> This is because of government intervention (it's illegal for Christ's sake).
In the US, of course. There are plenty of places where it is legal, but no monopolies have formed. Even before it was illegal, there was no monopolization. If the timeframe for inevitable monopolization is on the order of millenia, like it has yet to do with Prostitution, well then consider me unimpressed by the argument.
> Wheat has been regulated forever.
Forever? I'm pretty sure wheat farming predates the existence of the idea of government regulation. And yet, no monopolies. Ever.
> Electricity production: this is pretty well monopolized regionally.
Distribution is pretty well monopolized (hey, what do you know...an industry with high barriers to entry!). Production, not even close.
> Sugar--are you not aware of the corn lobby?
You're still just talking about the special case of the US. Open your eyes.
> Iron: USS wasn't a good enough a monopoly for you?
US Steel wasn't even a monopoly in the US (it peaked at 67% of the US market)...nowhere close to a monopoly world wide.
> What makes you think that a large company will not create high barriers to entry in their field? When a company reaches a size where they can lobby the government successfully the field ceases to be an even playing field.
So what you're saying is that non-natural Monopolies are the end state of government intervention. I agree. Natural monopolies can exist due to or in spite of government intervention.