Quotas, in this context, I'm not sure what he means
Quotas would be things like carbon credits or taxi medallions that you have to get from the government in order to do business. I.e. something that restrains or withholds the market until a fee is paid. A distinction could be made between wholly artificial quotas and quotas implemented to protect limited resources like timber or fish harvests, but that's more a question whether the quota is legitimate or not; either way, the economic impact is the same. The money paid for the quota is rent and is often set by bidding between those who want access, not set by competition between "providers". This is another way to distinguish rent. Can competing providers enter the market and drive down prices? If not, you have a monopoly, natural or artificial.
A communist/socialist economy denies the existence monopolies because the government commands the whole economy anyway, so basically the entire economy is garbage.
One approach to monopoly, and an ancient one, is rent control, or capping rent, as well as limiting the duration of leases. This is effectively the system used by ancient Israel and described in Deuteronomy. As long as the resource in play is monopoly instrument (a critical point), this will benefit the economy by preventing a destructive rent spiral, but depending on the extent of the rent control, often results in the limited resource not being allocated efficiently as it would otherwise be, because once the bidding among buyers reaches the cap, the market force once again basically disappears, everyone/anyone can buy it for the price cap, so once again you are down to corruption or some kind of lottery to allocate the resource.
Yet another middle approach is to allow unlimited bidding, but ban resale and require the bidder be the one to use the resource. This is similar to many land policies in the European middle ages. This has problems of liquidity, and there's no guarantee they will use it efficiently, but in the long run, the idea is nobody will be able to afford to waste it too bad.
The Georgist approach to monopoly is fully harness market forces to let the market bid for the scarce resource to the limit, and also allow unlimited resale like any other good. This ensures access, liquidity, and efficient allocation, especially critical for resources that are truly limited like electromagnetic spectrum or water rights. The government does not bury its head in the sand and deny existence of rent or try to make go away, it acknowledges that rent exists and it technically good because it results from economic activity, but to prevent the rent spiral and speculation that would otherwise occur, the government taxes the rent generated at a fixed % of its market value (critical point) and returns it to the economy as a flat head tax, like the Alaska Permanent Fund. If the tax is high enough, it will be unprofitable to hold the resource for speculation and also cheap to acquire the resource for anyone who wants to use it effectively. This revenue is capable of fully funding the government in accordance with Ricardo's law of rent and the Henry George Theorem, so you provably do not need any other form of taxes, unless you want to levy sin taxes on harmful externalities, which is really the same thing in slightly different form. It's also extremely private, cannot be dodged or moved overseas, and requires no bureaucracy to administer.
Thomas Paine proposed paying every English citizen 15 pounds per year from land taxes in 1794 to alleviate poverty. Done properly, there is net benefit to wages, net benefit to resource allocation, and net BENEFIT on the public treasury. Trying to do the same from taxes on productive enterprise does the opposite and depresses real wages, harms resource allocation and kills the public treasury, which should be obvious...the idea of taxing labor then giving the proceeds back to labor absurd. But people just don't understand economic concepts, and that's very much by design.
