I think that's exactly the point I was getting it. Who decides what efficient is, and what do they measure. You might care about vision algorithms, and I might care about hamburgers.

From the economics perspective, something being Monopoly doesn't mean it's inefficient.

Depending on the situation, they can be far more efficient then diverse companies, or much less

> From the economics perspective, something being Monopoly doesn't mean it's inefficient.

From an economics perspective, if there is a monopoly, there is no free market, so you can't rely on the market for efficiency. A monopoly can be efficient, but it can also be arbitrarily inefficient and still keep its position.

you are correct and I agree.

I was trying to make the point that monopoly isnt defined by inefficiency, either by the technical definition or the colloquial one.

Rality is complex, and few monopolies can be arbitrarily inefficient. I think this is where a lot of the public confusion about monopiles comes from.

If you have the only grocery store or gas station in town, it might seem like there is a monopoly. There is probably a wide leeway to raise prices or be inefficient, but not without limit or else someone would compete.

If Amazon, Google, or whomever 10X'd their prices, competitors would arise.

The market is shit at making long term risky bets that require a lot of R&D.

That's the reason why quantum computing and projects of this type would not exist if you didn't have behemoth companies with extra cash lying around.

The problem with your ideals is that every one has different ideas on what "human flourishing" looks like. One way or the other, if it is Government that is in charge of "human flourishing", then some group of people are going to benefit at the expense of another group of people, at the discretion of whoever currently has the most political clout.