Hacker News Reader

Comment by bwanab | Hacker News Reader

While I agree with your essential conclusions, I don't think the automobile companies really fit. Many of the early 1900s companies (e.g. Ford, GM, Mercedes, even Chrysler) are still among the largest auto companies in the world.

View on HN

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

That's recent. Ford was founded in 1903. GM in 1908.

GM was America's largest employer as recently as the 90s.

Largest employer is a strange way to describe a huge winner.

>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.

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

What companies are you referring to?

That phase is called consolidation. It’s part of the cycle. The speculative over leveraged and mismanaged companies get merged into the winners or disappear if they have nothing of value.

A couple of them went bankrupt and got bailouts.

> While I agree with your essential conclusions, I don't think the automobile companies really fit. Many of the early 1900s companies (e.g. Ford, GM, Mercedes, even Chrysler) are still among the largest auto companies in the world.

American Automative filled for Bankruptcy multiple times.

American Government had to step in to back them up and bail them out.

Every sector has its story like that. bankruptcy for a huge business isn't the same as an individual doing it.

And yea, it will vary. Amazon crashed hard on stocks through the 2000's. Google completely thrived. they are still considered on the same standing today as a trillionaire tech company

That's one automobile company. The parent mentioned "hundreds".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com