22 ms·

There were hundreds of failed automotive companies and parts suppliers though. I think the argument is that many will die, some will survive and take all (most)

by throwaway20222 2y ago

TeaBrain 2y ago
>There were hundreds of failed automotive companies What companies are you referring to?
aurareturn 2y ago
But that happens in every bubble. Over investment, consolidation, huge winners in the end, and maybe eventually a single monopoly.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  There isn't a rule as to how it plays out. No huge winners in cars, no huge winners in rail. Lots of huge winners in internet.
  - aurareturn 2y ago
    There were huge winners in cars. Ford and GM have historically been huge companies. Then oil companies became the biggest companies in the world mostly due to cars.
    - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
      GM went bankrupt. Ford would have without government intervention. Each have had periods of profitability but they weren't ever anything like microsoft/google etc. Ford has underperformed the stock market average since it went public like 70 odd years ago. GM got so big in the first place via acquisitions, not because the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player. Huge by itself isn't the same as huge winner.
      - aurareturn 2y ago
        That's recent. Ford was founded in 1903. GM in 1908. GM was America's largest employer as recently as the 90s.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Largest employer is a strange way to describe a huge winner.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >GM went bankrupt. I'd call an 80 year run pretty damn good. having my company not just survive me and my children, but dominate an industry for that time seems like a good deal. It shows it wasn't my fault it failed. >the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player. I'd rather measure my business by impact, not stock numbers. That mentality is exactly why GM fell very slowly through the 70's (defying a while bunch of strategies Ford implemented to beat out the compeition. like knowledge retention ) and crashed by the 90's. Money to keep operating is important too, but I don't think Ford lived a life of Picasso here.
        danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Yup, it's pretty good. It's just not a huge winner. Many industries don't work that way, there are no "huge winners" even if there are some companies that are huge. Oil & gas doesn't really have "huge winners". The huge companies are a result of huge amounts of capital being put to work.

There were hundreds of failed automotive companies and parts suppliers though. I think the argument is that many will die, some will survive and take all (most)

TeaBrain 2y ago

>There were hundreds of failed automotive companies What companies are you referring to?

aurareturn 2y ago

But that happens in every bubble. Over investment, consolidation, huge winners in the end, and maybe eventually a single monopoly.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
There isn't a rule as to how it plays out. No huge winners in cars, no huge winners in rail. Lots of huge winners in internet.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  There were huge winners in cars. Ford and GM have historically been huge companies. Then oil companies became the biggest companies in the world mostly due to cars.
  - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
    GM went bankrupt. Ford would have without government intervention. Each have had periods of profitability but they weren't ever anything like microsoft/google etc. Ford has underperformed the stock market average since it went public like 70 odd years ago. GM got so big in the first place via acquisitions, not because the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player. Huge by itself isn't the same as huge winner.
    - aurareturn 2y ago
      That's recent. Ford was founded in 1903. GM in 1908. GM was America's largest employer as recently as the 90s.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Largest employer is a strange way to describe a huge winner.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      >GM went bankrupt. I'd call an 80 year run pretty damn good. having my company not just survive me and my children, but dominate an industry for that time seems like a good deal. It shows it wasn't my fault it failed. >the business of cars lent itself to a dominant player. I'd rather measure my business by impact, not stock numbers. That mentality is exactly why GM fell very slowly through the 70's (defying a while bunch of strategies Ford implemented to beat out the compeition. like knowledge retention ) and crashed by the 90's. Money to keep operating is important too, but I don't think Ford lived a life of Picasso here.
      - danielmarkbruce 2y ago
        Yup, it's pretty good. It's just not a huge winner. Many industries don't work that way, there are no "huge winners" even if there are some companies that are huge. Oil & gas doesn't really have "huge winners". The huge companies are a result of huge amounts of capital being put to work.