There’s a fallacy in your reasoning, too: The assumption that any government action is a pure “fix” with no downsides at all.
In reality, government actions in situations like this are more about tradeoffs. There will be winners and losers and, despite what some people want to believe, consumers will not unilaterally benefit from these actions. There will be downsides along with the upsides.
Applying heavy handed regulation to some companies while letting others do the same thing creates its own set of problems. Once the government becomes the arbiter of who wins and who loses, it gets ugly and the incentives get very weird.
The other fallacy is that spot enforcement is the only option. When you have multiple companies competing in the same space doing similar things, singling one out as a “monopoly” and targeting them is illogical. You create industry regulation and apply it to everyone. If nothing else, it’s a matter of efficiency.
In reality, government actions in situations like this are more about tradeoffs. There will be winners and losers and, despite what some people want to believe, consumers will not unilaterally benefit from these actions. There will be downsides along with the upsides.
Applying heavy handed regulation to some companies while letting others do the same thing creates its own set of problems. Once the government becomes the arbiter of who wins and who loses, it gets ugly and the incentives get very weird.
The other fallacy is that spot enforcement is the only option. When you have multiple companies competing in the same space doing similar things, singling one out as a “monopoly” and targeting them is illogical. You create industry regulation and apply it to everyone. If nothing else, it’s a matter of efficiency.