I think I'll stand by my word. There is fair success and there's unfair success. Monopolies have it unfairly while non-monopolies have it fair.
Sure a landlord will make a profit from his tenants. It's the only thing that makes sense. Why would you have people in a house that you own if they will in all likelyhood cost you some money?
Rich get richer, poor get poorer. It's been that way since the US's conception. It is, however, like that in much of the world. Especially the places which have adopted "american-style" "democracy". LOL.
I guess I'll use another example, the first of which comes to my mind. Since I'm looking at the Google Toolbar on my desktop, i'll use them.
Google has become successful because they developed an extremely helpful tool everyone uses. Because their tool was so helpful, they became partnered with Yahoo!
MSN wants to take some marketshare from Google with the new search engine they are allegedly developing. But how fair would it be if MSN (which is microsoft) plastered new windows versions with their own search toolbar and basically forced the average user (who doesnt know much about computers) to use MSN's system?
They would be using their unfair advantage to gain additional unfair advantages not only in it's niche, but in other markets as well.
If you don't buy the google example, let's look at Time Warner (AKA AOL Time Warner, Warner Bros, Time, Time Warner, etc.). They cover so many markets it's not funny. They have been allowed to merge with other equally-as-large corporations to increase their reach across markets and the globe.
Who was it that said we're following Karl Marx` predictions?
These corporations will just get larger and larger until it's impossible to compete. Every year it gets harder for startups.