The issue there needs to be a mechanism, say an added/increased tax, to extract more value from the companies covering more services or industries due to the economies of scale and other advantages - and then that money funneled into smaller, new(er) entrants so there are competitors that can exist as a fallback/failsafe.
Im not sure I follow. You’re suggesting that the government should somehow get involved to levy taxes on companies based on subjective criteria, like how big they are, and then … fund startups to compete with them?
We already have a Small Business Administration that gives loans to small businesses, including start-ups. There’s also an extremely vibrant venture funding industry out there just waiting to write checks.
Additionally, it would be hard to argue that Stripe has anything like a payment processing monopoly. If you don’t like their products, use one of the myriad other companies offering payment processing solutions.
It's more complex than this but yes, allow smaller competitors to exist long enough to compete by offering similar enough products as a large, evolved ecosystem/platform provides, as to eventually have competition in place to keep fees/how much they extract from society in check.
I didn't argue Stripe has a monopoly but even ogilopolies once mature enough are problematic.
Also of you're trying to argue VCs make investments in companies that ultimately make good decisions for society vs. self-interested - then I disagree.
