Fighting that people can decide what and how they want to sell and buy, results in a society I don't want to live. To enforce it you will eventually free the people from a bunch of other decisions, as they strangely refuse to follow your great ideas.

What the problem is, is the asymmetry in the market, not the market itself.

> Markets are inherently asymmetrical.

Citation needed. A healthy market has so many sellers and buyers that no side can force a price above the other. Think your local bakery or butcher. In a healthy market profits are nearly zero.

> My local bakery is a giant chain.

That's not what I would call a local bakery. Or are they making bread there?

> Any market inherently results in consolidation.

Only when you can undercut prices through scale. There are of course baking shops here as well, but they just don't have the quality of a real baker.

That is exactly my point. Local artisan bakers are being priced out by crappier quality baking shops due to their economy of scale. The market optimizes for the cheapest slop made by the biggest conglomerate, the opposite of what I want.

And yet that is a problem of the past twenty years while we had markets for centuries. The concept of markets doesn't seem to be the problem.

If you say we need more regulation and an actual Antitrust Division that does things, then I agree. If you say we need to get rid of free markets and capitalism and return to socialism, then I am strongly against that.

A cancer doesn't kill you as soon as the first cancerous cell division happens. It takes time for the processes of markets to develop into something that threatens our existence.

>My local bakery is a giant chain. My local butcher has been driven out of business by supermarket chains.

Is that an inherent property or is it the result of people in government who believe what you believe putting their thumb on the scale of the market in piecemeal?

What is an alternative and why do you think it would work?