Prosthetic Conscience wrote:"Necessary" would imply that someone has decided the monopoly is needed. That's not it at all. It's that the cost of entering the market for a competitor is too much. You might say it is "inevitable without legal intervention". But objecting to the term that economists decided on 150 years ago is pretty pointless.
Perhaps fruitless but not pointless. We need to remind ourselves how word choice can bias a concept. I wonder if perhaps they chose 'natural ' to make a monopoly sound more palatable? Kind of hard to argue against something that is 'natural '.