Can one conclude that a conglomerate represents a threat to free enterprise basically as a holding company?

Question

This question concerns what is basically proper and improper by the Clayton Antitrust Act, and in general fairness. An obvious monopoly, such as Microsoft, is illegal and it is justified to break it up. On the other hand the comglomerates, such as ITT years ago had holdings, but why were they seen as stifling competition. They included a hotel, sprinkling system, vending machines, and rent a cars. That was in the 1970s. Did they really deserve being prosecuted? How about today are there signficant conglomerates that are stifling competition? Deserve being broken up?

Would appreciate any thoughts on these issues.

Answer 1

A conglomerate is simply an organization with a variety of interests and holdings, really not different economically from any other business form.  The objective is to make profits, which are then available for growth, employment, purchasing goods and services, all of which spreads around and helps everyone.