I believe that was a "chicken or the egg" situation. Companies got help from government officials who used them to get rich themselves (almost like virtually every government official in history, including our current ones).
The point was that without government regulation a startup can never get a fair opportunity against well financed bigger companies. The regulation I like is that which forces everyone to "play fair". That I dislike (which we have way too much of today) is that which gives the biggest and most profitable companies advantages, like the massive red tape costs involved in bringing new pharmaceutical products to the market.
Without regulation, Home Depot could tell power tool manufacturers not to sell to mom and pop companies or they'd get their tools elsewhere. To someone who believes in the magic of the market, someone else will just pop up and start buying those tools instead, but realistically Makita would take the millions of drills Home Depot orders over the dozens a small company might order in a heartbeat. Unless you've got an absolutely marketbreaking new product, there's no way to compete with a company with much deeper pockets without someone placing limits on how they operate.