Unfortunately, anti-competitiveness regulations can only go so far.<p>A better step, albeit a much more controversial one, is to address the problem at an earlier level.<p>Before companies have the ability to engage in sustained anti-competitive behavior, they have to grow to a certain size.<p>This allows them to use their heft to squeeze out competitors. Amazon and Walmart, for instance, have enough cash that they can consistently underprice smaller competitors until they go under. And what happens next? The Wal-Mart Effect, where people who otherwise might have been able to own and sustain small businesses now need to become employees with no ownership stake, allowing the mega-corps to continue growing larger and squeezing out more competitors. And that has major public-welfare implications.<p>So how would we address this problem at an earlier stage?<p>It would involve pulling a lot of levers -- taxes probably being the biggest one -- to make it harder for mega-corps to compete purely on size, rather than on innovation or quality.<p>It would also involve a major mindset shift. We need to recognize the hidden negative consequences of an economic environment in which massive conglomeration is widespread and encouraged, while small-business and cooperative ownership is disincentivized.