Barriers to free enterprise in the high frontier

I have been researching hundreds of messages in this group and others
here and elsewhere. I am trying to get a better understanding of the
factors affecting launch costs and the like. If you'll indulge me
for a moment, I'll explain.

In my opinion, we need an industrial infrastructure in LEO (there are
better orbits, but for the sake of discussion . . . ) to support
future endeavors. Please note, you should interpret the
word "industrial" as loosely as possible. What shape such
infrastructure should take I don't know. It's hardly worth
speculating on. Were not even close to making such infrastructure
economically viable, and until we do such speculative pontification
is of no real value and will merely clutter the issue and this thread
(I know most people disagree - fine, start a new thread; SUBJECT:
The Value of Speculative Pontification). So here's my question: Why
can't this intelligent race devise a way to "slip the surly bonds of
Earth" and establish an industrial infrastructure out there? In my
estimation, such infrastructure would go along way to helping
us "slip the surly bonds of Earth" forever. So why can't we do it?

Clearly there are many, many reasons. Such industrial infrastructure
would cost many billions of dollars and current capitalist paradigms
afford but a small window with which to provide a return on the
investment. Is this not the reason that (so far, at least) space is
a place for governments?

For the longest time, I have been told that the problem is it costs
too much to get there. We all know all too well the significance of
getting there - once there, "we're halfway to anywhere in the
Universe". Since the very beginning when I first started reading all
about the "high frontier", I have heard, "reduce the fare to LEO" and
the problem is solved. But is it?

How prohibitive are launch costs? I personally do NOT know how to
compute launch costs (though, I badly want to learn more about this
subject). Despite this, I have drawn the following conclusions
(primarily in groups like this). Please correct me if I am wrong:

1. The statement, "it costs $10,000/lb to get in to LEO/GEO" is not
only horribly misleading but an over simplification of the issue. Is
there a good article/book/web site that explains this issue
completely (specifically, how to compute launch costs and what
factors contribute - in relative layman terms)? I read in one post
that even if launch costs were reduced to $0/lb, space
industrialization, still wouldn't be economically viable. This is a
sobering thought. Could it be true?

2. The single biggest factor in launch cost reduction is the market
(i.e., the bigger the market, the more launches; the more launches
the less each launch costs. NOTE: This, too, is a bit of an over
simplification because there are quite a few launches each year and a
decent market for such. Unfortunately, most of those launches are
for satellites and they are often boosted to orbit by small ELVs that
do not have the capacity to be used for much else (can't send a man
to the moon in one of those things - though, I am sure there may be
an exception or two).

3. The reason the market is the main factor in launch cost reduction
is because of the R&D costs of developing larger rockets with a
larger payload capacity (which is what's needed for true
industrialization of space - correct?). Such costs must be amortized
over the life of the launch vehicle.

Question: What WOULD make space industrialization economically
viable, if not the significant reduction of launch costs?

I also read in a post that it's a bit of a paradox. Reduce the cost
of getting to LEO/GEO and the market would grow. But until there's a
market, there will be NO significant reduction in launch costs. Yet
another oversimplification, but is it accurate? If so, solutions?

Thanks in advance for reading and responding.

Jack