In a free market competition drives the creation of better and more profitable products.

Yeah.... And then through competition they're all driven down to a price that's near production

It's only without regulations can the formation of monopolies and oligopolies even happen

You don't seem to understand the difference between laws that prevent the creation of anti-competitive practice and regulation that increases the cost of product and decreases competitiveness.

The first is good. The other two are what's resulting in your "late stage capitalism".

then through competition they're all driven down to a price that's near production.

The creation of "better" products means improved production methods as well. There's an incentive to improve processes to be more efficient if it means you can earn more profit than someone else and stay in business longer. That's how we've gone from hand copying books to printing presses to free digital libraries. Better doesn't just mean making better books, it also means better methods in making books.

you don't seem to understand the difference between laws that prevent the creation of anti-competitive practice and regulation that increases the cost of product and decreases competitiveness.

You don't seem to understand that both of those things are essentially the same. Regulations are just interpretations of existing laws. Without laws, there are no regulations. That's why breaking them has legal consequences, and 3rd party agencies that enforce them.

Also, you don't seem to understand how regulations clearly protect the cost of production at a sustainable price above exploitation within that market. I find it fascinating that on one hand you say competition drives prices to near production levels, but on the other complain that regulations increase the cost of product. Do you not see the very obvious mechanism that regulations have in making sure competition is sustainable by keeping market costs fair and safe above exploitative practices? You literally described both cause and effect as problems then complained as if they don't clearly relate.

You don't seem to understand that both of those things are essentially the same.

No, they're not.... one is law about how you make your product, the other is law about not harming your competitors. While they may share a name, "regulation", it's night and day difference. You seem to be looking at a chocolate cake and a cinnamon roll and then are saying "They're both deserts, they're essentially the same thing".

Do you not see the very obvious mechanism that regulations have in making sure competition is sustainable by keeping market costs fair and safe above exploitative practices?

It sounds like you're trying to describe price floors or something, but doing it in a confusing way that attempts to lead to some kind of gotcha? But I've already said I'm okay with regulation against anti-competitive practices, so I don't really know where you're going.