I grew up listening to right-wing news radio, and one of the first things I learned in the realm of …

>When healthy competition exists, you can't just arbitrarily charge people more, because they'll just go buy from a competitor. Competition is meaningless when they're all owned by Blackrock and Vanguard to an extent. They can easily sacrifice a brand to test the waters, knowing consumers will move to buy from their other brands which the also own.

To be fair, it was true when they said it, it just didn’t remain true and they kept on keeping on. The idea of not turning a profit was to keep reinvesting it into the company. Growing the business. This “eat it all and figure it out later” mentality grew Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, just to name a few. The goal was to become dominant so that the world depends upon your existence. Without being labeled a utility. You and I agree though that the moat has been carved pretty wide. The market is no longer a free market. It’s a “I must play to stay” market. Meaning that all these companies are depending on each other for specific goods as they have crushed competition to the point where there are, at most, 2 choices.