Monopoly and Competition

Cartels, characterized by activities such as simultaneous price increases or decreases, or virtual price identity at almost the same time, without explicit communications or agreements, have long been discussed. 

Austrianism is far more receptive to business and private enterprise than Marxism, and it certainly exceeds neoclassical economics in this regard. In terms of the phenomenon with which we have been concerned

The substitution of a monopoly price for a competitive price is tantamount to a serious restriction of the working of the most characteristic principle of the free enterprise system, i.e., of the sovereignty  of the consumers.

One is not intellectually free to use the neoclassical theory of the firm at one time to explain economic action, and to discard it at another.  If the theory of the firm does not apply in all explanations of firm behavior

The author explores during a lecture that all antitrust regulation is economically inefficient and morally wrong and all of it—the laws and the enforcement agencies—should be thrown out. 

Solow seems to have no conception of human action as a process of plan coordination, although he uses Austrian-sounding language at one point in discussing "coordination failure" in the marketplace.

Contestability theory makes a case that the pricing behavior of a multi-product natural monopolist is disciplined by the threat of entrepreneurial entry. 

This paper explains how grants of monopolistic privileges to capitalists can lower labor and land factors’ prices compared to what would prevail in a free market environment.

The resourceful antitrust community has simply gone ahead and reinvented itself by developing several new theories and an entirely new approach to evidence. 

The goal of our inquiry here is to add weight to the Rothbardian critique of Mises’s theory of monopoly prices. We do so by highlighting the inconsistencies of the latter’s treatment