And I agreed, but have still offered zero evidence to back your claim that the free market would fix the initial problem of driving up the housing prices.
And I agreed, BUT that is simply a question of pace. It was inevitable.
The people who funded the legislation that helped form the monopolies could do so because they were already on their way. That is how they had the funds to buy politicians in the first place.
It is not that they could never do it without the politicians' regulations and such. It is simple pragmatism. Why spend the cash on "X" in your efforts to corner the market in 10 years when when you can buy a few politicians and cut the time in half?
No. You have no point because how the current monopolies is an irrelevant factor in ending them. Simply removing those benefits and letting the free market do it's job somehow fixes the situation. The playing field is already so uneven that no amount of free market competition, IF you can even be a start up at all in some fields, is going to end the existing monopolies.
You have no example because there isn't one. David cannot beat Goliath through the free market. Instead, David might do ok in the minors and then Goliath, if he hasn't already crushed David, buys him out. Expanding the monopoly further. Anyone who thinks that that is a good business model for the future generations is a moron, a mobster or both.
Again: How does the free market fix this?
This yet another way that Marxists and Libertarians are the opposite sides of the same coin: Nothing they claim works will work, if at all, until you reset to year zero again.
The libertarian's versions of the free market works fine in both pre 1800's America and Zombie Apocalypse America. Nowhere else. Same with the Marxists.
But I can at least respect that the Marxists actually do something (pretty successfully thus far too) to achieve their ends. Not that the libertarians haven't help though with open borders and open markets, just to name a couple.