foll