A critique of mises’s theory of monopoly prices

Conclusion Built on Rothbardian insights, our attempt to show the peculiarities of Misesian monopoly theory results in a few conclusions. First of all, in Mises’s theory of monopoly two of the three conditions for the emergence of monopoly prices belong to different realms of scientific inquiry. On the one hand, Mises points out the idea of a counterfactual comparison between competitive price and monopoly price; on the other hand, he stresses the importance of an empirical method to discover monopoly prices. The latter, even if it describes a true statement about market conditions, i.e., the entrepreneurs do not know (beforehand) the market demand curve, does not help us to identify the monopoly price on market. Second, Mises erroneously founds his welfare arguments on value theory. His utilitarian endeavor to show that “consumers’ sovereignty” is infringed by monopolistic restriction of production does not succeed. He based his arguments on nonscientific interpersonal and intertemporal comparisons of utility. Third, Mises is not consistent in the use of a standard of comparison for “monopoly prices”: on the one hand, the market prices are not distinguishable from “monopoly prices”; on the other hand, the transfer of the discussion to the equilibrium framework does not help us either, as we try to explain real market phenomena. Thus, Mises’s attempts to incorporate the neoclassical concept of monopoly price into the framework of the market process, as depicted by Austrians, do not succeed. Our inquiry supports the largely shared opinion among Austrian economists that monopoly price (at least in its present definition) does not exist on the free market; it appears only, and is logically identifiable, as a result of a privilege given by the State.