[gib444]

Sarcasm is the problem? What an insane take. You'll need to explain that one for us lol.

Perhaps you meant "their (sarcastic) implication that the only solution is regulation is the problem"? I would agree. I just chose one thing to use in my sarcastic comment and believe there are multiple solutions – I'm glad it's sparked a sub thread.

[AnthonyMouse]

The nature of sarcasm is to put up a straw man so weak that it falls over on its own rather than needing you to knock it down. The problem, of course, is that it's a straw man.

In this case, nobody really thinks that a market where you have an oligopoly with few alternatives that are all scamming you is any good. But the problem there is the lack of competition rather than its presence, and the markets that actually have vigorous competition do pretty well.

[gib444]

I really do have to admire your determination to make sarcasm the real problem on this topic. Take my upvote!

> In this case, nobody really thinks that a market where you have an oligopoly with few alternatives that are all scamming you is any good

Voters have supported politicians that have implicitly or explicitly supported conditions to enable oligopolies: reduced r or no competition/market authorities, weak M&A oversight, increased subsidies, regulatory capture, etc