There are three categories of criticism being mixed up here.
1. You cannot influence the market, it will always revert to form.
2. You can influence the market, but in doing so, you will cause too many damaging side-effects.
3. You should not influence the market, because it’s morally wrong to do so.
The first comment was very much in category 1, but now it sounds like category 2.
The problem with category 2 arguments is that they pretend any solution must be perfect with no side-effects or we shouldn’t do it. Clearly, it’s a trade-off - even if there are negatives, if they are outweighed by the positives, it’s worth doing.
Thus, if it’s possible some mixture of regulation, tax and subsidy can prevent monopolistic behaviour, it’s worth at least discussing.
