There is, pretty clearly, a sort of "Goldilocks Problem" with regards to the optimal amount of regulation: you need some level of regulation, or you get monopol

There is, pretty clearly, a sort of "Goldilocks Problem" with regards to the optimal amount of regulation: you need some level of regulation, or you get monopolization by first-movers who then use their advantage to prevent the emergence of competitors and extract rents. On the other extreme, too much regulation is typically associated with regulatory capture, and protection of entrenched participants ... such that they can prevent competitors and extract rents. You can end up at the same end-state (small number of very large market participants, little competition, huge barriers to entry) via either route. I do not think that it is fair to say that regulation always increases and never declines; in the U.S. we have seen regulation swing back and forth over time. The early U.S. was a largely deregulated economy, which became regulated due to demands by citizens that companies be controlled; the tide turned in the later 20th century, with widespread utilities and transportation deregulation, fewer union-favoring labor rules, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.; I think it's still unclear whether the tide has turned again today.