Whether because our antitrust framework was successful, or just because things change over time... This sort of "anti-competitive" behaviour is not the real pro

Whether because our antitrust framework was successful, or just because things change over time... This sort of "anti-competitive" behaviour is not the real problem anymore. These days, we have a handful of companies racing to be "the first traded trillion dollar company," with a business model built around >50% market share. We have platforms, with their digital versions of the infrastructure-monopoly problem, just without the capital cost part. We have social networks, with their telephone-like network effects. The value (to users) is in everyone else using it. We have ads-and-data businesses like Google, where the value to ad-buyers grows exponentially with network size. We have investors betting on monopolies. Peter Thiel's definition of monopoly (the only worthwhile strategy) is basically a spectrum. On one end you sell commodities, at cost. On the other end you have a perfect monopoly. Invest in ideas closer to the 2nd type. All sorts of powerful reasons for companies to cut themselves an island of monopoly. All reasons that are not economies of scale. If monopolies really do come with stagnation, higher prices and such... We are headed for trouble. Our current antitrust frameworks don't touch on most of the problem. The likes of fb just don't fit into it. Price fixing, pricing power, dumping and such are the symptoms of last year's flu, not this year's.