I don't see why. In general, there are competing syndicates and businesses of every size in most sectors of the economy.

▲

em-bee 2 days ago | parent [-]

which sectors would that be? not the tech sector, not the oil sector, not the car sector. i see companies buying up properties in real state, i hear about companies buying up retirement homes (or some other kind of care facilities). retail? online retail? fast food? processed food, everywhere i see massive dominating brands. music labels? movies are consolidating in major studios. although they recently got some new players with netfix, apple and amazon. but those are still dominating companies.

▲

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

It is clear that no matter which examples I would give you, you would not acknowledge that there are any sectors with competition. Anybody can look at any sector of their interest and see that there is competition, and it is trivially easy to do so. Including in the sectors you gave as examples. If you don't believe there is competition within fast food, then please list all the fast food companies in your country below.

▲

em-bee 2 days ago | parent [-]

i am not denying that there is competition. the problem is that you reject that there is an incentive to centralize. if that was true, then none of the consolidations we have seen would have happened.

▲

carlosjobim 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, there are incentives to centralize. But since customers are such an incredibly diverse group, it will be very difficult to make any huge centralization unless one company delivers an incredibly good product for a very good price, which also satisfies creators. And if that happens, then great.

▲

em-bee a day ago | parent [-]

it will be very difficult to make any huge centralization unless one company delivers an incredibly good product for a very good price, which also satisfies creators.

not true. all they need to do is to buy up their competitors if they have any and remove them from the market, so that you end up with no choice. or take microsoft. they never had any competitors for a long time, and they defend their marketshare with all tricks they can think of.

here are just a few articles about this issue. they focus on tech companies, but the same is happening in every industry:

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/wave-of-acquisitions-...

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rep-ken-buck-big-tech-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-54443188

https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/how-big-compan...

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22550608/how-big-business-expl...

https://reason.com/2021/07/07/how-big-business-uses-big-gove...

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/big-lie-fair-share-how-compan...

▲

carlosjobim a day ago | parent [-]

It was as I said. You would never acknowledge that competition exists or has at any time existed within any sector. So to keep arguing against you is like arguing against somebody who claims that everybody in town wears a hat.

You're only doing yourself a disservice by refusing to acknowledge reality, when it's right in front of your face.

	▲	em-bee a day ago \| parent [-]
		well, we apparently see two different realities. i do acknowledge that competition exists, but i also argue that this is being overshadowed by big companies who may compete amongst themselves but use their power to prevent competition by smaller companies. you seem to say it doesn't matter, people wouldn't buy from big companies if their products weren't good. and i disagree with that. people buy from big companies because they are cheaper, because their marketing is overwhelming, and because they are lured with free products that small companies can't afford to offer. creators are forced to be on youtube because the audience is on youtube. competition exists, but it doesn't matter. same goes for publishing books on amazon. i know one author who stated that he can't afford not to be exclusive on amazon because it would significantly reduce his revenue. besides a few exceptions, small companies can not compete against big ones. it is not a fair playing field. and i really don't understand why you keep arguing about competition, and claim that i don't acknowledge that competition exists. i didn't make such a claim. the thing i am claiming is that competition does not counteract centralization.