The simple fact for global systems is that they tend to organize in ways that benefit the most possible market players involved. Lethem understands how systems as vast as the global marketplace can seemingly arrange into organized structures, writing “Organized complexity, on the other hand, is like [a] motorized billiards table, where the balls follow specific rules and through their various interactions create a distinct macrobehavior, arranging themselves in a specific shape, or forming a specific pattern over time.” The global oil industry, with its numerous large players and trade organizations can be thought of as a system which follows the rules of organized complexity. The oil industry, despite its various players often having competing interests, often come to pacts and come together to control the market for oil. I was recently reading an article in Bloomberg pertaining to the ability of oil producers to open new drilling rigs despite prices being at all-time lows. The answer to this conundrum was simply standardization. Companies such as Statoil, instead of investing in new drilling technologies, simply built new drilling rigs as they had built previous ones- saving billions for the company. Standardization of parts is also something that has allowed new drilling rigs to come up cheaply. Other companies, “crowdsourcing” for answers look towards a “pacemaker” such as Statoil for answers. Following the Statoil model, companies such as BP and ExxonMobile have expanded their drilling efforts. This adoption of ideas which at first do not seem particularly revolutionary or far reaching has the far reaching effect of continuing to supply the market with cheap oil, keeping prices low for consumers globally. The various oil companies, by exchanging ideas as simple as standardization reached an organization whereby the interests of one are in line with the interests of all.
Revised:
The simple fact is that global systems tend to organize in ways that benefit the maximum number of market participants. Lethem understands how systems as vast as the global marketplace can seemingly arrange into organized structures, writing “Organized complexity, on the other hand, is like [a] motorized billiards table, where the balls follow specific rules and through their various interactions create a distinct macrobehavior, arranging themselves in a specific shape, or forming a specific pattern over time.” The global oil industry, with its numerous large players and trade organizations can be thought of as a system which follows the rules of organized complexity. The oil industry, despite its various players often having competing interests, come together- either to establish deals or control the oil markets. The collusion of large oil companies, either to drive out weaker competitors or to set prices at first makes little sense. Why don't see other oil companies as competitors that need to be weakened? Common sense shows how such a mentality comes with numerous shortfalls. Thus macrobehavior emerges in which companies, rather than compete in a zero-sum game collude for the collective good. I read an article pertaining to the ability of oil producers to open new drilling rigs despite prices being at all-time lows. This ability was not the result of some new technological advancement, but rather the standardization of existing technologies. this conundrum was simply standardization. Companies such as Statoil, instead of investing in new drilling technologies, simply built new drilling rigs as they had built previous ones- saving billions for the company. Standardization of parts is also something that has allowed new drilling rigs to come up cheaply. Following the Statoil model, companies such as BP and ExxonMobile have expanded their drilling efforts. Had Statoil somehow found a way to patent their standardization procedures it could have greatly limited the building of new oil rigs of other companies. Such a "usemonopoly" would invariably hamper growth, and the markets can be thanful that such a situation never arose. This adoption of ideas which at first do not seem particularly revolutionary or far reaching has the far reaching effect of supplying the market with cheap oil, keeping prices low for consumers globally. The various oil companies, by exchanging ideas as simple as standardization developed a system, largely unintentionally, where the interests of one are in line with the interests of all.
Analysis:
The original paragraph is quite wordy and uses several examples. Salman's criticism made me focus on the logical issues with some of my sentences. When I wrote about how companies come together to control prices and such, he noted that smaller companies are not welcome in this sort of collusion and are generally squeezed from the market. In order to address this I noted how this system only included the large oil companies. I also went to to explain why companies would choose not to compete, hoping that I would make the point clearer to the reader. Tom mentioned how the sentence "Other companies, “crowdsourcing” for answers look towards a “pacemaker” such as Statoil for answers." was confusing, so I omitted it. I also tried to tie in copyright into this example as Salman mentioned vaguely in his critique, inserting the term "usemonopoly" in one of the sentences to tie the ideas back to Lethem's work.
