Reply #42: No that's not the issue -- It's HOW big and HOW they behave

[Armstead]

You are correct that some activities require large corporations. And the economies of scale come into play too.

However, that is a very different issue than what has been happening over the last 30 years. What has happened is that large corporations have gone far beyond reasonable boundaries, and now monopolize industries that used to have a healthy mix of competitors of all sizes.

Big companies swallowed up or killed off medium sized large businesses, and smaller businesses along the way. It has been a frightening progression. If two businesses swallow up five competitors apiece, and then merge, the industry has changed from having 12 businesses to having One Mega Business....That is not good for free enterprise, or for smaller businesses who who no choice but to buy and sell from this monolithic corporation.

The same dynamic has occurred across industry lines. In oater words a company that started out as a soft-drink maker expands into operating stors, restaurants, community water systems, etc.

This is not good for the business climate, consumers, workers or the survival of democracy. We are seeing the effects everywhere. Why the hell should the same company -- Halliburton -- be feeding our troops, working in Iraqi oilfields, "rebuilding" Louisiana and basically having many sectors of the economy and public infrastructure in a hammerlock?

The issue is not whether we will have some big businesses where they have an appropriate role. It is whether we will have an economy that is based on competition in the positive sense, or if we will turn everything to a handful of de-facto private governments whose only interest is profit.