What you describe, basically is monopolism. It is well known, that monopolies are killing a free market.
> They are just being good Capitalists.
When this is true, than something is very wrong with Capitalism itself.
In ecology, there's a concept call Ecological Succession. Likewise, in Capitalism, the free market is a stage in a succession toward monopoly. Capital tends to pool, leading to monopolies.
It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite. One example: While bigger banks are good for the bankers, because countries have to rescue them, it is very bad for those countries, as everybody (except politicians) can see since 2008.
With your "ecological" theory, someone also could argue, that dinosaurs are better than mammals.
I find analogies useful. I also find the utility of Science to be valid but limited at times, particularly in complex systems that evolve.
> I think it is more a sign of pseudo-scientific trickery to back the own thinking, that is most often used in unsound economical theories.
You are assuming that my motivations are different from what they actually are, but yes, I agree it does happen... I'm also not trying to make a "sound economic theory". Observations & analogies are still valid & useful, though. YMMV.
> It is a fact, that while monopolies are good for the monopolists, it is bad for societies at large. And no "ecological" concepts can convince me from the opposite.
I'm making an observation that the "free market" is an unstable system. It probably only exists in theory. IMO, the difference between the theory & reality limits the utility of Capitalism, or any imposed economic model for that matter.
> With your "ecological" theory, someone also could argue, that dinosaurs are better than mammals.
It's hard to find "better" in all circumstances. It usually depends on context. i.e. Dinosaurs were pretty well adapted for their environment & lasted millions of years (much longer than humans). Too bad they didn't consider that asteroid...
So, it very much sounds to me, that you prefer just unproven theories, that one can draw from arbitrary analogies over sound science.
You are entitled to your opinion. IMO, "Sound science" is quite limited. Sortof like the lowest common denominator of knowledge.
Reductionistic thought tends to cause issues like "not seeing the forest through the trees". It has led to a number of cultural issues that we face today.
People also cling to "sound science" like it's a religion. And your accusations make you sound like you are straight from the inquisition. It's quite ironic...
And you are correct. But something different was being said: Unconstrained capitalism, leads to monopolies (or oligopolies). And that's true too. Read your own words. "monopolies are good for the monopolists". Isn't that another way to say "shareholders' profit"? There you have motive. And in a pond of fish, doesn't the bigger, eat the smaller, becoming even more big in the process? That's the process.
What I basically was arguing against, was the notion (as I understood it), that "scientific theory" would justify monopolies as good for society.
Sure, but the problem is that unconstrained free markets lead to monopolies.
The big fish eats the smaller fish. The big fish becomes bigger and more difficult to attack. (New competition.) And so on, and so on, until there can be only one, or an oligopoly.