I think you have it backwards. Regulation is what enables monopolies. There is no monopoly for any of the major industries like cow herding or cellular telephone service in Somalia despite almost no effective regulation. There is not even a monopoly of pirates despite them willing to use violence to try and enforce a monopoly.

If you look at the history of the US, for instance, railroad regulation was brought forth largely by the railroads because they found it impossible to form a cartel to keep up prices (due to "secret" discounting) so instead they created regulation that outlawed the kind of discounting that breaks cartels apart. A similar thing happened in banking where the banks asked for a central bank to cartelize the interest ranks to stabilize their oligopoly. And the same in pharma industry -- big pharma loves high regulatory barriers because it keeps competitors out.

A large portion of the regulation in the US was brought about as regulatory capture by corporations to increase the monopolizing effects and destroy the free market.

> Regulation is what enables monopolies

That's patently false. AT&T was a monopoly and they were broken up by antitrust regulation. The absolute most you can say is that some regulations enable monopoly. I contend that we simply should pass the good kind of regulations instead.

Monopoly is enabled by market forces such as economies of scale. Monopolization is a natural market process which happens on its own unless it is actively prevented.

> big pharma loves high regulatory barriers because it keeps competitors out

The FDA, for all the flaws of its current incarnation, is the archetype of necessary regulation. Pre-FDA, the free market did nothing whatsoever to prevent nauseating practices like the adulteration of milk with powdered plaster, lead, and cow brains. The history there is fun but quite gross.

> Somalia

What is notable about Somalia is not its lack of regulation, but the fact that it is perhaps THE least stable country on the planet. It is not the basis for any useful comparison here.

This is not a personal opinion of mine, it is pretty much established science. I think only think-tank backed sources would claim the opposite.

One should understand the phenomenon as a common pattern of dynamics in unregulated markets. Not every snapshot will showcase an end state of monopolist dominated markets.

You bring up a valid point though. Regulatory capture is a indeed a weapon in the hands of anti-competitive players to prevent incumbents. Good policy usually applies differently to different strata: the small players are exempt from certain rules, or have to deal with less stringent ones than big players do, to prevent killing the market. At the risk of sounding like an llm: it is not just about policy, it is about good policy.

> major industries like cow herding

The food industry is filled with regional monopolies.

> cellular telephone service in Somalia

Ah yes, excellent example, all you have to do is completely destabilize your nation and you too can have free market capitalism.

Investors love monopolies, they fix prices and profits so their investments are not at risk. Investors hate too much competition, it lowers profits and puts their investments at risk.

Free markets need investors. Investors hate free markets. I hope you see the problem here.