My argument is that: 1) Consolidation as such is not intrinsically dangerous, especially when "consolidation" refers to "five large firms." 2) The Open Market

My argument is that: 1) Consolidation as such is not intrinsically dangerous, especially when "consolidation" refers to "five large firms." 2) The Open Markets Institute website doesn't provide actual evidence of anti-competitive behavior. Instead, they use "monopoly" as an inaccurate scare word to muster a factually defective narrative about the source of social ills. Their website enumerates actual anti-competitive practices for 2/36 industry headings (pharmaceuticals and automobile components). The rest just promote a simple idea, "big is bad," using an extremely flexible definition of what constitutes a market (where cowboy boots is only the most comical example). Monopolies are qualitatively different than duopolies, to say nothing of quintopolies. It's not a smooth gradient of danger. Highly consolidated industries deserve more scrutiny, but they are not obviously and inevitably dangerous, especially in a globally competitive market. I am against anti-competitive practices, and absolutely happy to discuss specific instances of those. But the lack of rigor here means I can't take Doctorow or the OMI seriously.