FROM http://iris.nyit.edu/~shartman/mba0101/trust.htm:

The early 1980s saw the dramatic conclusion of a historic monopoly case against the telephone giant American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) (United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 552 F. Supp. 131 [D.D.C. 1982], aff'd in Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001, 103 S. Ct. 1240, 75 L. Ed. 2d 472 [1983]). The Justice Department settled claims that AT&T had impeded competition in long-distance telephone service and telecommunications equipment. The result was the largest divestiture in history: a federal court severed the Bell System's operating companies and manufacturing arm (Western Electric) from AT&T, transforming the nation's telephone services. But the historic settlement was an exception to the political philosophy and level of enforcement that characterized the decade. As the 1980s were ending, the Justice Department dropped its thirteen-year suit against International Business Machines (IBM). This lengthy battle had sought to end IBM's dominance by breaking it up into four computer companies. Convinced that market forces had done the work for them, prosecutors gave up.

Throughout the 1980s, political conservatism in federal enforcement complemented the Supreme Court's doctrine of nonintervention. The administration of President Ronald Reagan reduced the budgets of the FTC and the Department of Justice, leaving them with limited resources for enforcement. Enforcement efforts followed a restrictive agenda of prosecuting cases of output restrictions and large mergers of a horizontal nature (involving firms within the same industry and at the same level of production). Mergers of companies into conglomerates, on the other hand, were looked on favorably, and the years 1984 and 1985 produced the greatest increase in corporate acquisitions in the nation's history.

FROM http://www.answers.com/topic/federal-trade-commission

Support for FTC activism began to wane by the late 1970s and fell precipitously following the commission's efforts in 1978 to regulate television advertisements aimed at children. Critics of the FTC argued that the commission had become too independent, too powerful, and heedless of the public good. Congressional critics sought new limits on FTC activity, and in 1979 they temporarily shut off FTC appropriations. The FTC Improvement Act of 1980 restored the agency's funding but enacted new congressional restrictions.

The Reagan administration further targeted the FTC. Executive Order 12291, issued 17 February 1981, placed the reform of regulatory commissions under the control of the president, and the FTC's actions soon turned from aggressive regulation to cooperation with business interests. The agency abandoned cases with sweeping structural implications, emphasized consumer fraud over antitrust enforcement, and liberalized its merger guidelines. The commission's Competition Advocacy Program, for example, championed promarket, probusiness regulatory policies before other state and federal agencies

@Maxrot - or get a job "hosting" a fake interview show.

Maybe its just me, but every time I read Sarah's last name I can't help but see "Pain".

rladlof,

Please say more about Raygun's exec. order. (Reboot my memory.)

@cmoore re; merging: as long as they don't do it in mid-air...

@John Doh re: sales: National Inquirer sells more copies than The New Yorker. is that your standard?

Mark K: I think it is also useful to point out that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the like are well aware of the predilections of their audience. They are not merely empty vessels waiting to be filled, but have certain paranoid attachments that need something concrete (like the typical right-wing talking points) to say "Oh, yes. That's what I think too!" The problem is that sometimes right-wing commentators don't realize that many of their listeners are so extreme themselves that they don't recognize when they are just being "entertained." An example of this is Hannity misjudging his audience at a recent Tea Party gathering; rather than taking offense at being compared to Timothy McVeigh, they cheered.

@Quark - Agreed, on both points (consolidation & Sherman). Glass-Steagle, as well, must be re-instated and ENFORCED!

@John Doh! - Well, I don't think she bought ALL of them ... There's the RNC, the financeirs of the various Tea Parties, FOX, Newscorp and the Washington Times needed several copies for review, etc, etc. I wonder how many copies of "her" book are still sitting in Barnes & Noble or Amazon warehouses, waiting for REAL PEOPLE to buy them - after all, the "target market" for the product that Sarah Palin has become really doesn't spend a whole lot of time or money on such frivolous things as books - they'd mostly prefer to wait for the movie. :-)

RE: The Baggers o' the Tea . . .

What we are seeing is the schism of the followers of authoritarian regimes from their corporate beholden leadership due to fear fatigue AND, yes (of course), their demographics are more than obvious to followers of history. Of course (again), they are angry because they are being marginalized.

@ harry - kidding that I have con friends or that they fall for The Onion? I think they, like many cons, only read the headlines.

mstaggerlee,

To me, consolidation of smaller businesses is a huge problem holding back our economy. There is so little room for true creativity and competition (and JOBS) in our economy.

mstaggerlee,

Yes, bank size is not the main point of the piece. However, it is a major issue and it surprised me that Krugman doesn't consider it that critical.