The Acquisition Graveyard

Like a lot of people, I listen to a fair amount of talk radio—Hal Sparks, specifically. One point he regularly makes stuck with me: many huge corporations that we casually call “monopolies” technically aren’t.

As a guy who reads, thinks a lot, and lives for spotting historical patterns, I had to dig into that. Was this just a matter of semantics? Turns out, the answer is way more fascinating and more frustrating than I imagined. It hits on everything from the price of a bag of chips to the foundational structure of our democracy.

Here’s the breakdown of what I learned. The solutions we need are so much bigger than just breaking up a single company.

---

1. The Problem of Words: Monopoly is Not Oligopoly

When we look at big companies today, we’re often applying the wrong law to the wrong situation. Something to consider with legality is that explicitly stated language matters. Laws are stupid, not in there existence but in their narrow specifics of enforcement. Laws that don’t specifically state something or relies on a rigid definition give an out for corporate legal teams.

The old Sherman Act of 1890 was written to break up the literal “trusts.” These were trusts like Standard Oil where one company controlled nearly everything. To prove an illegal monopoly today, you must prove two things. First, there must be massive market dominance. Second, there must be predatory, illegal conduct to achieve that dominance. If you’re just big because you’re better, that’s technically fine.

What we’re really complaining about today isn’t usually a true monopoly, but two different structures:

• Oligopolies: A market dominated by a very small handful of giants (e.g., cell phone carriers, airlines, big banks). They don’t have to formally collude; they just tacitly follow each other’s pricing, which is almost impossible to prosecute.
• Conglomerates: Companies that own dozens of businesses in unrelated markets (e.g., a media company owning movie studios, cruise lines, and news outlets). They have immense power, but they aren’t monopolizing any single market.

We’re essentially frustrated because these oligopolies and conglomerates behave badly. Yet, we keep trying to use the “Monopoly Law” to stop them. I fear this language technicality. Replacing a word that’s synonymous with public understanding of this behavior through a popular board game complicates matters. Refining it with more complex jargon only aids the corporations we’re trying to reign in.

2. The Moment We Lost the Plot: The Consumer Welfare Standard

So, why did the legal system stop caring about size and power? It now focuses only on whether the price tag goes up. This is where the historical pattern gets really cynical.

The shift happened between the late 1960s and early 1980s, when US antitrust law adopted the Consumer Welfare Standard (CWS). This was driven by a few factors:

• Intellectual Force: Academics (the Chicago School) argued that the older laws were “anti-business.” They believed that corporate size meant efficiency. This efficiency ultimately benefits consumers through low prices. Robert Bork’s 1978 book, The Antitrust Paradox, was the blueprint for this change.
• The Political Weapon: This theory provided the perfect, sophisticated defense for big business. It moved the goalposts: as long as a massive merger didn’t immediately raise prices, it was legal.
• The Outcome: The law stopped caring about who had power. It started caring only about how much you paid right now. This structural change was not achieved by voters. Rather, it was largely driven by lawyers and judges. This effectively gutted the law’s original intent to control the political danger of concentrated wealth.

3. The Proof is in the Chip Aisle (The Acquisition Graveyard)

I had a perfect real-world example of how the CWS fails, based on talking with Frito-Lay reps about their strategy.

Frito-Lay (PepsiCo) has significant control over the chip market. This dominance is mostly due to its vast distribution network. They often buy small, innovative, niche brands—like the “Off The Eaten Path” brand I was observing.

What happens next perfectly proves the flaw in the CWS:

1. The small brand is folded into the Frito-Lay machine.
2. It’s judged by the high profit margins of giants like Doritos.
3. If it can’t perform at that scale. Frito-Lay rationally starves it of resources or limits its distribution, causing it to all but disappear. Don’t worry, it’s at home in Frito’s’ Acquisition Graveyard.

The Harm: The price of Doritos doesn’t go up (so the CWS is fine). Nevertheless, the market is harmed in deeper ways. Innovation dies. Consumer variety disappears. A potential future competitor that might have challenged Frito-Lay’s dominance is simply neutralized. Concentrated wealth is used as a weapon, not to compete, but to stagnate competition entirely.

4. A Field Guide to the Acquisition Graveyard

Once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it. The Acquisition Graveyard isn’t just limited to the snack aisle. It’s the final resting place for innovation across almost every industry in America. Here is how you spot the markers of a brand that’s been “buried” by the competition:

1. The Tech “Acqui-hire” (The Ghost Town)

This is common in Silicon Valley. A giant tech firm buys a small, nimble app that everyone loves. They don’t want the app; they want the engineers.

• The Result: The app stops getting updates. The servers start lagging. Eventually, you get a “sunset” email telling you the service is moving into the giant’s “integrated ecosystem.” The innovation is gutted, and the original product becomes a ghost town.

2. The Craft Beer “Optimization” (The Hollowed-Out Shell)

A massive international brewery buys a successful local craft brand because they want a piece of the “premium” market.

• The Result: To meet the giant’s massive profit hurdles, they swap out the expensive hops for cheaper ones. They move production to a giant factory. The taste changes. The “soul” of the brand vanishes. When sales inevitably dip because the product is worse, the giant says, “I guess there wasn’t a market for this,” and discontinues it.

3. Specialized Software (The Forced Migration)

You use a specific tool that does one thing perfectly. A conglomerate buys it.

• The Result: They stop selling the tool as a standalone product. Instead, they wrap it into a $500/month “enterprise suite” that you don’t need. They’ve effectively killed the tool for the average user to force everyone into their more expensive, less efficient “all-in-one” platform.

---

The Common Denominator

In every one of these cases, the “Consumer Welfare Standard” would say these deals are acceptable. This is because they don’t immediately cause a spike in inflation. But for those of us living in the real world, we see exactly what’s happening:

The graveyard is getting bigger, and our choices are getting smaller. The “Acquisition Graveyard” is the ultimate proof that modern business isn’t about the “survival of the fittest.” It’s about the survival of the biggest and their ability to buy anything that threatens the status quo.

---

Even Hollywood isn’t immune.

We’re seeing this right now with the fear surrounding the Paramount mergers. People aren’t worried about the logo. They’re worried that a century of film history and creative variety is about to be buried in an Acquisition Graveyard. All to satisfy a balance sheet and pleasing investors.

---

5. The Fascinating and Frustrating Cycle

When I put all this together, it became clear: this isn’t a new problem. It’s a historical cycle that repeats itself.

We, the people, pass progressive legislation to rein in economic power (worker safety, antitrust, clean water). Then, the corporate interests that were negatively affected by stronger public protection laws spend years, decades, and immense wealth on a counter-movement to:

1. Dilute the laws through compromise.
2. Subvert them through the courts and friendly academics.
3. Starve the enforcement agencies of funding and political will.

It’s the same concept we see with workers’ rights. Once the generation that remembers why we passed the law dies off, the pressure groups argue the law is “inefficient.” We start thinking about trying the dangerous practices again.

The Way Forward

It’s validating to know that the patterns I saw align with the highest levels of economic critique. These include the Frito-Lay observation and the cyclical nature of regulation. It means the common person’s perspective on power is often correct, even if we lack the specialized language.

So, what’s the solution to break the cycle? It has to be structural. The ideas now being debated are radical because the problem is deep:

• Political Independence: Agencies like the Justice Department should become independent. They need permanent, long-term funding. This is necessary to fight legal battles across decades, regardless of who is in the White House. Something our Executive Accountability & Rule of Law Act provides.
• Legal Reform: Changing the legal standard away from the narrow CWS. It should explicitly protect innovation, variety, workers, and competition itself.
• Wealth Control: There are several measures to consider. One is the repeal of Citizens United. Another is implementing aggressive tax policy. These aim to reduce the sheer volume of capital available to fund the political subversion of the common good.

The struggle to keep economic power accountable is continuous. Understanding the mechanisms of corporate counter-attack is the first step toward building a defense that actually lasts. And that, truly, is fascinating.