That is an interesting thought, I like it. I sense centralization is a bit like interest rates. Fluctuating decade to decade, but historically rates have been ~declining for 2,000 years.
PCs are decentralized mainframes, but phones are now PCs and all they do is ping AWS/Azure all day long now.
FWIW, I think centralization has been a net positive for humanity. I'm glad I don't grow all my own food.
>>FWIW, I think centralization has been a net positive for humanity. I'm glad I don't grow all my own food.
Decentralization doesn't imply you grow all your own food. You could still purchase your food via multi-trillion dollar markets, but the suppliers to the market could all be independent farmers, for example.
Trade and specialization are completely orthogonal to the centralization <-> decentralization spectrum.
The suppliers to the markets might be independent farmers, but the entity bringing that market to one place is a centralized point in the whole thing. This is the model that Ebay, Uber, AirBNB and others made their multi billion dollar, industry disrupting business models on: become the centralized infrastructure on which a decentralized market can operate. At that point, are you really decentralized? Every city used to have their own taxi guilds, now every driver and passenger in every city contracts with one company. Which is less centralized?
> Trade and specialization are completely orthogonal to the centralization <-> decentralization spectrum.
Hmm, i don't know. I think the increase in specialization means the ability for "the one single best" actor. Like how NYT is one of the only thriving newspapers as many collapse, or how fewer companies make a bigger % of the cars in the market
Trade can reduce redundancy, that's true. With higher trade barriers between localities, you have one dominant player per locality. With seamless global trade, one player can dominate the entire global market.
However, trade also increases output, and with it, the diversity of goods/services.
60 years ago, television media was dominated by three networks. Today, there are dozens of cable networks, and millions of creators who broadcast through video sharing sites like Youtube. So there are many more sources of video-based media, and that is owing to greater economic sophistication brought about in large part by efficiency gains through greater commercial-exchange/specialization.
I don't think I buy that specialization/centralization are completely orthogonal, but I grant that they're different.
In this specific case, I'm making the claim that independent farmers have been and will continue to be on the decline. And in the general case, in the case of trade+specialization, it seems that over the long run the "best" at the trade will eventually own an outsize amount of the market. Technology enables them to win.
This seems by observation to be true in distribution, in farming, in content, in finance, etc.
PCs are decentralized mainframes, but phones are now PCs and all they do is ping AWS/Azure all day long now.
FWIW, I think centralization has been a net positive for humanity. I'm glad I don't grow all my own food.