I think analysis of how the list of largest corporations have changed over the last two centuries is a type of economic history is highly underdeveloped.
i think both this analysis and discussion superb....that said, i would highlight that the 'leaderships' of these legacy firms/incumbents appear to have little coherent command of the differences and distinctions between 'infrastructures' and 'sunk costs;' even worse, their willingness and ability to invest in their customers and privilege 'Customer Lifetime Value' over 'Sales' as a strategic/financial KPIs pretty much assured that they doubled down on what they were doing rather than (re)position themselves for what's next....the most successful firms tend to have the most successful customers and clients.....whether that's correlation or causality, i'll leave to the bayesians and pearl-ians
Nice article, and I Iove the graphic.
I think analysis of how the list of largest corporations have changed over the last two centuries is a type of economic history is highly underdeveloped.
i think both this analysis and discussion superb....that said, i would highlight that the 'leaderships' of these legacy firms/incumbents appear to have little coherent command of the differences and distinctions between 'infrastructures' and 'sunk costs;' even worse, their willingness and ability to invest in their customers and privilege 'Customer Lifetime Value' over 'Sales' as a strategic/financial KPIs pretty much assured that they doubled down on what they were doing rather than (re)position themselves for what's next....the most successful firms tend to have the most successful customers and clients.....whether that's correlation or causality, i'll leave to the bayesians and pearl-ians