The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this?
I don't know whether this is true, since you didn't provide any source, but even if it is - and it might very well be - I don't think this example says anything. People are
still discovering new oil today, so the market was not saturated yet, like it was in my corn fields example. I'm guessing this was the case in your example. Somebody just found new oil. At one point the market
would be saturated though.
And even if this was not the case, a monopoly or cartel might have still been the end result. It wasn't exactly the end of history, was it? Bitcoin dropped 10% today. Given your flawless logic I assume you've sold all of it, and are not gonna buy back in, right?
Surely the trend could never reverse again.
Also, it's astonishing how the biggest corporations on planet earth seem to have no problems with these economies of scale you are mentioning, isn't it? Even though that flawless theory is based on
such elaborate research:
- Kelly Essentials, DIT Publishing, Perth 1999
- Blodget, Henry (2002-01-02). "excerpt". The Wall Street Self-Defense Manual. Atlas Books / Slate. Retrieved 2002-01-03.
- Wherry, Rob (2006-09-27). "The Harder They Fall". SmartMoney.
I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but you're argumentation is a joke. You cherry pick your sources with the sole intention of reaffirming your own preconceptions, and are not really interested in any other point of view except for debunking it (and doing a bad job at doing so). And the worst part is that you have a very supercilious way of doing it.