Yeah so the point is that if the only restaurant in the USA is Applebee's and they sign an exclusive agreement with Mastercard, they are extending their monopoly -- likely illegally in the US:

"But exclusive dealing also can be anticompetitive in some circumstances. For example, exclusive dealing may allow one manufacturer, in effect, to monopolize efficient distribution services and thereby prevent its rivals from competing effectively. As then-Judge Breyer explained, exclusive dealing can harm consumers by thwarting entry or inhibiting the growth of existing rivals:

'Exclusive dealing arrangements may sometimes be found unreasonable under the antitrust laws because they may place enough outlets, or sources of supply, in the hands of a single firm (or small group of firms) to make it difficult for new, potentially competing firms to penetrate the market. To put the matter more technically, the arrangements may "foreclose" outlets or supplies to potential entrants, thereby raising entry barriers. Higher entry barriers make it easier for existing firms to exploit whatever power they have to raise prices above the competitive level because they have less to fear from potential new entrants.'"

https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...

It would be better if you just used the obvious historical precedent - Standard Oil integrated with rail services by negotiating discounts that provided an insurmountable barrier to entry for smaller competitive. It was restraining trade, and while prices may have benefited consumers in the short run, the lack of competition would have been a negative over the long run.

> if the only restaurant in the USA is Applebee's

Except that it isn't the only restaurant. You need a much better example.

The ironic thing is that the only way I can conceive we could be in a situation in which there is only one restaurant in the USA, is through over-regulation and treating restaurants as a utility. Food is important after-all and can't be left to the markets, as some may argue.

A restaurant that agrees to exclusively accept Mastercard would be out of business very quickly (no matter how much Mastercard lowered its fees for them). That's why we don't have to regulate such behavior.

Not a restaurant, but Costco used to accept only Amex as a credit card (debit was a different story) and now only accepts Visa.

So what you're saying is that market forces prevent this behavior that harms consumers and pushes an inferior product?

I'm saying I don't know what market forces allow an Applebees to survive.

Things that benefit a consumer on price (Walmart), don't necessarily benefit the economy as a whole (destruction of the smaller retailers that worked in this market). While consumers save money, the money is leaving the local economy and going to Walmart HQ, while money spent at a local retailer will continue to circulate within the area

No, that would not be a free market. That would be a supplier abusing their market position.