Think some of these tech names will be dominant for a long time but do we really need regulatory action to bring some of these tech names away from the top 5 or 10?

Perhaps valuation (if it is even an issue) could get corrected, or competition in higher margin businesses reduce profits (like cloud). Or market saturation has already happened and together with valuation means that the other areas of the economy and thus the market sectors start to out-perform.

But what have they really achieved over time other than a slap on the wrist and a fine here and there.
I am sure you remember that the US govt had concerns about MSFT getting too big back in the day and wanting to split it up - look where are.
A more effective catalyst maybe something like what happened with the blip involving Crowdstrike which caused chaos around the world and could technically bring the world to its knees and be more severe than something like the GFC - (communication, airports, hospitals, financial services etc etc , all at once rather than just the financial services sector which then trickles down).

Then again it would either need to be a radical solution or a simple case of more providers of the same service - hence still in the growth sector by both means !

In terms of eco systems - we had mom and pop shops selling wares, then we had supermarkets selling the combined wares of the mom and pops, then we had the emergence of shopping malls housing many supermarkets, then we retail parks supporting supermarkets in towns, then we had shopping centres supporting regions, then we had national countries to go shopping, then along came amazon and now I can get access to all the above from my bog at the click of a button (similar to Mr GL who posts his investment trade updates).

To cap it all off I don't need to arrange a DHL courier, then parcelforce who tells me that I have to deal with customs, followed by royal mail postie dropping a card leading me to drive to the local depot to get my parcel 7-10 days later - I can have it next day or even the same day (in fact I once ordered some groceries and amazon sent a driver to morrisons in my next town and it was with me in two hours, a lot faster than it would take me to get changed, get our my car, drive, find a parking space, navigate the isles, que/wait to pay (those self service things never seems to work with me and I end up having to call someone over and wait), drive back etc. Better still they give me a window slot of time followed by a more specific range when the item will be delivered.

The company has its own fleet of aircrafts, its own airports, its own, land, its own distribution centres, its own fleet of drivers and vans, and then it still contracts locals to do delivery jobs on a contractual piecemeal and flexible basis to earn some extra part-time monies. So a continuous 24 hour, 365 days moving beast satisfying customers and acquiring captive customers tied into their eco system to market other offerings such as streaming services, data management services, cloud services, financial services etc.

In terms of market power - lets consider the recent case of yodel (a company used by Amazon) being taken over by a PE outfit, I suspect trying to alter or renegotiate with Amazon may be a tough ask in terms of who needs whom - a courier company whose model to mainly courier goods or a company who not only has the capability but infrastructure and resources to do a backward integration/buyout, partnership with a competitor or indeed develop their own in house service. Look at intel and apple with the range of chips.

With the Apple eco system - you can upgrade/change machines and services seamlessly and at ease where all your gadgets and gizmos all connect, talk to each other and work independent of each other. What did and does apple do and sell, is it a desktop computer, is it a laptop, is it a walkman killer (later re-used as a cheap data storage disk in the likes of India and china), is it a phone, or camera or a combination of the above, or is it a watch, maybe it is a data centre, maybe it is a movie theatre, maybe a credit card payment system or maybe it is just a company that is fluid company developing as it goes by whilst at the same time creating new markets and industries - ie innovative and not restricted to a product or service as such.

However all these companies have captive audiences coupled with vast amount of data to properly target and deliver new services - sure a credit reference agency can tell you about an individuals finances, a supermarket can tell you what a customer buys, a bank can tell you about spending patterns, then there is Google that can tell you that and much more including all your vices, in an instant and guess what, you will most likely have legally agreed to allow them to access and store it.

IMO these companies are not the gold, they are pick axes and tin hats which other companies will use to find the gold - ie you and me the customer ! They will be the middle men, the exchanges where tech business get access to sell their wares.

To cap it all off the USA is not China and despite all the ego - Trump is not Xi Jin Ping - the consumers who are tied in (and not the corporate alone) will fight back when the administration tries to do what Xi JIn PIng did to Ant Group.

So i take it you are proving my point, rates/inflation is a poor causal factor to determine what type of investing does well.

Would those be nominal prices or real prices corrected for the high inflation we've been having over the past couple of years?

And, are you suggesting we time the market? Are you doing so yourself?

Micawber

Real prices corrected for the high inflation we've been having over the past couple of years.
No, I don’t time the market. I found timing market is missing out great opportunities.