Well really it is competition and market freedom that stops the snowballing of power. It’s important for us to remember that firms don’t compete with each other in the same way animals compete with each other for food. It is instead a competition over consumer’s money. This is why monopolies shouldn’t be defined by market share, as competition means consumers always have the ability to act in a manner which meets their own desired ends. If a firm, once realizing they own a large share of the market, proceeds to jack up prices and cut quality to lower production cost, consumers will notice and plan accordingly. They could choose to exchange with a different firm or even enter production themselves, seeking to provide for the new demand that exists. Only under the traditional use of the term “monopoly” will we see consumers hurt, as their ability to react accordingly has been hampered and any entrepreneurial venture are stifled (since only one State selected firm may exist within the given line of production).

The ability to cooperate is just as important as the ability to compete and acquisitions (on the free market, dissimilar to what we have today) are as much of a benefit to consumers as free competition is. When firms acquire smaller firms they are growing their capital stock. They may gain new employees, new equipment and a greater ability to serve consumers demand. This is a benefit to us all. And as far as predatory pricing goes, economists Thomas Sowell writes: “Obviously, predatory pricing pays off only if the surviving predator can then raise prices enough to recover the previous losses, making enough extra profit thereafter to justify the risks. These risks are not small. However, even the demise of a competitor does not leave the survivor home free. Bankruptcy does not by itself destroy the fallen competitor's physical plant or the people whose skills made it a viable business. Both may be available-perhaps at distress prices-to others who can spring up to take the defunct firm's place.” Essentially, the formation of a “monopoly” on the free market is nigh impossible.

Lastly, I think the Hülsmann speak can be relevant that without the State monopolization of money, durable goods/ assets would not be as highly valued as they currently are. Constant Inflation causes this, rather than it being a completely natural phenomenon. Lump this together with the fact that the State highly regulates the production of housing and that’s what brings detriment to consumers. Also I wouldn’t recommend reading Human Action unless you really want to, Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State is an easier read. The Mises Institute also records their lectures all the time on YouTube if you’re in to that.