Where does Krugman state that Big corp is evil? The title of the post is, "The Economics of Evil Google." It's not written as a question, but a statement. Nowh

Where does Krugman state that Big corp is evil? The title of the post is, "The Economics of Evil Google." It's not written as a question, but a statement. Nowhere in the article does he give any indication that it is sarcastic. Krugman doesn't state that Google is a monopoly and he certainly isn't disingenuous here. He doesn't state it, he implies it [1]. Otherwise, what does being a monopoly have to do with Google? High fixed cost and limited ability to price discriminate are not characteristics exclusive to monopolies. I don't see the reason to refer to "a monopolist" unless he is implying that Google is a monopoly. When I read the article, I concluded: * Krugman believes Google had a monopoly on RSS. [1] * Krugman believes that RSS is a crucial public infrastructure [2] * Krugman thinks the solution is a government-provided RSS reader. [3] Just curious, what did conclude from this article that is different? [1] "First, it’s a well-understood though not often mentioned point that even in a plain-vanilla market, a monopolist with high fixed costs and limited ability to price-discriminate may not be able to make a profit supplying a good even when the potential consumer gains from that good exceed the costs of production." [2] "It seems hard at this point to envision search and related functions as public utilities, but that’s arguably where the logic will eventually lead us." [3] "So what’s the answer? As Avent says, historical examples with these characteristics — like urban transport networks — have been resolved through public provision."