Do you agree with the Financial Times of London?

[J-Mann]

I agree in part.  Not a bad op-ed; I particularly liked the last paragraph:

Outright monopoly is absolutely defensible – when granted temporarily to reward companies for bringing truly new ideas to market. But most of today’s powerful companies are not the result of new ideas, only the strategic reordering of markets. If anything, their goal is the oldest one in commerce – to fence in the place where deals are done, and to tax producers and consumers for the right to meet there.

But I suppose I only agree in part because, after all, this is the goal of business -- to be the reigning champion; to be on top, and you stay on the top by eliminating the competition.  It's a harsh reality, but reality all the same.  I'm generally fine with "big business" so long as they play by a few simple rules; it's when they become so entrenched that they become worrisome.

A note: the telecom industry is one arena where there are fewer and fewer competitors.  Sprint and Nextel are together, as is AT&T and SBC as well as MCI and Verizon.  Six big names reduced to three in the span of a year, with less choice for consumers.  There are benefits to mergers for consumers also, but I generally like the idea of choice.

Anyone think Google is up to become the 21st century's first big monopoly?  The potential for unwanted surveillance through the Google Desktop application is rather frightening.

Also, one final note for clarification: the link posted by Jfern is an op-ed by Barry Lynn, not an editorial comment speaking for the Financial Times as a whole.