[Newlaptop]

> Monopolies are entirely consistent with free market economics

Not in the least. Literally in the first semester, Economics 101 type class that any business/economics/etc student would take, it would be covered clearly that monopolies are violations of free markets.

A free market isn't a euphemism for anarchy or "no rules", it's a specific economic term. The things it is free of include artificial price floors or ceilings, barriers to entry, anti-competitive practices, etc. In other words, monopolies, oligopolies, cartels, monopsonies, etc are all violations of a free market. You do not have a free market if there is a monopoly supplier.

[try_the_bass]

Economics 101 also assumes perfect information symmetry, perfect competition, and spherical cows. In other words, it only vaguely models reality... Good enough to teach the basic concepts, but without diving in the nuance that makes the basic models break down.

If one competitor is far enough ahead of the rest, they can maintain that lead given that they can extract sufficient momentum from their early mover advantage. If they keep this up long enough, competitors never reach the scale to sufficiently prevent them from becoming a monopoly (at least over their local market segment).

None of this requires anti-competitive behavior; simply good execution on the part of the leader.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting that "free markets" also involve government intervention to suppress their lead in the market...

[animal_spirits]

And many times the sources of these monopolies come from special privileges given out by governmental authorities, such as the U.S. FDA

[account42]

Or even more basic government-enforced restrictions like IP laws. If you want a survival of the fittest anarchy economy then those won't exist either. Neither will legal protections against espionage or circumvention of whatever technical means you come up to try and get all that back.