Aren't monopolies is what we end up by default if have no regulation at all?
And yes, not every regulation destroys monopoly, but regulation is the only thing that could break one.
And yes, not every regulation destroys monopoly, but regulation is the only thing that could break one.
No. Monopolies are only inevitable if the goods aren't elastic, if there is a large cost of entry into the market, or if its a market you can create a moat that is unsurmountable.
Many markets don't have that even with 0 regulation, but might have second order problems like firms creating unsafe products for example.
But in general regulations almost always even unindentedly raise the cost to enter the market. If you make a new regulation that food needs to be safe, then the company needs to pay a safety inspection that a small home-made recipe might not be able to afford (to give a simple example).
At the same time, we now have uber large corporations due to non elastic parts of supply chain (like land) or moats that are insurmountable (like access to US capital). In which case, the FCC should break up monopolies as the current market is not catering to end users and consumers but to owners, which is why the Stock market has been in a never ending bull run.
That is one of the ways a Moat can happen and a monopoly can occur. For example if you were the only person with a loom and everyone else had to make jumpers by hand, you could make them so cheap they would have to close down.
In some markets those ways you can benefit from scale exist, in others there are drawbacks. In many cases those advantages only exist due to either regulation or lac thereof.
For example ways companies might have an advantage is by manufacturing in cheaper countries, but that only works because those workers have less rights and the cost of transporting is not properly taxed. Carbon taxes on shipping would make manufacturing in China pretty comparatively priced to many european countries. But if you let them contaminate the ocean with crude oil boats, then their manufacturing prowess and cheaper labour cost will offset the shipping cost and destroy a newcomer.
These are very basic examples and they all require nuance but hope it helps to explain it a bit more.
Another example is restaurants, you used to have some advantages from being a chain, but you would still constantly see mom and pop joints compete and even win. But as rent prices keep increasing (the non elastic market of the ground under the lease), suddenly the advantages of scale start beating the disadvantages of worse food and service.
Groklaw was a website that was started by a paralegal to try to understand, explain and report on the SCO lawsuit - who benefited and how they benefited. It ended up expanding into the EU anti-trust action against Microsoft and OpenDocument (and how OpenOffice was created as a trojan horse to defang OpenDocument).
A lot of these were international. Just read up on "Cartel capitalism".
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/enterprise-and-socie...
The European Steel and Coal Community (precursor of the EU) was also involved in the effort to stop these. In general this has been something the EU has been involved in since its inception and the best action against monopolies is to not let them form in the first place (why there is so few of them in general in most developed countries. Though that is now slowly changing it seems)
Keep in mind that just having a big market share isn’t a monopoly, being able to charge monopoly prices is.
No.
A better answer would be 'not always'.
The proposed regulations forcing everybody to use google or apple are ridiculous and very much the opposite of the kind of regulations we need though...