I’ll start by saying that i like this article, and the data points you provide are right on… but…

The formation of monopolies are specifically because we DON’T have capitalism, not because we do.

Your main claim here is that tue government is right to step in when a corporation dominates a market through practices the stifle competition. But this is putting a band-aid on cancer. Worse, its highly disruptive and sends a lot of money out that could have been used for innovation and product improvement to gaggles of lawyers, flocks of accountants, and hoards of lobbyists.

I propose an alternative cause to the rise of monopolistic practices: the government itself and the individual people who comprise it.

What are the first steps on the path to monopoly? Incorporation and intellectual property. Both if which are construct deployed by the government and enforced (i.e. with the threat of violence) by the government.

These two things alone create a monopoly AND limit the liability of the so-called owners of that monopoly.

After that, money from investors (its a safe bet in to invest in a monopoly) grants lawyers and lobbyists, and ACCESS to the pilots of government action.

Your standard oil story is also not a good representation of the history. Standard oil had less regulation controlling it than now and it literally was able to provide as service that people wanted for a price they could handle (he ry ford too) for decades. However, in time, competition was eating away at their market share. By the time the government got around to ripping the company apart, it had dropped from 80% marketshare to 65%. When the company was broken up, what happened? Rockerfeller owned shares of 65 different oil companies. Was this seriously supposed to create competition? Or a cartel?

If you remove the tools that create monopolies, we could actually have a free market.