[adrianb]

And the ones you mentioned have major regulatory hurdles to expand internationally. In industries where a single player can dominate multiple markets we are down to 2-3 major competitors, worldwide. See airplane or train manufacturers, beer companies, computer chips...

This has all been financed by more than a decade of low interest rates which fuelled the M&A.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Low interest rates have helped, but I feel like it's primarily the relaxation of regulations that fueled things. We had really low interest rates for a decade or two after WWII, but I don't think we saw the same rate of business consolidation.

[s1artibartfast]

I think it is entirely the opposite. It is all about regulatory capture. You put in place firm regulations that only the largest multinationals can comply with, and in most cases have written themselves to set the bar high and exclude competition

[omgwtfbyobbq]

That's a good point. It's probably some optimal combination of the two. Firm regulations to make it harder for small companies to succeed and rolling back regulations that protect the consumer so companies can improve profit margins.

[Accujack]

"Relaxation" of regulations has been sliding downhill since about the 50s, but it reached a fever pitch during the Reagan presidency.

The "new conservatives" and religious fundamentalists found they had a president they could control who was slowly forgetting everything he knew, and they used that to the fullest advantage.

Much of where we are today is due to the processes that began then, from (lack of) fairness in news reporting to the permissive corporate laws that allowed private equity and corporate raiding to relaxation of banking and securities laws that allowed 2008 to happen.

There have been some ups and downs between the 80s and today, and a few Democratic years, but in general the slide has continued because once money gets into politics, it won't leave quietly... it has to be forced out.