So far we have established that there is nothing “wrong” with a monopoly price, either when instituted by one firm or by a cartel; that, in fact, whatever price the free market (unhampered by violence or the threat of violence) establishes will be the “best” price. We have also shown the impossibility of separating “monopolizing” from efficiency considerations in cartel actions or of separating technology from profitability in general; and we have seen the great instability of the cartel form.

Before investigating the theory of monopoly price, we must begin by defining monopoly. Despite the fact that monopoly problems occupy an enormous quantity of economic writings, little or no clarity of definition exists.22 There is, in fact, enormous vagueness and confusion on the subject.

In previous sections36 we have refereed to a monopoly price as one established either by a monopolist or by a cartel of producers. At this point we must investigate the theory more closely. A succinct definition of monopoly price has been supplied by Mises:

Up to this point we have explained the neoclassical theory of monopoly price and have pointed out various misconceptions about its consequences. We have also shown that there is nothing bad about monopoly price and that it constitutes no infringement on any legitimate interpretation of individuals’ sovereignty or even of consumers’ sovereignty.

Before engaging in a critical analysis of the monopoly-price theory itself, we might explore some of the consequences which do or do not follow from it.

Many monopoly-price theorists have declared that establishment of the monopoly price means that the monopolist is able to attain permanent “monopoly profits.” This is then contrasted with “competitive” profits and losses, which, as we have seen, disappear in the evenly rotating economy. Under “competition,” if one firm is seen to be making great profits in a particular productive process, other firms rush in to take advantage of the anticipated opportunities, and the profits disappear.