[rtpg]

>Consolidation only persists where it is either an effective way to deliver value (Walmart) or regulatory capture has occured (eg taxi licences, car dealerships). Todays consolidated behemoth is tomorrows has-been company - as long as the laws allow them to fall apart when they can no longer innovate and compete.

That doesn't hold up to reality, as proven by what has happen ed with banks, hospitals, and health insurance over the past 30 years (regulations make entry a bit more capital-intense, but if you have enough willpower and minimum capital you can start a bank).

>It's a misunderstanding to think that competition requires many players to be effective.

It's part of a definition of a free market : atomicity of actors. In a free market, no single actor can influence price.

>I'll be the first to admit that the last part is the most difficult to achieve, but it's no reason to abandon the concept of the game.

The concept of the game involves an infinite amount of really tiny boxers, not two world champions. All the math around free markets bringing prosperity is based around this fact (among a couple other prerequisites). You can't just abandon it.

Anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws are basically the most pro-free-market laws we can make.