tl;dr: the author wants antitrust action to focus on private equity rather than tech (and oh look, he runs a tech consultancy!). the evidence presented isn't entirely wrong (at least the parts i skimmed), but it's certainly highly selective, in service of reaching a desired conclusion. the digression into different schools of thought on antitrust is a waste of time, to put it mildly (and it is two posts mashed together, contrary to the author's explicit disclamation).<p>antitrust is really simple in my view: companies should principally be in one line of business[0] as that's the most efficient configuration for the economy as a whole. some of those businesses will be larger than others as a natural consequence of the given industry (e.g., capital-intensive businesses like aerospace), but no business should be larger than it needs to be (in the long-term; short-term dynamism is "inefficient" but promotes longer-term optimality).<p>that's because companies that are too big inevitably develop internal inefficiencies (e.g., bureaucratizing and politicizing) and suffer from diseconomies of scale, like the coordination problem (the topic of <i>mythical man month</i>). they also develop external inefficiencies, like looking for regulatory leverage via lobbying, arbitraging labor across jurisdictions, or settling into rent-seeking. right-sized companies, those that must focus first and foremost on <i>market competition</i>, don't have time for that sort of bullshit.<p>[0]: the hard part being the delineation, but it basically boils down to any business that can remain a going concern without positive externalities helping them along (which is <i>not</i> consolidated businesses in the US, including all the major telecoms, defense, education, biotech, oil & gas, etc.). private equity plays in all of these industries but it's silly to think that it's PE that is causing poor economic outcomes, so much so that we solely target PE for antitrust action.