It’s a well-known fact that since the world’s Great Depression (the 30s of the XX century), the debate between neoclassical supporters for the “Invisible Hand” of Adam Smith’s competition and supporters of Keynesian regulation has become more acute. Some of them disclaimed the “Invisible Hand” in general and the new neoclassical synthesis came as an intermediary.

The goal of this presented work isn’t a criticism of genial Smith – we think that it’s needed some corrects in the established understanding from the time of Smith and to the present method of Herfindahl-Hirschman about a large number of competitors determining the perfection of competition.

With such an imperfect method, we can erroneously7 divide the effective local big business or prevent the merger of business in a decent way, violate the presumption of innocence of the local entrepreneurs and create favorable conditions for secret collusions of external dishonest “businesslike” activities.

To this, it’s necessary to provide the state support mechanism for entrepreneurs damaged by monopolies.

Keywords: Competition; Monopoly; Efficiency; Regulation Priorities; Economic Mechanism.

JEL Codes: D40, D41, D43.