Institute for Local Self-Reliance

This article[1] though on a biased (in that they have a point of view) site, has links to some state data, so it's convenient to link to it. It's also specific to medicaid benefits.

> Of the 50 companies with the most employees on Medicaid in Massachusetts, almost half are retail and restaurant chains. The list includes CVS, Home Depot, May Department Stores, Sears, Kohl’s, Walgreen, Lowe’s, and Best Buy.

> Similar data was recently released by Wisconsin, Missouri, and New Jersey. Topping all three states’ lists are many of the same retailers, including Walmart, Target, Dollar General, and Home Depot, as well as restaurant chains such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster.

It doesn't seem exactly fair to do it based on total number of employees though. What about percentage of employees? Looking at the Missouri (state health care) data, Walmart is at about double the rate as Target, it has:

Walmart work force: 43,281
Walmart MHN Enrolled employees (E): 2403
Walmart MHN Enrolled family members (N): 3633
Walmart total employees (E+N): 6036
Walmart Percentage of Missouri Workforce Enrolled(E) or Responsible for Enrollee (N) 13.95%

Target work force: 7,580
Target MHN Enrolled employees (E): 282
Target MHN Enrolled family members (N): 317
Target total employees (E+N): 599
Target Percentage of Missouri Workforce Enrolled(E) or Responsible for Enrollee (N) 7.9%

Actually the rest of the data[2] is interesting (kind of old; 2011), and…

What is your goal here?

Do you understand what malfist wrote by "near monopoly power", and agree that it's a correct description of California's anti-trust lawsuit?

If not, what do you not understand?

As to your new set of questions, do you mean my personal beliefs, or do you mean the process by which the courts determine if an organization is abusing monopoly power, or to you mean an actual court decision? I'll answer all three.

Personally, yes, these companies abuse their near monopoly power. The failure to enforce the Robinson–Patman Act, the de-fanging of the FTC and consumer protection agencies, and the post-Borkian re-casting of antitrust law to "consumer welfare", has, IMHO, devastated the American free market resulting in a centralized command economy dominated by a handful of megacorporations.

Nor am I alone in this belief. It is not hard to find articles like "Walmart’s Monopolization of Local Grocery Markets" at https://ilsr.org/article/independent-business/walmarts-monopolization-of-local-grocery-markets/ which, among other things, points out how the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has, since the 1960s, greatly raised the threshold for what "highly concentrated" market capture means, and WalMart is extreme even by that definition.

The legal process is to identify the relevant market. This can neither be too narrow - the market for "RC Cola" is not "those who buy RC Cola but also includes other colas - nor too large -- RC Cola is not really…

Before I answer what is the status quo, I'll just ask: why wouldn't internet access be free to access if it's taxpayer funded? Remember, we were constructing hypotheticals here, and there's no reason the government needs to make a profit on something like this, any more than it makes a profit on roads and bridges [0].

Now, on to the status quo. In what follows, I'm going to consider broadband only. Dialup exists, but isn't particularly interesting because, well... it sucks.

Among the problems the US has with broadband is that only 25 million out of around 330 million of us actually access the internet at broadband (25Mbps+) speeds [1]. The reasons for this are up for debate, but the most logical explanations would seem to be lack of access, lack of affordability, or a combination of both.

Another problem we have is a lack of competition among broadband providers. According to [2], 83 million Americans only have a single broadband internet provider available to them. If that's, say, Comcast, a company not well known for its stellar customer service, to put it mildly [3], then your choice amounts to either deal with the devil and take whatever they offer you, or just don't have broadband.

So, how did we get here? I'm not one to just reflexively say "blame the gubmint," but, in this case, it's true. There was competition in the cable industry in the mid 1990's, until the Telecommunications Act of 1996, an astoundingly complex piece of legislation, scrambled the…

Your comment is spot on. You're correct that traditional economics has focused on growth and consumption, and that this puts economic prosperity in direct conflict with sustainability and the health of the economy.

I tend to think that the answer isn't so much about specific laws (though the laws do need to change) as it is about holistic system change that stops focusing on working as much as possible and starts focusing on ways to optimize for human well being. This was supposed to be the goal of optimizing for growth, but we're seeing the limits to that thinking.

In response, new branches of economics have started that attempt to capture the frustrations many people have with the old ways, and find more holistic, sustainable solutions to economic issues.

One movement I have been following lately is just called "New Economics", and that search term will lead to a load of resources covering the issues being discussed by the New Economics Movement.

I've been tuned in to videos by the New Economics Coalition[1] now, who recently hosted a conference called commonbound. A central theme of New Economics is the idea that we should hold more value in commons, at a local level. Doing so leads to business decisions that are more likely to consider the people they impact. This doesn't work for everything (massive industry like aircraft production, etc), but it can improve life in a lot of areas. It is also stressed that people who work more use more resources (fast food vs…

It’s not a real number.

> At least 49.7 million Americans only have access to broadband from one of the seven largest cable and telephone companies. In total, at least 83.3 million Americans can only access broadband through a single provider.

> Over the past two years, federal stats suggest that Charter and Comcast have an absolute monopoly over fewer households, but we think this is mostly a mirage resulting from how the FCC reports data. A significant number of the census blocks showing new competition are likely only partially served.

https://ilsr.org/report-most-americans-have-no-real-choice-in-internet-providers/

That’s more accurate but much of the “good data” comes from the providers themselves.

Don’t know why you’ve got such a pro-Comcast / Charter bent, but I assure you they aren’t worth defending.

First, who said anything about profit? That isn't even part of the definition of monopoly.

The killer feature none of those you've listed has been able to achieve is the shipping logistics. This enables their vast selection to be more than just window dressing; contrast this with say Best Buy if the part or item isn't at a local store.

Meanwhile, there have been quite a few previously thriving retailers whom are now either on life support or gone. Anecdotally, I watched several major chains die at the hands of the one upon a time up- and-coming Amazon.com. The number of book stores alone that were killed off is tragic.

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/9-major-companies-face-threat-from-amazon/

https://ilsr.org/fact-sheet-how-breaking-up-amazon-can-empower-small-business/