Internet-age monopolies are an interesting issue, although I&#x27;m not sure what you mean by &#x27;money has a natural monopolizing effect&#x27;. Markets with always decreasing average costs are prone to natural monopoly (e.g. fixed line telecommunications).<p>IMHO, the internet has given rise to a different kind of monopoly: &#x27;network&#x27; monopolies. I&#x27;m not sure if Amazon could be considered one: sellers don&#x27;t face high switching costs  or high costs associated with selling on multiple Amazon-like platforms at the same time. Neither do consumers. So both sides of the market are fairly price sensitive, and large positive &#x27;same-side&#x27; network effects don&#x27;t appear to be present. In Amazon&#x27;s case, same-side network effects might actually be negative on both sides of the market (i.e. more consumers means higher demand and therefore higher prices for consumers, more sellers means more competition for sellers and therefore lower prices for sellers).<p>Android and iOS, and their respective app markets, are probably better examples of network monopolies (and possibly a &#x27;winner-takes-all&#x27; market). These kinds of monopolies pose interesting questions for government: Should they regulate? How should they regulate? Do existing anti-trust laws cover these situations?<p>Wikipedia has some good material, in case you&#x27;re interested in some further reading:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Network_effect" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Network_effect</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Two-sided_market" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Two-sided_market</a>