I would argue that the consolidation of (fiscal) power into a few large centralized institutions can be a natural outcome of capitalism, since an increase in th

I would argue that the consolidation of (fiscal) power into a few large centralized institutions can be a natural outcome of capitalism, since an increase in the size of an institution (either through growth or acquisition) can offer more profit opportunities. Now if you view a corporation through the traditional lens of being sociopathically focused on profits, then it is natural for it to seek a position where its failure would catastrophically affect too many people for responsible governments to allow, as a sort of insurance. It's not "crony capitalism", it's unbridled capitalism. On the other hand, placing oligopoly restrictions to prevent the growth of corporations beyond a certain size and impact isn't (in a very strict sense) "capitalism". We already think that monopolies are bad, but where do you draw the line with oligopolies? 3 large banks? 5? 20? GS subsidizing FB, and the taxpayer subsidizing GS seem to be very natural outcomes of an unrestricted business environment and a mandate to generate profits. NOTE: not trying to take a left or right stance here, just viewing matters through the fun lens of mathematical optimization.