Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Supposed monopolies: Standard Oil
Message-ID: <1105@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 01:15:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1105
Posted: Mon Aug  5 01:15:23 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 01:29:50 EDT
References: <9561@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 29

In article <9561@ucbvax.ARPA> fagin@ucbvax.UUCP (Barry Steven Fagin) writes:

>The following table shows Standard's
>difficulty at holding a monopoly on oil refining:

>date	market share
>1899		90%
>1904-1907	84%
>1911		80%	

I dunno, 80% seems pretty damn large to me.

>Aside from incompetent management, Standard's downfall was brought about
>by the radical changes in the use for oil as a result of the automobile
>and electricity.  Standard had been concentrating on illuminating oils and
>kerosene, which accounted for 63% of industry production at the turn of
>the century.  By 1919, however, electricity had made that obsolete,
>and fuel oil was the coming thing.  Between 1910 and 1925 auto registration
>increased by a factor of forty, and gasoline distribution became the
>central core of the industry.  The independent oil companies seized this
>opportunity, pioneering in  gas stations just like they had surpassed
>Standard in developing improved tank cars, trucks, and most other
>innovations in the petroleum industry.

Which goes to show another reason why monopolies are undesirable; they can
do a lot of damage when they collapse.  The current distress in the auto 
industry is a prime example.

C Wingate