It seems a real shame that American governance has turned its back on trust-busting as well as on the vital need to break up monopolies that dominate particular markets, especially in this day and age, when never have so few mega-corporations been so profitable and powerful. No doubt, size has its place, and can indeed most of the time demonstrate the efficiencies of that size, but the bottom line is that the lack of competition is going to make these companies not only complacent that they are deserving of their status, seemingly forever, but also when they are permitted by this government to buy out and merge with upstarts that might well become a competitive force, that simply ends up shutting down the innovation and creative destruction from coming into play, because it has been co-opted After all, we need to recognize that corporations are mainly driven by both growth and profit, which means that for many a corporation that owns a particular market, that they aren’t interested in coming up with true innovations that may well cannibalize their existing product line, but instead are more concerned about doing what they can to continue to have their customer base be beholden to them, especially when the R&D to continue with their current product line, will remain quiescent, since they aren’t interested in wholesale change, but rather prefer small incremental change, instead.
Look, corporations that own a market are going to, for the most part, desire to keep that money flow going for as long as they can, without desiring to risk anything of substance that may or may not even work for them. That is to say, those in upper management aren’t typically looking for anything that will disrupt a good thing, even if they recognize that it may well be time to take that under serious advisement, because they enjoy the status and privilege of the status quo, and don’t desire to see what already works well enough be in danger of having that flow, interrupted, which is why they aren’t interested in anything that would truly be a game changer, because it might mean risking what they have, and they don’t want to do that.
The hard part in any business, is becoming successful, and from that success, the next objective for many corporations is to increase and to enhance that success, which can be done through many avenues, including the merging with competitors, so that market share will rapidly rise, and the bigger that market share becomes, the more power and influence that company will have on every level, which is typically quite good for not only the bottom line, but for the longevity of that corporation, as well, and since corporations are subject to responding to their stockholders in addition to their Board of Directors, they aren’t going to want to take unnecessary risks, but rather they prefer to show projections in which the profits and growth will keep coming in at a healthy and steady pace, which lends itself to the protection of legacy products, and a reluctance to be innovative and certainly not to embrace creative destruction, because the risks don’t align well with the rewards.