Accusations of monopoly power — whether in energy or Big Tech — are everywhere these days. Politicians warn of corporate greed and unchecked power, while regulators respond with increasingly aggressive antitrust actions. The underlying assumption is clear: Competition is disappearing, and only government intervention can restore balance.
But this narrative often overlooks something fundamental. Competition in the modern economy is far more dynamic, complex and widespread than it appears at first glance. Companies don’t just compete with their direct rivals — they compete across industries, business models and technological boundaries. The firm that seems dominant today may be beaten not by their nearest competitor, but by entirely different products, emerging innovations or shifting consumer preferences.
Take the energy market. A few oil and gas companies, like Exxon and Chevron, may appear to hold an outsized market share, controlling how we power everything from manufacturing plants to household stoves. But beyond the oil and gas industry, they are challenged by a wide range of energy alternatives: nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, and still developing sources like nuclear fusion or buried natural hydrogen. One sliver of the energy markets — in this case, oil and gas — does not represent the full scope of competition.
Rather than recognize this broader competitive landscape, policymakers often default to seeing traditional energy firms as exercising unfair market power. From there, the policy response tends to follow a familiar pattern — targeting oil and gas companies with heavier regulation, while subsidizing preferred alternatives like solar and wind. Even when policymakers correctly identify competing technologies, they often end up distorting the competition rather than allowing it to play out naturally.
The same issue shows up in the technology space. Much of the recent antitrust focus around Google has centered on search being treated as a “monopoly” over competitors like Bing or Yahoo. This framing overlooks how the market actually works.
Search is no longer just desktop search engines. It includes app-based search bars, voice assistants like Siri and Alexa, and now large language models that are quickly changing how people access information. The rise of tools like ChatGPT has fundamentally widened what “search” even means. In that sense, competition never stopped existing — it just wasn’t happening where regulators were looking.
Industries can be reshaped quickly. Companies that once seemed untouchable, whether in retail, media or technology, have been displaced by new ways of solving the same consumer problem. Superstores like Sears and Kmart faltered with the rise of e-commerce, as online shops could offer similar options with more convenience to the consumer. Similarly, the rise of Amazon shifted competition within the bookstore industry, with Borders shutting down while Barnes and Nobles prevailed thanks to their Nook e-book reader and other evolving business strategies. What matters is not just who sells the same product, but who competes for the same dollar, attention and need.
This broader view of competition is often missing from antitrust debates. Instead, policymakers frequently rely on narrow definitions of markets and simplistic measures of concentration. The result is a distorted picture — one that exaggerates monopoly power while underestimating the forces that naturally limit it.
The same issue extends into regulatory policy broadly. Markets are often misread by lawmakers and staff who have limited experience working in or even closely observing them. Intervention becomes the default assumption before a full understanding of the market is even established, leading to policies built on incomplete or outdated assumptions about how firms and consumers behave.
From the warped perception around the energy sector to the monopoly lawsuit against Google search, the pattern is the same. Policymakers define markets too narrowly, viewing competition as stagnant. Corporations are scapegoated as “too big” without any further investigation into the market landscape. In the end, it’s consumers who lose out as policies hike prices or intervene with otherwise popular, useful products.
If regulations and antitrust laws are going to serve people rather than political narratives, policymakers and regulators need to start from a more honest baseline. Competition is usually broader, messier and more dynamic than it first appears. Sometimes it’s obvious. Often, it isn’t.
Major decisions, such as breaking up corporate giants or pre-selecting what goods are available on the market, should not be taken lightly. These are seismic decisions that will determine financial outcomes, cultural trends and even public health.
Sam Raus is the David Boaz Resident Writing Fellow at Young Voices. Follow him on X: @SamRaus1.