So far as I know, pure free-market capitalism always tends towards monopolies or oligarchies absent some level of intervention. It is simply too hard to be a well-informed consumer, and we consumers prioritize our short term convenience over societies (or even just our own) long term benefit.
Look into the concept of regulatory capture. The Dodd-Frank regulations that went into place are a great example of this. They were sold to us plebes as a way to protect us from future banking failures. Except the regulations were basically written by the big banks and forced the small banks out of business. They have actually increased the risk of future crisis by consolidating the industry. Here's an article about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/04/14/has-dodd-fra...
I'm not a big fan of the laws as we have them, but sure, i'll play along:
> How would Lockheed Martin, GE, Disney, etc. look?
...I'm not sure they'd look substantially different. LM would still only be in competition with a few others because of high barriers to entry. GE...I lack even passing knowledge to speculate. Disney would lose out on a lot of merchandizing money, but once someone in a field like animation or entertainment got ahead, they'd have an easier time attracting both customer AND talent, which provide a feedback loop to their benefit.
> how would Comcast look?
...of my many, MANY complaints about Comcast, I don't know that copyright or patent issues show up. Comcast isn't what they are via govt monopoly (so far as I know, though they have of course abused govt power) but because the cost of entry is so high that there are few competitors. Even when there ARE competitors, they choose not to compete (see recent admission that comcast and time-warner don't even compete pre-merger).
> Look into the concept of regulatory capture
Not qualified to even speculate - let's just say I have some skepticism but don't reject your claims.
All in all, it seems like you are arguing that the govt creates monopolies. I won't argue against that. BUT my claim is that you have MORE monopolies in (certain) unregulated markets. I can very well be wrong...do you have any evidence to that point?
Not to be too cheeky, but do you have any evidence to support your claim that we would have more monopolies without government intervention?
If you look back through U.S. history, how many monopolies has the government actually broken up? Not many. And I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the threat of antitrust action by the government is what has limited the existence of monopolies.
On the flip side, the government has created or protected thousands of monopolies. As the parent mentioned, virtually every city in the U.S. has granted monopolies to local service providers. On a grander scale, U.S. policy has long perpetuated monopolies for the likes of Standard Oil and U.S. Steel by imposing tariffs on foreign goods and raising barriers to entry through licensing and other regulatory hurdles.
It seems self evident to me that for at least the last 200 years U.S. governments in total have done far more to foster monopolies than they have to dismantle them.
I just posted elsewhere in these comments on that, but basically: Hearst, US Steel, Microsoft, plus lots of potential abuse that is prevented. (You're implying that tariffs supported the US Steel monopoly - I won't argue. But it didn't create the monopoly, and it didn't create the market abuse)
> And I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the threat of antitrust action by the government is what has limited the existence of monopolies.
I certainly will. I've watched Microsoft dance about (including funding Apple) when they were scared. Before them IBM did the dance. BSD exists because AT&T was prevented from selling UNIX directly. I see Google doing the dance, and Amazon is in the wings. Syngenta was going to merge with Monsanto, but didn't, and not because they suddenly thought it was a bad deal. Bayer and Monsanto are now looking to merge, and they are figuring out what businesses to spin off to avoid being stopped by monopoly concerns. You can go through the big mergers over the past 20 years (at least) and see how they've worked to avoid being hit with govt restrictions.
The govt even allows you to be a monopoly, all through your own market prowess...but prevents (or tries to) you from using that monopoly to spread into related areas. Absent that oversight completely free market capitalism would have ground innovation to a halt because the barriers to entry in most industries would be crippling. Investors wouldn't want to invest in competitors because it'd be a terrible risk rather than a basic risk.
> It seems self evident to me
Indeed, it is self evident to you. Not to everyone.
I'm not quite as familiar with US Steel, but I do know that one of the primary reasons they became so big was because they were fully integrated through the entire production process. A substantial part of that was controlling the mode of transportation for heavy goods, railroad. That history of rail in our country is wrought with examples of government granted monopolies right from the beginning of the trans-continental railroad.
I know virtually nothing about Hearst, but it was a news/media company right? So that should definitely fall under the same category of intellectual property.
Where do you get that idea from? Nearly every monopoly is the product of government bestowed privilege.
Hearst, US Steel, Microsoft, the various abusive powers across history.
I won't deny that the govt DOES provide monopolies. But absent govt intervention, as soon as someone gets ahead, it's easier to get ahead. "Oh, you want to carry my competitors product? Well, good luck staying in business without my products, or the products of anyone else that relies on me, because I will tell them I'll cut them off if they sell to you." or perhaps there's the carrot instead of the stick: "Oh, you want to buy from them? I'll undercut them by 20%. Sure, that's below cost, but they won't stay in business long with no customers, meanwhile I've got a good bankroll. I'll even buy up the wreck of their company afterward at bargain prices, and make up any difference later when I have no competition to restrict my prices."
Nearly every CURRENT monopoly is from the govt...because in most developed nations that's the only way to get a monopoly without getting hit by antitrust. I remember when Apple was in the toilet - Microsoft kept them afloat with a big stock buy. This wasn't done because MS had warm fuzzy feelings, it was done to maintain the appearance of competition. Were MS not afraid of the govt interfering, they'd have let Apply die, they'd have made (more) deals with OEMs that refused to license Windows to them if they installed Netscape, etc.
Or take Google - They are dancing around trying not to offend European regulators and have been for years. Absent any fear of govts, Google would have no reason not to fully tie their products and advertising. Compete with them and suddenly the engine that powers 60% of customer searches will either not have your products or drop them to page 10. Searches for reviews of your products will somehow highlight the negative reviews. Nearly impossible to prove any wrongdoing if it (1) isn't "wrong" in the legal sense and (2) there is no authority to dig up information.
I don't believe a mythical "informed consumer" will see behavior like that (first - how would they see it? It'd be they said/they said) and punish the abuser. Watch how boycotts against Amazon for their one-click patent fared, or against Blizzard for their treatment of bnetd. (hint: insignificant...and I say that as someone that did both) Or heck, look at how hospitals can successfully hide their prices and have a huge range. The average consumer values convenience far more than fairness.