Monopoly - Revision history

ArchiveBot: Repoint 9 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:22:32Z

Repoint 9 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 16 August 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''"A state of affairs in which the monopolist, whether an individual or a group of individuals, exclusively controls one of the vital conditions of human survival."'''		'''"A state of affairs in which the monopolist, whether an individual or a group of individuals, exclusively controls one of the vital conditions of human survival."'''

	Such a monopolist has the power to starve to death all those who do not obey his orders. A world-embracing socialist state would exercise such an absolute and total monopoly; it would have the power to crush its opponents by starving them to death. According to [[Ludwig von Mises]], this type of monopoly "has no reference whatever to a market economy."<ref name="competition">{{cite book\|title=Human Action\|chapter=Competition\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=https://~~mises.~~freecapitalists.org/~~humanaction~~/~~chap15sec5.asp~~}}</ref>		Such a monopolist has the power to starve to death all those who do not obey his orders. A world-embracing socialist state would exercise such an absolute and total monopoly; it would have the power to crush its opponents by starving them to death. According to [[Ludwig von Mises]], this type of monopoly "has no reference whatever to a market economy."<ref name="competition">{{cite book\|title=Human Action\|chapter=Competition\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/books/human-action/read/chapter-xv-the-market/}}</ref>

	'''"Monopoly exists when a firm has control over its price."'''		'''"Monopoly exists when a firm has control over its price."'''
Line 27:		Line 27:
	This definition of monopoly goes back to the [[Wikipedia:Common law\|common law]] and acquired great political importance in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when an historic struggle took place between libertarians and the Crown over the issue of monopoly as opposed to freedom of production and enterprise. Under this definition of the term, it is not surprising that "monopoly" took on connotations of sinister interest and tyranny in the public mind. The enormous restrictions on production and trade, as well as the establishment by the State of a monopoly caste of favorites, were the objects of vehement attack for several centuries.		This definition of monopoly goes back to the [[Wikipedia:Common law\|common law]] and acquired great political importance in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when an historic struggle took place between libertarians and the Crown over the issue of monopoly as opposed to freedom of production and enterprise. Under this definition of the term, it is not surprising that "monopoly" took on connotations of sinister interest and tyranny in the public mind. The enormous restrictions on production and trade, as well as the establishment by the State of a monopoly caste of favorites, were the objects of vehement attack for several centuries.

	This type of monopoly can never arise on a free market, unhampered by State interference. In the free economy, then, according to this definition, there can be no "monopoly problem."<ref name="Rothbard_monopoly">Murray N.Rothbard. [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/books/~~mespm.pdf~~ Man, Economy and State] (pdf), Chapter 10 Monopoly and Competition, p.629-754. Referenced 2010-07-16.</ref>		This type of monopoly can never arise on a free market, unhampered by State interference. In the free economy, then, according to this definition, there can be no "monopoly problem."<ref name="Rothbard_monopoly">Murray N.Rothbard. [https://freecapitalists.org/books/man-economy-and-state-with-power-and-market/ Man, Economy and State] (pdf), Chapter 10 Monopoly and Competition, p.629-754. Referenced 2010-07-16.</ref>

	==Restriction of production==		==Restriction of production==
Line 43:		Line 43:
	A desire for [[leisure]] can bring about a similar result. [[Wikipedia:Muhammad Ali\|Muhammad Ali]] may choose to fight only three times per year even though he would certainly be able to contract for 52 bouts in a year, or even more, were he so disposed. Now one reason for this behaviour might be a vicious attempt On part to "defy the orders of the consumers for his Own advantage", to "infringe (upon) the supremacy of the consumers and the democracy of the market", and to "defy the supremacy of the consumers and substitute the -private interests of the monopolist for those of the public". But another explanation, much more plausible, is that Ali won't fight 52 times a year because he would start to get very ''tired'', and would probably begin to ''lose''. Another possibility, a very strong one, indeed, is that Ali has a taste for leisure, and, earning so much money from his ringside exploits, he can afford to give in to this taste.		A desire for [[leisure]] can bring about a similar result. [[Wikipedia:Muhammad Ali\|Muhammad Ali]] may choose to fight only three times per year even though he would certainly be able to contract for 52 bouts in a year, or even more, were he so disposed. Now one reason for this behaviour might be a vicious attempt On part to "defy the orders of the consumers for his Own advantage", to "infringe (upon) the supremacy of the consumers and the democracy of the market", and to "defy the supremacy of the consumers and substitute the -private interests of the monopolist for those of the public". But another explanation, much more plausible, is that Ali won't fight 52 times a year because he would start to get very ''tired'', and would probably begin to ''lose''. Another possibility, a very strong one, indeed, is that Ali has a taste for leisure, and, earning so much money from his ringside exploits, he can afford to give in to this taste.

	Still another alternative explanation for "monopolistic withholding" is that producers are also [[Consumption\|consumers]], and may derive pleasure from less production. An owner of forests may refuse to cut them down, not out of a desire to balk the "use of a scarce resource to the fullest extent compatible with the pattern of other consumer's tastes for wood in the market'" but because he enjoys the vista of a virgin forest.<ref name="Block_monopoly">Walter Block. [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/jls/~~1_4~~/~~1_4_1.pdf~~ "Austrian Monopoly Theory - A Critique"] (pdf), ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', Vol. I. No.4, pp. 271-279. Referenced 2010-07-20.</ref>		Still another alternative explanation for "monopolistic withholding" is that producers are also [[Consumption\|consumers]], and may derive pleasure from less production. An owner of forests may refuse to cut them down, not out of a desire to balk the "use of a scarce resource to the fullest extent compatible with the pattern of other consumer's tastes for wood in the market'" but because he enjoys the vista of a virgin forest.<ref name="Block_monopoly">Walter Block. [https://freecapitalists.org/journals/jls/1-4-1/ "Austrian Monopoly Theory - A Critique"] (pdf), ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', Vol. I. No.4, pp. 271-279. Referenced 2010-07-20.</ref>

	==Natural monopoly==		==Natural monopoly==
Line 54:		Line 54:
	The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and then, with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an ex post rationalization for their monopoly power.		The history of the so-called public utility concept is that the late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century "utilities" competed vigorously and, like all other industries, they did not like competition. They first secured government-sanctioned monopolies, and then, with the help of a few influential economists, constructed an ex post rationalization for their monopoly power.

	The economics profession came to embrace the theory of natural monopoly after the 1920s, when it adopted a more or less engineering theory of competition that categorized industries in terms of constant, decreasing, and [[Wikipedia:Economies of scale\|increasing returns to scale]] (declining average total costs). According to this way of thinking, engineering relationships determined market structure and, consequently, competitiveness. However, the existence of economies of scale in no way necessitates either monopoly or monopoly pricing.<ref name="DiLorenzo_Natural_monopoly">Thomas J. DiLorenzo. [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/rae/~~pdf~~/~~RAE9_2_3.pdf~~ "The Myth of Natural Monopoly"] (pdf), ''The Review of Austrian Economics'', Vol. 9,No. 2 (1996). Referenced 2010-07-16.</ref>		The economics profession came to embrace the theory of natural monopoly after the 1920s, when it adopted a more or less engineering theory of competition that categorized industries in terms of constant, decreasing, and [[Wikipedia:Economies of scale\|increasing returns to scale]] (declining average total costs). According to this way of thinking, engineering relationships determined market structure and, consequently, competitiveness. However, the existence of economies of scale in no way necessitates either monopoly or monopoly pricing.<ref name="DiLorenzo_Natural_monopoly">Thomas J. DiLorenzo. [https://freecapitalists.org/journals/rae/rae9-2-3/ "The Myth of Natural Monopoly"] (pdf), ''The Review of Austrian Economics'', Vol. 9,No. 2 (1996). Referenced 2010-07-16.</ref>

	===Practical examples===		===Practical examples===
Line 81:		Line 81:
	\|year=1977		\|year=1977
	\|pages=271-280		\|pages=271-280
	\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/jls/~~1_4~~/~~1_4_1.pdf~~		\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/journals/jls/1-4-1/
	}}		}}
	* {{Cite journal		* {{Cite journal
Line 91:		Line 91:
	\|pages=43-58		\|pages=43-58
	\|doi=10.1007/BF01103329		\|doi=10.1007/BF01103329
	\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/rae/~~pdf~~/~~rae9_2_3.pdf~~		\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/journals/rae/rae9-2-3/
	}}		}}
	* {{Cite book		* {{Cite book
Line 116:		Line 116:
	==Links==		==Links==
	* [[Wikipedia:Monopoly\|Monopoly]] on Wikipedia		* [[Wikipedia:Monopoly\|Monopoly]] on Wikipedia
	* [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/scholar/salerno5~~.pdf~~ The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003		* [https://freecapitalists.org/journals/scholar/salerno5/ The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003
	* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/621 Fear of Monopoly] by Brad Edmonds, March 2001		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/621 Fear of Monopoly] by Brad Edmonds, March 2001
	* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/1451 What's Wrong with Monopoly (the game)?] by Benjamin Powell, February 2004		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/1451 What's Wrong with Monopoly (the game)?] by Benjamin Powell, February 2004
	* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/1297 The Question of the Cable Monopoly] by D.W. MacKenzie, August 2003		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/1297 The Question of the Cable Monopoly] by D.W. MacKenzie, August 2003
	* [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/scholar/salerno5~~.pdf~~ The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003		* [https://freecapitalists.org/journals/scholar/salerno5/ The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003
	* [~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/journals/jls/~~4_1~~/~~4_1_7.pdf~~ Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980		* [https://freecapitalists.org/journals/jls/4-1-7/ Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980
	* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011
	* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011		* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011

ArchiveBot: Repoint 6 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

2026-08-16T04:09:19Z

Repoint 6 dead mises.org links to the archived original (automated; see Austrian Economics Wiki:Link repointing)

Pestergaines: /* Links */ +res

2013-11-01T21:26:57Z

Links: +res

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:26, 1 November 2013
Line 127:		Line 127:
	* [http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/ The Misplaced Fear of "Monopoly"] by Thomas E. Woods Jr., February 2013		* [http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/ The Misplaced Fear of "Monopoly"] by Thomas E. Woods Jr., February 2013
	* {{md\|6468\|Monopoly Through Austrian Lenses\|Jonathan Newman\|June 2013}}		* {{md\|6468\|Monopoly Through Austrian Lenses\|Jonathan Newman\|June 2013}}
			* {{md\|6572\|Five Ways to Create a Monopoly\|Brian LaSorsa\|October 2013}}

	[[Category:Interventions]]		[[Category:Interventions]]

Pestergaines: /* Links */ +res

2013-06-28T17:43:48Z

Links: +res

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 28 June 2013
Line 126:		Line 126:
	* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986		* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986
	* [http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/ The Misplaced Fear of "Monopoly"] by Thomas E. Woods Jr., February 2013		* [http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/ The Misplaced Fear of "Monopoly"] by Thomas E. Woods Jr., February 2013
			* {{md\|6468\|Monopoly Through Austrian Lenses\|Jonathan Newman\|June 2013}}

	[[Category:Interventions]]		[[Category:Interventions]]

62.47.138.224: /* Practical examples */

2013-06-01T10:20:50Z

Practical examples

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:20, 1 June 2013
Line 57:		Line 57:

	===Practical examples===		===Practical examples===
	According to natural monopoly theory, competition cannot persist in the '''electric utility''' industry. The theory of natural monopoly fails on every count: competition exists and persists for decades in dozens of U.S. cities, price wars are not "serious," and there is better consumer service and lower prices with competition. Consumers themselves prefer competition to regulated monopoly and have gained substantial benefits from the competition, compared to cities ~~were~~ there are electric utility monopolies. Contrary to natural monopoly theory, costs are actually lower where there are two firms operating.		According to natural monopoly theory, competition cannot persist in the '''electric utility''' industry. The theory of natural monopoly fails on every count: competition exists and persists for decades in dozens of U.S. cities, price wars are not "serious," and there is better consumer service and lower prices with competition. Consumers themselves prefer competition to regulated monopoly and have gained substantial benefits from the competition, compared to cities where there are electric utility monopolies. Contrary to natural monopoly theory, costs are actually lower where there are two firms operating.

	'''Telephone service''' was said to be a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But there was nothing "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by [[Wikipedia:American Telephone & Telegraph\|AT&T]] for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention.		'''Telephone service''' was said to be a "classic" example of market failure and that government regulation in the "public interest" was necessary. But there was nothing "natural" about the telephone monopoly enjoyed by [[Wikipedia:American Telephone & Telegraph\|AT&T]] for so many decades; it was purely a creation of government intervention.

Pestergaines: /* Links */ +res

2013-03-22T11:32:25Z

Links: +res

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 22 March 2013
Line 125:		Line 125:
	* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011		* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011
	* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986		* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986
			* [http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-misplaced-fear-of-monopoly/ The Misplaced Fear of "Monopoly"] by Thomas E. Woods Jr., February 2013

	[[Category:Interventions]]		[[Category:Interventions]]

Pestergaines: /* Links */ +res

2013-03-22T10:35:32Z

Links: +res

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 22 March 2013
Line 122:		Line 122:
	* [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003		* [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003
	* [http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_7.pdf Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980		* [http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_7.pdf Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980
	* [http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011		* [http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011
			* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011
			* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986

	[[Category:Interventions]]		[[Category:Interventions]]

Jérôme Alexandre: Bibliography

2013-03-01T21:08:06Z

Bibliography

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 ==References==
 {{Reflist}}
 ==Links==
@@ Line 81: / Line 122: @@
 * [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003
 * [http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_7.pdf Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980
 * [http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011
 [[Category:Interventions]]

70.88.134.130: /* Restriction of production */

2013-01-07T15:32:56Z

Restriction of production

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 7 January 2013
Line 34:		Line 34:
	The whole concept of "restricting production," is a [[fallacy]] when applied to the free market. In the real world of [[Scarcity\|scarce]] resources in relation to possible ends, all production involves choice and the allocation of factors to serve the most highly valued ends. In short, the production of any product is necessarily always "restricted." Such "restriction" follows simply from the universal [[scarcity]] of factors and the diminishing [[marginal utility]] of any one product. But then it is absurd to speak of "restriction" at all.<ref name="Rothbard_monopoly" />		The whole concept of "restricting production," is a [[fallacy]] when applied to the free market. In the real world of [[Scarcity\|scarce]] resources in relation to possible ends, all production involves choice and the allocation of factors to serve the most highly valued ends. In short, the production of any product is necessarily always "restricted." Such "restriction" follows simply from the universal [[scarcity]] of factors and the diminishing [[marginal utility]] of any one product. But then it is absurd to speak of "restriction" at all.<ref name="Rothbard_monopoly" />

	There are other reasons to restrict production ~~may be restricted,~~ and "withhold" goods from the market. It may be for speculative purposes. If the owner of merchandise expects that the price of his commodity will be higher in the next period than in the present, he will hold off sales, in the hope of gaining greater profit, but this will imply fewer sales right now.		There are other reasons to restrict production and "withhold" goods from the market. It may be for speculative purposes. If the owner of merchandise expects that the price of his commodity will be higher in the next period than in the present, he will hold off sales, in the hope of gaining greater profit, but this will imply fewer sales right now.

	An entrepreneur with low [[time preference]] is likely to "bide his time", and not allow himself to be rushed into premature sales; his optimal pattern of sales will call for "withholding" goods from the market now, and selling more and more as time goes on. He, too, benefits financially from his "withholding" pattern of exchange, for his subsequent sales are worth relatively more to him than to the high		An entrepreneur with low [[time preference]] is likely to "bide his time", and not allow himself to be rushed into premature sales; his optimal pattern of sales will call for "withholding" goods from the market now, and selling more and more as time goes on. He, too, benefits financially from his "withholding" pattern of exchange, for his subsequent sales are worth relatively more to him than to the high

Pestergaines: /* Practical examples */ Link internalized.

2012-12-08T21:58:27Z

Practical examples: Link internalized.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:58, 8 December 2012
Line 66:		Line 66:
	Politicians began denouncing competition as "duplicative," "destructive," and "wasteful," and various economists were paid to attend congressional hearings in which they somberly declared telephony a natural monopoly. "There is nothing to be gained by competition in the local telephone business," one congressional hearing concluded. The crusade to create a monopolistic telephone industry by government fiat finally succeeded when the federal government used World War I as an excuse to nationalize the industry in 1918. AT&T still operated its		Politicians began denouncing competition as "duplicative," "destructive," and "wasteful," and various economists were paid to attend congressional hearings in which they somberly declared telephony a natural monopoly. "There is nothing to be gained by competition in the local telephone business," one congressional hearing concluded. The crusade to create a monopolistic telephone industry by government fiat finally succeeded when the federal government used World War I as an excuse to nationalize the industry in 1918. AT&T still operated its
	phone system, but it was controlled by a government commission headed by the Postmaster General. Like so many other instances of government		phone system, but it was controlled by a government commission headed by the Postmaster General. Like so many other instances of government
	regulation, AT&T quickly [[~~Wikipedia:~~Regulatory capture\|captured]] the regulators and used the regulatory apparatus to eliminate its competitors. "By 1925 not only had virtually every state established strict rate regulation guidelines, but local telephone competition was either discouraged or explicitly prohibited within many of those jurisdictions.		regulation, AT&T quickly [[Regulatory capture\|captured]] the regulators and used the regulatory apparatus to eliminate its competitors. "By 1925 not only had virtually every state established strict rate regulation guidelines, but local telephone competition was either discouraged or explicitly prohibited within many of those jurisdictions.

	The complete demise of competition in the industry was brought about by the following forces: exclusionary licensing policies; protected monopolies for "dominant carriers"; guaranteed revenues or regulated phone companies; the mandated government policy of "universal telephone entitlement" which called for a single provider to more easily carry out regulatory commands; and rate regulation designed to achieve the socialistic objective of "universal service."<ref name="DiLorenzo_Natural_monopoly" /><ref name="Thierer_ATT">Adam D. Thierer. [http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the development of the Bell System Monopoly], ''Cato Journal'', Volume 14 Number 2, Fall 1994. Referenced 2010-07-19.</ref>		The complete demise of competition in the industry was brought about by the following forces: exclusionary licensing policies; protected monopolies for "dominant carriers"; guaranteed revenues or regulated phone companies; the mandated government policy of "universal telephone entitlement" which called for a single provider to more easily carry out regulatory commands; and rate regulation designed to achieve the socialistic objective of "universal service."<ref name="DiLorenzo_Natural_monopoly" /><ref name="Thierer_ATT">Adam D. Thierer. [http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in the development of the Bell System Monopoly], ''Cato Journal'', Volume 14 Number 2, Fall 1994. Referenced 2010-07-19.</ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:09, 16 August 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''"A state of affairs in which the monopolist, whether an individual or a group of individuals, exclusively controls one of the vital conditions of human survival."'''		'''"A state of affairs in which the monopolist, whether an individual or a group of individuals, exclusively controls one of the vital conditions of human survival."'''

	Such a monopolist has the power to starve to death all those who do not obey his orders. A world-embracing socialist state would exercise such an absolute and total monopoly; it would have the power to crush its opponents by starving them to death. According to [[Ludwig von Mises]], this type of monopoly "has no reference whatever to a market economy."<ref name="competition">{{cite book\|title=Human Action\|chapter=Competition\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=~~http~~://mises.org/humanaction/chap15sec5.asp}}</ref>		Such a monopolist has the power to starve to death all those who do not obey his orders. A world-embracing socialist state would exercise such an absolute and total monopoly; it would have the power to crush its opponents by starving them to death. According to [[Ludwig von Mises]], this type of monopoly "has no reference whatever to a market economy."<ref name="competition">{{cite book\|title=Human Action\|chapter=Competition\|author=Mises, Ludwig von\|url=https://mises.freecapitalists.org/humanaction/chap15sec5.asp}}</ref>

	'''"Monopoly exists when a firm has control over its price."'''		'''"Monopoly exists when a firm has control over its price."'''
Line 99:		Line 99:
	\|place=Baltimore		\|place=Baltimore
	\|year=1952		\|year=1952
	\|url=~~http~~://~~mises~~.org/~~document~~/~~4961/The~~-~~Political~~-~~Economy~~-of-~~Monopoly~~		\|url=https://freecapitalists.org/books/the-political-economy-of-monopoly/
	}}		}}
	* {{cite encyclopedia		* {{cite encyclopedia
Line 117:		Line 117:
	* [[Wikipedia:Monopoly\|Monopoly]] on Wikipedia		* [[Wikipedia:Monopoly\|Monopoly]] on Wikipedia
	* [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003		* [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003
	* [~~http~~://mises.org/daily/621 Fear of Monopoly] by Brad Edmonds, March 2001		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/621 Fear of Monopoly] by Brad Edmonds, March 2001
	* [~~http~~://mises.org/daily/1451 What's Wrong with Monopoly (the game)?] by Benjamin Powell, February 2004		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/1451 What's Wrong with Monopoly (the game)?] by Benjamin Powell, February 2004
	* [~~http~~://mises.org/daily/1297 The Question of the Cable Monopoly] by D.W. MacKenzie, August 2003		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/1297 The Question of the Cable Monopoly] by D.W. MacKenzie, August 2003
	* [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003		* [http://mises.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund] (pdf) by Joseph T. Salerno, September 2003
	* [http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_7.pdf Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980		* [http://mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_7.pdf Monopoly and Competition in Money] (pdf) by James Rolph Edwards, 1980
	* [~~http~~://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011		* [https://mises.freecapitalists.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly The Myth of Natural Monopoly] by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, May 2011
	* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011		* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBYopktmL6Y Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust] (video) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 2011
	* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986		* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76pWdExqfkY Monopoly and Competition] (video/audio) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1986