Question

Numerous times is history, the courts have issued consent decrees requiring large companies to break up into smaller competing companies for violating the antitrust laws, The two best known examples are American telephone and telegraph (AT&T) in the 1980s and Microsoft 20 years later. (AT&T was broken up into the "Baby Bells", but the Microsoft breakup was successfully appealed and the breakup never occurred.) Many argued that breakup a monopoly is a Parento-effcient change. This interpretation cannot be so because breaking up a monopoly makes its owners (or shareholders) worse off. Do you agree or disagree? Explain your answer