>How strong are anti-monopoly (cartel) laws and protection of competition in US ?
>
>Srdjan, anti-trust laws in the United States (e.g. the Sherman AntiTrust law) have likely harmed competition more than fostered it. Market forces are generally self-corrective and don't require arbitrary legal acts such as the Sherman Antitrust Act. Even some "liberal" economists have acknowledged that technological progress in the 20th centruy was compromised because of so-called "anti-monopoly" laws.

Free (jungle) market so obviosely failed. If this was true, how come you ended up having 20-30 corporations that are 'larger then life'
instead of having more diverse market that can indeed self regulate itself by value ?
This whole bailout situation arose (among other things) because market was completely out of control, and left free to grow and intertwine into a nasty jungle full of monsters.

What was exactly the harm done by anti-trust laws ??
Common problem as far as I can see (at least here), is not that such laws 'do damage' but that are actually very hard to be enforce.
Fat cats usually find their ways of 'productive communication' very easily and it is very hard to obtain evidences of
price/rates/growt control.