Alcohol laws are a special case explicitly described in the Constitution. When Prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amendment, the Amendment stated that control was up to the states. Thus, states have special power to regulate alcohol unlike other commodities.
Some states won't allow mail order (Internet) alcohol orders and this is now under litigation as to whether that's Constitutional -- without the 21st Amend states wouldn't be allowed to do so because of the Commerce Clause. It's come down to two conflicting passages in the Constitution and which one takes precedence. IMHO the 21st Amendment takes precedence, "stupid laws" or not. Of course, we could always repeal the 21st Amend .
Grow> Macy's, Lord & Taylor, etc. don't compete in a "department store
That has always been a basic issue in anti-trust -- to define the market place. When IBM was hit with an antitrust suit in the 1950s, IBM clearly had a near monopoly in punched-card machines but far less of one in computers (there was Univac doing well in those days), and not a monopoly at all in all of information processing.
Likewise for the Bell System -- in basic telephones, yes, but what about if one included private communications like intercoms or private telephone networks that large organizations maintained on their own? What about if one included radio communications and movie soundtracks which the Bell System once was involved with but dropped out of (IIRC by orders of the govt)?
The other issue about the Bell System was that it was heavilly _regulated_ by both the states and feds. The Bell System was not allowed to use its technology to go into other fields, where it probably could've been quite successful.
As to dept stores, I agree there are other players, but there always_ were other players in retail. Dept stores once had to compete with a lot of neighborhood specialty stores and small chains. Discount stores of one kind or another have been competing against them for many years. Those kinds of smaller stores are mostly gone now.
With Sears, it depends on the defined market. I don't think Sears was as big in dept stores as in its catalog.
In any event, to me the classic dept store is a defined market and potentially a very big one. Cities used to have a large variety of dept stores. Shopping malls once had different big stores than the next mall down the road, now they're all the same. For example, in my area there are two big malls about 10 miles about. Years ago no big store was duplicated, but today, thanks to mergers and closures, all the big stores are duplicated in both. Will there be a need for two big Federated stores in _each_ mall?
As a shopper, if Wanamaker's didn't have what I wanted, I'd go up the street to Strawbridges, and then over to Gimbel's. Three different stores, run by three different companies. As mentioned, I _also_ had the choice of numerous smaller specialty stores and discount stores.
First, a correction. The railroads knew they were in the transportation business and set up bus, trucking and even aviation units and cooperative agreements. But the govt made the railroads get out of most of that stuff.
Second, the traditional old line dept stores actually had considerable variety. The modern mgmt have eliminated a lot of departments and special services. Gimbels, for example, had a scouting/camping dept, art supplies dept, and bookstore.
It's their own fault, and merger won't fix it, anymore than merging the Pennsylvania and New York Central railroads saved them.
[snip]...
Unlike typewriters and buggy whips, people still need clothes and furnishings.