The M&A business has always been, and will always be, live and well. The only way a monopoly can stay that way in a free market is by being more efficient (lower priced) than all alternatives. If such a monopolist then seeks to use his 'power' to increase prices and profits, then competition will ensue. Legislation including the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust Acts and the Robinson-Patman Act do provide a certain amount of restraint through force against monopolistic practices. Whether it is wise to continue with such 'policing' measures, is a valid topic for debate. My point is simply that most monopolies exist inside the framework of government policies which allow or encourage them. Few (if any) true natural monopolies exist in a true free market. But what we have in the USA, and have had since at least 1860, is neither a true free market nor a completely controlled one. It has been a hybrid with mixed results. I for one fall on the side of reducing government control of markets, for the simple reason that any government control of anything inevitably leads to rent-seeking activities. The eventual consequence of that is what we see now: corruption so broad and so deep that the normies are sensing that something is wrong. They are right.