[orcasauce]

This is rapidly changing. On the international stage we're competing with state backed monopolies that don't suffer the same burden of internal US anti-competitive policy. It may damage access to the US market, but the expanding global market is becoming more appetizing anyway. Consider China's Belt and Roads initiative.

[ocdtrekkie]

I would argue that monopolies have a detrimental effect on innovation, as they kill disruptive new technologies in favor of their established services. Having a strong anti-competitive policy may help us excel over China.

[Nasrudith]

Even given actual monopolies (I strongly disagree with the current claims) for competition it is a push and pull thing whose specifics vary by situation.

Monopolies have better economies of scale as an intrinsic real advantage but tend to be more hidebound and less innovative as they both don't need it in the moment and from a fear or cannibalization. But not always for innovation - they may also have the resources to devote to R&D that smaller players would lack.

The mechanism of the monopoly also has significance for it determines what needs to be done to maintain it. Although having a "better" source like leveraging a prior runaway success is no guarantee that they won't turn to bad ways to preserve it like regulatory capture with no other purpose served.

[Apocryphon]

Xerox PARC had a ton of innovation and world-class R&D, but consumers didn’t benefit from any of it until smaller disruptive startups made good use of it.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Whereby the disruptive startups disrupted the very core of the innovations, namely one integrated environment where every component was 'aware' of the capabilities of others, and you could build and interconnect them in a visual way.

Instead we have house of cards, layered up on top of each other, without regard for the bloat, impedance mismatches, (intentional) incompabilities and cognitive load that brings with it.

Nicely done...