Understand, but that's not exactly what I'm arguing here. Pharmaceuticals definitely need big pocket books to finance medical research. But market forces alone are clearly not the answer for even that market. There are many illnesses not profitable enough to warrant medical research - and people suffer and die as a consequence. In effect, then, the profits pharmaceuticals make on one medication are really then coverage for later costs. That makes them not profit anymore.

I'm not saying the world needs 0 margins. If anything, that's contributing to the problem. Walmart and Amazon are good examples. Their cost structures have annihilatd entire, local economies.

My Sunday morning guess would be to look for ways to lower the entry costs for businesses. Maybe municipal level infrastructure for local consumers? I don't think "trust busting" would work in isolation. Over time, the markets probably re-concentrate.

You cite Amazon and Walmart as bad actors since they have 'annihilated local economies' -- but at the same time, they have delivered untold amounts of value by lowering prices to nearly (or below) cost for millions of consumer goods. Not to mention the time they have freed up from peoples' lives having to spend time purchasing items at various brick and mortar stores. Would it really be better if mom and pop stores were selling the same products at higher costs, wasting immense resources in the process (subsidized by consumers and possibly tax payers) due to lack of efficiency and scale?

How do you speak so confidently that they are "contributing to the problem?" It is a hard sell that they are abusing their market dominance, because of the very fact their margins are so thin. Since there are multiple market leaders, and their margins are thin, this implies they are competing fairly. You seem to take it as a given but it's a hugely complex question. I'm all for trust busting large companies abusing their power -- abuse which usually manifests in large margins.