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
Butler Shaffer's well-written monograph, In Restraint of Trade, describes in extensive detail why and how most businessmen pleaded for the government to tame them between the end of World War I and the eve of World War II.
