I agree, Jaws, that the big three auto companies are a perfect example of why oligopolies can and do fail. Whether they are ALL 'destined' to fail, is a question. The automaker's hand in glove relationship with big oil, inside the brass knuckles of govt, is ill equipped to deal with what's coming. The auto-maker's eco-system is about to get hit with an asteroid, and no mutual backscratching networks will save them.
You say that corporations seek protection from govt. not monopolistic control. This is more a semantic exercise than anything else. The more a corporation is sheltered from competition, through whatever means, the more it has a chance at monopolistic control. Microsoft was well on it's way. Here we had an example of a company, with an inferior product, dominating a specific industry. It still operates at a tremendous advantage, even after the "remedies" imposed by the law.
I don't doubt the reasons you state for corporate mergers and acquisitions. It's helpful to have someone who obviously has an Economics 101 primer to help us understand the benign reasons that corporations merge. But how does this help competition? Would it not be better to let nature take it's course and allow the weak to die, allowing what might be more superior but smaller companies waiting in the wings to get a shot at the big time? This seems like a state sanctioned socialization of business scheme to me. Are you sure you're not a Communist?
Wait till things get really rotten, to see how big corporations, with zero competition, gouge rather than compete with lower and lower prices. I agree that for the time being, prices, though rising, are still historically cheap in retail goods. This will change.