I have a hard time finding a single statement in your comment I agree with. > The power of monopolies and indeed of corporations in general is directly tied to

I have a hard time finding a single statement in your comment I agree with. > The power of monopolies and indeed of corporations in general is directly tied to the power of the State. That's a big claim with zero evidence. It would certainly seem that the lack of strong national government and insufficient power at the state level was what lead to powerful corporations/trusts like Standard Oil. > It's no surprise to those who understand this that, as the federal government has grown in size, strength, and scope, corporations have followed. My understanding of the Gilded Age was that corporations were only stopped because laws were passed at the federal level after monopolies had already become a problem and caused pushback from voters. eg. > In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, which made it illegal to monopolize or restrain (or attempt to do so) interstate commerce. On the basis of this Act, the United States filed a suit against five sugar manufacturing companies to keep them from merging after one firm purchased the stock of the other four (E.C. Knight Co. was one of the four firms bought out). The American Sugar Refining Company had gained control over 98 percent of the sugar refining business in the United States in this way and was considered a monopoly. ( http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/401/How_Interpretation_of_the_Commerce_Power_Has_Changed_over_Time http://landmarkcases.org/en/Page/401/How_Interpretation_of_t... ) Further, I don't think there was a notable increase of federal government until the Depression and New Deal era, followed by significant military expansion before, during and after WW2. Arguably there was major growth in the 60s and 70s (HUD, DoT, DoE, DoEd, EPA, etc.) But I feel it's fairly clear that government size and corporate size change largely independently. > In fact, I'd go so far as to say that consumer-hostile monopolies cannot exist for any substantial amount of time without the backing of the State. You're moving the goalposts here, changing from discussions of monopolies in general to "consumer-hostile" monopolies. Further, I'd expect you're still wrong even here. Consumers might accept hostile monopoly situations if there's simply no alternative, ie, places where it's not cost effective for a company to build out to a rural location. Even if the service is bad for your power/telecom situation in some rural location, there simply might not be an alternative, aside from not getting that service. > As far as I can tell, natural monopolies are a myth grown from mistaken economic theory. I don't really know what to say to this. If you can look at the mechanics of road, power and telecom construction/distribution and say that natural monopolies don't exist, then clearly we must have wildly different understandings of the term.