If monopolies are prevented and fall apart by themselves, then why did the US government step in to break up the monopolies of AT&T and Standard Oil? Should we have simply waited until it broke up by itself? Is it worth waiting years, potentially decades for big companies to abuse the market just because "it'll break up by itself"?
Have you heard of barriers to entry? It's a pretty important concept in economics. High prices and low quality will not make room for new competition, if new start-ups cannot overcome barriers to entry. If you can't afford to build up the capital, or the economy of scale, or survive predatory pricing, then you can't fight a monopoly. Good products don't spring out of the ground, they need capital and investment and the survival of the firm to form. And companies don't have to be forced to create innovative ideas when they have a monopoly. That's why monopolies are bad - because they stifle growth - and that's why governments have legitimate reasons to break them up.
A market with a monopoly is no longer a free market, because prices no longer reflect the balance between supply and demand, and therefore they don't properly signal for the allocation of resources any longer. If market forces aren't working, how do you expect the monopoly to just break up by itself?
You should provide definitions for all these words you're using because:
Which aptly describes the economic system of the United States, yet you say the US isn't capitalist. And:
Which again describes very well the political system of the United States, yet you say that the US isn't a democracy.
You said about socialist systems that "everyone is stuck where they are- lower class! There will be no room to even move from the lower class to a higher class." But there's more social mobility in countries with more socialist economies meaning that less people get stuck in a particular class. That's what you meant when you said everyone's stuck in the same class, right?
