> A big company has a lot of 'lessons learned' and knows how to 
> organize
> a large infrastructure efficiently.  When it absorbs another 
> company,
> it necessarily transmits lessons learned downwards, absorbs (to some
> degree) lessons the smaller company learned and determines how to
> apply it organizationally, and then it removes redundant structure 
> and
> functionality.
>
> But then that happens in any large organization, and under 
> capitalism
> every successful organization must become larger.

No.
Even reading your above process makes it clear that assumptions are 
required to make that true.

If, by Capitalism you mean "pure and unbridled capitalism untrammelled 
by lesser things, which always gets its man etc" then by definition 
you are right, but we are safe as reality never works that way.

If you mean "capitalism in all its real world glory", then you have to 
assume that the above processes always work better than other people's 
ones in all cases forever. The eg utterly amazing Roman Empire may 
have lessons to teach about that. And Google is no threat to anyone, 
as it started smaller than it's competitors and so must never be able 
to climb past them.



            Russell



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist