My argument is that the point is whether its advantageous to allow companies to continue to grow because whether a company has a monopoly or anticompetitive edge is the central argument behind breaking them up. By allowing companies to become monopolies or near monopolies, you disturb the very unified domestic market that you initially mentioned, which hamstrings growth in the future.
I believe companies aren't broken up because they are now so big, it is a logistical nightmare to do so, therefore those companies lobby the crap out of politicians to kick the can down the road. NVIDIA is nearly 3x the market cap of the next non-US firm...is that really the global competition you're looking for?
I believe companies aren't broken up because they are now so big, it is a logistical nightmare to do so, therefore those companies lobby the crap out of politicians to kick the can down the road. NVIDIA is nearly 3x the market cap of the next non-US firm...is that really the global competition you're looking for?