Isn’t there a new probe against every big company every few years.
They need to spend tax payers money on collecting taxes due, and allow the free market to prosper.
I think the counter argument there is that a free market cannot prosper when large companies are allowed to turn into monopolies.
The same can be said in every industry, phones, TV’s and so on, you have a few big companies, and then you have a market leader.
I find the argument pointless, you let a small company get to market leading, then want to stop it going further because other companies suffer. If the other companies spent the money building a better product they will win market share, as was seen with Hauwei, who obviously will suffer because the American government has an issue with them doing well.
Indeed, which is why the general consensus is that ‘competition is good’.
No, the purpose of regulation is to stop large companies from abusing its market-leading position.
The argument goes that there is little advantage to investing in ‘being better’ at what you do (products, services, efficiencies), when there is little risk that sombody ‘better’ will come along and beat you at your own game.