I strongly support the Democratic Party’s “Better Deal” platform, advocating for deconsolidation of industry and markets.
Let’s keep in mind that conservatives always say they are opposed to consolidation of power — like communism — because it defeats free-market mechanics. At the same time, however, they advocate for the utility (the generally distributive benefit) of consolidating industry and markets, referred to as economy-of-scale efficiency (the efficiency being a measure of its distributive, or useful, value), to defeat the risk naturally associated with free-market mechanics.
What to look for are specific, policy measures that only appear to deconsolidate the risk associated with consolidation of economic entities. Dodd-Frank, for example, is intended to manage the consolidation of financial risk, not deconsolidate it. Senator Sanders, however, you may recall, advocated for deconsolidation, and Hillary Clinton advocated against it because, she said, it is dysfunctionally adversarial.
President Trump also advocated against TBTF financial institutions. Then, like Obama, and Bill Clinton, he proceeds to support the system. It is too risky, like Hillary Clinton says, to deconstruct it.
The system is too big, Ivy-League experts say, and so the best practice is to, naturally (objectively), manage it with elite authority, from the top down, by default.
President Trump even has a hard-line, Randian Objectivist as his communications director. Scaramucci is as elitist as it gets; and despite Objectivism being described as “extreme, free-market capitalism,” Randians like Scaramucci are all about consolidating industry and markets to “hedge the risk.”
So, ask yourself, what is the “natural risk” (fully assumed) Objectivists “work harder than everybody else” to avoid and make it “just happen?”