Gov't makes that problem worse, because it is the primary blocker of the "invisible hand".

If you can't see a working alternative, you need to realize the status quo is another option. You want to expand gov't power when it's been demonstrated that gov't is part of the problem - that is an irrational position.

Is your position that the current system is working or that any available alternative is worse. I don't think it's working particularly well.

You want to regulate "influence"? Who is the mind-reading omnipresent omniscient individual you're going to put into power to "do something"? And having given him such absolute power, how do you plan to keep him from abusing it? An omniscient, benevolent being would be handy. Perhaps tighter laws regarding anticompetitive behaviour and a modification to the legal process that prevents large entities endlessly delaying and appealing until the smaller party runs out of money. I don't want to encourage trolls or "no risk-no cost" actions like DCMA takedowns.....

I'd rather be "gouged" on my consumer goods than to be subject to the thought police. I can buy from another company - the thought police are resisted with violence.

Read the wikipedia article - not that it should be treated as an authority, but it gives a broad enough overview and does have sources. I will.

At the time of its breakup, Standard Oil had 60~65% of the national refining capacity. That does make it a powerful company, but again, prices were DROPPING (if this is monopoly abuse, let's have MORE of it). 40~45% of capacity is not "ineffective competition".

Furthermore, "shutting down" sections of the country means not selling product. That is giving away market share to the competition, and is something that undermines any "monopoly" power a company might have. There's short term harm, but feedback forces mitigate long term damage and discourage the short term harm from happening at all. Interesting.

It's not that I think companies are angels; it's that your cure is worse than the problem. Rule of law and free markets are preferable to any type of top-down centralized micro-management by gov't entities.

You're writing a blank check to the entity with a monopoly on force - the government. You hate monopolies, but that doesn't bother you?

Yes it bothers me, I just can't see a working alternative. The "invisible hand" is blocked by opaque decision making and info.

Force rising to the level of violence is a crime. Force that is not violence is more accurately described as "influence", and measuring abuse there is difficult and extremely vulnerable to corruption.

Agreed. But the attempt should be made. There has to be someone you can appeal too. The courts don't cut it, the current US system is might (money) is right.

You dodged the question on Standard Oil. Why was its breakup as a "monopoly" a good thing when its existence had benefited customers (lower prices, [i]Standard[/i]ized oil) and there was plenty of market competition at the time of the decision? My limited understanding is that there was no effective competition. I believe that Standard was thought to be so powerful that they could effectively shutdown whole sections of countries.

As for Bell, I don't have much of an opinion - gov't granted a monopoly and then took it back. The loss of the monopoly seems to have improved customer options and prices, though some will still mourn Bell's R&D labs.

Ruling on what though?

"You have too much market share, give me money"? No, more the nasty stuff that they can get done for, abuse of monopoly, pressuring suppliers and vendors, outright corruption into government oversight etc. I think it's good that they broke up standard oil, we're better off. They should have broken up MS, but MS got to them and they were found guilty, but allowed to continue and pay the "fines" in their own stuff, strengthening their position!

Outside of criminal activities (that cause direct harm; ex: careless toxic waste dispoal), everything else is and should be fair game.

I would agree that we need a ref - but the government is not a perfect ref, and often times will behave as a player. Agreed. It is disturbing how often they leave gov to work in the private sector in areas where they managed.....

Because of that, I'm less willing to delegate authority to the government - when they're as likely to make things worse as to fix things, there's 0 net gain to involve them.