Interesting comment.

"A little recognized consequence to this is something I call 'Inverse Occam's Razor'. In domains subject to competition, when the complexity of competitors is low, Occam's Razor roughly holds as a good description of action causes. As the complexity of competition rises toward infinity, Occam's Razor completely inverts and the most accurate description of the reasons for actions will drawn from the pool of descriptions with the most complexity."

While I understand that Occam's Razor implies simplicity as the best explanation, in complex systems, such as you describe here, it still completely applies. I suspect you do know and agree, but point out how Occam's Razor applied to complex systems seems to devolve to complex solutions. The essential fact of Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation applies, remains evident even in complex systems, as the advantageous features of the many aspects of complex systems each apply where they do, and the aggregate result of such advantage is complex. Despite complexity being extant, the most competitive mechanism still tends to be the simplest preferential system, and Occam's Razor is confirmed, generally. In markets that are governed by subjective, rather than naturally occurring and objectively preferable, design, products don't always conform to Occam's Razor.

Thus arises competition. It is not uncommon for a product to rise to dominate a market for reasons unrelated to it's design features, such as marketing. Subjectivity of markets doesn't disprove Occam's Razor, but do indicate that very complex systems involving subective interpretations by people of desirability can make even the simplest solution inexplicably complex.

"Contrary to 'free markets' being the stable point of economic competition, it is a transitory phase of an immature market. The stable point is a single dominant competitor, which once it arises has an accelerating advantage over other competitors -i.e. a monopoly."

This is only true in a market with immutable factors. Given technological advance, variable supply of materials, and evolving demand, monopolies aren't actually stable. Only when collusion and corruption of free markets prevail (as inevitably are engendered by government) are monopolies even very common. Since presently government is invariably a feature of markets, and very little acknowledgment of the corruption government exerts is accounted for in economic theory, you are more right than wrong regarding monopoly. I agree these 'embedded interests' prefer to keep this understanding cryptic, as well.

Thanks!