I'm actually curious about how the current situation arose. We clearly have some historical trust-busting (e.g. Bell, as the article points out), but the concentration of market share in a ton of industries is pretty obviously too high, and basically nothing seems to get done about it in at least the last decade.
It leads me to believe that much broader criteria and lower thresholds should be applied when assessing monopolistic organizations. Honestly I'd even argue that a measure of total organizational complexity or size, like number of employees or percent of GDP controlled by the company might warrant nipping a potential runaway monopoly in the bud.
True. Our economic system doesn't set an upper limit on the size or amount of wealth any company/person can reach, and since wealth is made of resources and resources aren't infinite, we have a big problem here. Any company anywhere is going to become a bad player one day because of the lack of such a limit.
Unfortunately thanks to bribery, be it legalized (lobbying) or not, the same people who should implement a limiting system are "discouraged" to do so by the same people/entities they should control, or even worse, they're the same people.
