In Human Action, Mises makes it clear that even in the unhampered market, there are particular circumstances that are theoretically possible in which a company might be able to obtain a monopoly price. The point about monopoly prices, as opposed to competative prices, is that they indicate an infringement of consumer sovereignty.
Consumer sovereignty is intact when bringing the means of production in line with consumer demand corresponds to higher profits. Conversely, diverting the means of production away from the consumer’s most urgent ends corresponds to lower profits (or even losses). In the case where a monopoly price can be obtained, we see a situation whereby an entrepeneur may increase profits without bringing the means of production more in line with consumer demand. This is, in Austrian terms, a less efficient market.
Firstly one must ask then is it even possible in practice to identify when a price is non-competative?
Secondly, if one can identify those circumstances in which consumer sovereignty is infringed, does that justify intervention to curb it?
Thirdly, even if it’s considered justified, is it actually possible in practice to improve upon the market outcomes?