A company with a large market share doesn't constitute a monopoly of even an oligopoly.  In the case of Wal Mart you have a company that produces goods or services that people need within a certain niche that has grown because of excelling within the model of general competition not necessarily unfair practices.  They also face competition from local providers, other low cost outlets, and online shopping experiences. 

 

In the case of Cable companies, they are basically regulated under the defacto natural monopoly theory governing the regulation of utilities and government owned infrastructure/rights of way.  This generally allows them to operate competition free aside from a phone company with pre-existing infrastructure entering the cable market. 

 

Regulations do not lower the capital requirements to enter the market, they increase them.  You can pass a record keeping requirement that will make it almost impossible for the guy cashing in his 401k to hire two or three none income producing employees to meet the cost of compliance with certain regulations.  The increased capital requirement associated with the cost of regulatory compliance is used as an instrument by many big companies to artificially truncate the amount of competitors that exist in their particular market sector. 

 


Centrally planned regulate/subsidize economies have been tried before in various forms.  They all fail.  Government regulation does not lead to increased competition and lower prices.  innovation and private investment does. 

 

At the turn of the 20th century the constellation of government entities consumed less than 20% of GDP and there was nothing resembling the regulatory regime we have come to know and love.  Roughly 90% of the country owned means of production.  Today the government consumes more than 45% of GDP, only 5% of all people own their means of production and we have the most oppressive regulatory regime this side of the EU.  There is a reason the word JOBS didn't start showing up en masse in state of the union addresses until the later part of the 20th century.  Most of the country has conceded the fact that they will more than likely work for someone else and that represents the dying breaths of the enterprise system as we understand it. 

 

One last thing, the market system allows for the most efficient allocation of resources.  neither the market nor a regulatory regime can overcome certain economic realities, specifically SCARCITY.  If a good, service or skill is inherently scarce then price will rise accordingly. 

---