> The issue is that real life is not adaptable. Resources and capital are slow. > That's the whole issue with monopolies for example, innit?

The much bigger issue with monopolies is that there is no pressure on the monopolist to compete on price or quality of the offering.

Right, and my point is that "ideal free market dynamics" conveniently always ignore this failure state that seems to always emerge as a logical consequence of its tenets.

I don't have a better solution, but it's a clear problem. Also, for some reason, more and more people (not you) will praise and attack anyone who doesn't defend state A (ideal equilibrium). Leaving no room to point out state B as a logical consequence of A which requires intervention.

The definition of a monopoly basically resolves to "those companies that don't get pressured to meaningfully compete on price or quality", it's a tautology. If a firm has to compete, it doesn't remain a monopoly. What's the point you're making here?