You know what people hate more than oligopolies? High prices. Consolidation is not de facto problematic. Unless said consolidation leads to cartel-like behavior or entrenching regulations (which even Adam Smith recognized as a problem and a propensity of elites, I'm not arguing in favor of laissez-faire capitalism), margins will be cyclical in a free market and colluding oligopolies will eventually face new incumbents, because high margins attracts competition and investments.
There are exceptions like markets where cost is prohibitive for new participants, say telecom (hello Rogers-Bell-Telus), but I don't see how that applies to lightbulbs in the 21st century.
And a lot of people are now questioning the wisdom and effectiveness of that approach.
Also a, "that shouldn't come [as] a surprise" response doesn't really address anything in this subthread. I don't think anyone is surprised that was the approach that was taken or its result, they just disagree with it.
You mean you disagree with it, despite there being many markets where less competition doesn't hurt or even benefits the consumer.
Also, addressing the tone or being grammar nazi doesn't add much to discussion.
> I doubt the lightbulb cartel is still a thing. While oligopolies and monopolies exist, it's not the answer to every inflating article.
An oligopoly doesn't have to also be a cartel, it just has to have few competitors.
I think the GP is complaining about how the US as pretty much allowed any market consolidation short of outright monopoly for a long time, which means a lot of companies have too little competition and therefore too much market power.