The Law of Too Bigness . . .

Bigger is not necessarily better.

There are rules that are generally true. An object at rest will tend to stay at rest. Energy (matter) can be neither created nor destroyed. The need to use a saved object only arises shortly after it is finally discarded.

In the modern era another rule has become obvious. Institutions naturally tend to combine and consolidate, increasing the size of surviving institutions and reducing the number of institutions.

We are suffering from an economic crisis. A part of that crisis is a result of the merger and consolidation of financial institutions, reducing the number of institutions, and increasing the size of the remaining institutions. The societal benefit for this consolidation was said to be efficiency. Duplication of administration and the costs therefrom were reduced as many smaller institutions performing the same function were merged into super institutions. The power of larger and larger accumulations of capital under one authority created an optimum bargaining position. Perhaps there were valid efficiencies achieved. Certainly huge profits were made. Inconceivable amounts of capital were placed under the control and authority of a handful of institutions worldwide.

There is an old rule that is still good. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. If you do, and the one basket gets a hole in the bottom, you lose all the eggs.

Okay, that may be a bit too simple. Take AIG for example. AIG controlled an obscene amount of capital. More than most countries. More than most continents. AIG got into big trouble. The problem was, AIG was so large that there were no other private institutions large enough to invest in AIG and make any difference. AIG could only be propped up by an international effort, mostly governmental. Because AIG was so big, because it controlled so much of the world's capital, it could not be allowed to fail. At least that's what I've heard.

Or take broadcasting. Please. There was a time not too many years ago when ownership of radio and television stations was limited within a given market. One owner could own one AM and one FM within a market. The idea was that the limitation would produce diversity, public interest and creative programming. And it did. There are hundreds more broadcast stations now. But there are virtually no rules about how many stations a corporation can own. As a result Cox and Clear Channel may own more than half of all of the stations in a given market and hundreds nationwide, all of which sound alike. Efficient? Oh yeah. You can visit six radio stations under one roof. Diverse, interesting, informative, edgy, risky, local? Just press the seek button and decide for yourself. It will sound the same no matter what city you are in. If you need any further evidence, it is what allows one former powerhouse station to be all Christmas all the time starting the day after Thanksgiving. Nuff said as far as I'm concerned.

Mega churches. Thousands of peoples in an intimate fellowship, one with the other. With budgets of millions of dollars and campuses that reflect that wealth and power. Struggling to break down into "small groups," because the mega church experts say that is necessary for survival. Sucking the life out of the smaller churches that surround them or the downtown churches they encourage people to run from.

Schools. Wal-mart. Newspapers. I could go on.

Again I say, bigger is not always better. It is dangerous if bigger creates dominance, sameness, and arrogance.

But maybe the worst thing that this tendency toward bigness creates is powerlessness for those whom the institutions were originally designed to serve.

But have no fear. I think another rule is becoming apparent. The merger and consolidation continues until the institution collapses from its own weight..

Just try to get out of the way before it does.

.