> It is clear why we have reached this point. Most monopolies are allowed to exist because of state influence (which happens thru many forms, regulation, patents, or plain direct support), all increasing the barrier to entry for would-be competitors. You see this in most heavily regulated markets.
If I may disagree. Capitalism is great at allocating capital unless prevented from doing so. We collectively have come to agree that human labour can be purchased, but not humans themselves. Some things may be held publicly, some privately. Zero regulation is good because in the absence of hindrances people can do what they want but some of those choices hurt other people so regulations are introduced.
Why is it virtually impermissible to point out that everything else notwithstanding certain patterns keep recurring to individual markets in particular and the economy as a whole. The first is this. In the absence of regulation in mature markets companies will form cartels/trusts/oligopolies. It is so universal it is akin to a natural law. Failure to act on that hurts the economy in general. We used to be good at recognising this, we aren't so good any more. The second is this. People want greater returns over lesser returns. This leads to ever greater financialisation and capital chasing its own tail unless prevented from doing so. It will inevitably lead to super dodgy things like stock buy-backs (which in any healthy market ought to be virtually banned).
FTA: “The results were so good that in 2016 United’s board approved a stock buyback of $2 billion, which is the financial equivalent of spraying yourself with champagne.”
That's terrible. There is a direct correlation between ballooning exec salaries, corporate stock buy-backs and stagnating workers' compensation.
> There are other markets where the cost of entry is so high anyway (investment-wise) that naturally very few companies can make it - this is something that is not an issue per se.
An incorrect analysis of what ails the economy will over time have dire consequences. It may be hard to see it if you're doing okay but lots of people are not doing okay. There's political anger. Populists will blame outsiders like immigrants (don't get me wrong, I'm for strict immigration policies – but that's the incorrect cause and effect diagnosis – but blaming immigrants (illegal or otherwise) is scapegoating).
I have practically stopped reading HackerNews because too many on here appear to be too financially secure owing to the industry they are in, their backgrounds, luck, and hard work. Someone just died in Paris over protests over fuel price hikes. If those entrusted to keep the system healthy fail to do so in a controlled orderly manner then the people will introduce disorder by forceful means. I am not advocating this. I am against this. But the chances of this not happening are rapidly shrinking. I hope I'm wrong but all the macro indicators and with history as my guide tells me that I am not.
edit: typos and such