WEBVTT

NOTE Competition and Monopoly

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:18.000
The topic is Monopoly and Cartels, and to introduce the topic, let me just draw your attention to a very interesting article that was in the LA Times.com yesterday on real estate brokers, a cartel, a consumer group that makes this claim.

2
00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:29.000
The consumer group is the Consumer Federation of America. I never know anyone who belongs to any of these consumer groups. I don't know any other consumers, any of my friends or acquaintances that belong to these consumer groups.

3
00:00:29.000 --> 00:00:55.000
In any case, this group said its report showed that traditional real estate firms, the National Association of Realtors and its state affiliates, and tightly controlled regional multiple listing services constituted, quote, the last remaining unregulated cartel functioning in America, unquote.

4
00:00:55.000 --> 00:01:11.000
So, they go on to claim that these traditional brokers try to maintain or seek to maintain high commission rates of 6 to 7 percent of a home sale price, regardless of the experience or level or service level that they give.

5
00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:17.000
And they also stifle competition from non-traditional firms such as discount brokers and internet-based listing services.

6
00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:21.000
Yet, anyone go on the internet and you find these listing services.

7
00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:33.000
Many agents also try to increase chances of a double dip, which means that they take both the seller and buyer halves of a commission by promoting their own listings to buyers they represent, the group said.

8
00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:52.000
Well, of course, if they were actually, you know, if they did that and people disliked that and there are reasons not to want to do that, your selection or why consumers or homebuyers would not want that because the selection of homes is narrowed, they could simply go to other realtors.

9
00:01:52.000 --> 00:02:11.000
Finally, they make the claim, the $24,000 most brokers try to charge for the sale of a $400,000 home would purchase many new car models or expensive medical procedures, said Steven Brobeck, the consumer group's executive director.

10
00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:20.000
Well, so they're telling us that the price is somehow high. They're claiming that it's too high. They're not telling us what standard they're using. They're just saying, well, I can buy a new car.

11
00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:23.000
Well, my salary can buy a number of new cars.

12
00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:26.000
Does that mean I'm overcharging my employer?

13
00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:28.000
That's absurd.

14
00:02:28.000 --> 00:02:31.000
And the National Association of Realtors did respond.

15
00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:36.000
First they said that there are 80,000 brokerages, and these are just traditional brokerages,

16
00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:41.000
these aren't the online listing services, and more than 2 million licensed agents.

17
00:02:41.000 --> 00:02:51.000
They also pointed out that Home Sales Commission have fallen to 5.1% in 2003 from 5.5% in 1998.

18
00:02:51.000 --> 00:03:01.000
And the 6% fixed rate that was charged for a long time, they went below that a long time ago, back in the early 90s, late 80s.

19
00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:07.000
Whereas the consumer group is claiming they're trying to maintain these rates of 6 or 7%.

20
00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:10.000
Well, they're not.

21
00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:12.000
Anybody can try to do anything they want.

22
00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:18.000
As we'll see, on a market, everyone is free to ask any price they want or to bid any price they want.

23
00:03:18.000 --> 00:03:25.000
Everybody has control of their own money if they're a buyer and their own property, goods, if they're producers and sellers.

24
00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:28.000
They can either make an exchange or not make an exchange at any price.

25
00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:31.000
Nobody can force a price on anyone else.

26
00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:39.000
And the realtors point out adding another level of regulation at the federal level could add cost and stifle innovation. That's certainly true.

27
00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:47.000
Well, what we're going to talk about today bears on this. What is a cartel? How can a cartel be formed? Can one exist on the market?

28
00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:58.000
Are cartel prices, when they do exist on the market, monopolistic in any real sense?

29
00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:03.000
And before we get to the cartels, we're going to start with monopoly and theory of monopoly.

30
00:04:03.000 --> 00:04:08.000
There's a number of definitions of monopoly.

31
00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:14.000
The oldest definition, the most literal definition, is a single seller of a given good.

32
00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:20.000
It comes from the Greek, monos, which is single, and polin, which is to sell.

33
00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:25.000
This is not a very good definition.

34
00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:29.000
It's meaningless, it's not useful for analysis.

35
00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:33.000
First of all, all goods have substitutes on the free market,

36
00:04:33.000 --> 00:04:39.000
because all individuals compare various goods on their value scales against one another.

37
00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:43.000
So all goods, to some extent, are substitutes for each other.

38
00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:52.000
And then, on the other hand, it's meaningless in the sense that everyone owns their own,

39
00:04:52.000 --> 00:05:02.000
Everyone is a monopolist over their own property, because all of us are differentiated. Every lawyer monopolizes his or her own services.

40
00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:11.000
No one has exactly the same personality. No one has exactly the same location and space. No one has exactly the same experiences and education.

41
00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:24.000
So do we call all lawyers monopolists? All sellers of chicken, because they brand their chicken, they're all monopolists over their own property.

42
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:38.000
So this really is not helpful to us. All new products that come on the market, hand calculators, the Mac, the automobile when it was first invented,

43
00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:46.000
All of these radio, television, they all come on the market as a property of someone who first introduces them.

44
00:05:46.000 --> 00:05:52.000
They all come on as monopoly. Does this stop other people from coming in and competing? Certainly not.

45
00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:56.000
So the market is inherently competitive. That's one thing to point out.

46
00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:04.000
When left alone, when there's free entry, entrepreneurs will always enter those areas where there are prospective profits.

47
00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:13.000
So, if someone does introduce a new product, then others will begin to come in and engage in what we call rival-risk competition.

48
00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:23.000
So, competition is rivalry.

49
00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:32.000
Not only introducing a new product, but coming in with the same product that has a different quality or different quality dimensions,

50
00:06:32.000 --> 00:06:39.000
coming in at a lower price or increasing the quality of the product and coming in at a higher price.

51
00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:49.000
There's continuous, persistent, relentless competition on the market in every dimension of the product, not just in price.

52
00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:58.000
So a few years ago, airlines were actually competing down to one or two inches of legroom.

53
00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:05.000
That is, some airlines were removing one row of seats and just moving all the other seats up slightly to make people more comfortable.

54
00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:09.000
So there's continuous adjustment of all products on the market.

55
00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:16.000
As entrepreneurs try to find the package of qualities that's going to give them a profit, at least for a time.

56
00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:22.000
And when they do discover that package and introduce it, and it's successful, others are going to emulate them.

57
00:07:22.000 --> 00:07:43.000
So we don't have the same amount of competition except that as long as there is free entry, the entrepreneurial process will operate. New goods will be introduced all the time, competitors will come in and try to improve on those goods, brand names will be introduced to ensure that consumers know that this has a certain quality.

58
00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:53.000
McDonald's is a monopolist. There's no other hamburger like McDonald's hamburger because of not only the ingredients that they might use but because of that brand name that gives certain information.

59
00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:58.000
Does that mean that the fast food market is not competitive? It's intensely competitive.

60
00:07:58.000 --> 00:08:09.000
The NFL monopolizes, we talked about it a little bit, the services of professional football in the U.S.

61
00:08:09.000 --> 00:08:20.000
And yet, the NFL is continuously changing the rules, continuously experimenting with rules that they think are going to be more appealing to consumers.

62
00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:31.000
They're continuously trying to speed the game up in various ways, but at the same time make the calls by referees more accurate by introducing instant replay and fiddling and adjusting that.

63
00:08:31.000 --> 00:08:54.000
Why? Because the owners of the NFL, the owners of the teams that make up the NFL, and that might be called a cartel because there's different owners, they know that people can simply turn off the television set, or they can change the channel and watch something else, or that they can go to their health club, or that they can go out to eat.

64
00:08:54.000 --> 00:09:03.000
There are many, many goods that compete with NFL football, despite the fact that, in some sense, it's monopolized.

65
00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:11.000
We're not going to waste any more time on monopoly as a seller of a given good.

66
00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:16.000
We're going to come back to a form of that theory, but in a much more sophisticated way.

67
00:09:16.000 --> 00:09:27.400
The second definition of monopoly is that the seller has some power to set his or her price.

68
00:09:27.400 --> 00:09:29.360
Now, that sounds kind of scary.

69
00:09:29.360 --> 00:09:38.800
It sounds like we're talking about a large firm like GM or Microsoft determining the price.

70
00:09:38.800 --> 00:09:39.760
Well, that's not the case.

71
00:09:39.760 --> 00:09:53.760
In fact, this theory is based on a view of competition that looks on every firm as an infinitesimal part of the market,

72
00:09:53.760 --> 00:09:59.260
like a wheat farmer, which we talked about, who contributes a very little bit to the supply of the market,

73
00:09:59.260 --> 00:10:06.560
so little that his decision about how much to produce does not affect the price.

74
00:10:06.560 --> 00:10:17.160
that's called the price taker and the demand curve looks is horizontal, this does not exist in the real world

75
00:10:17.160 --> 00:10:23.080
but according to this theory of what's called the theory of perfect competition

76
00:10:23.080 --> 00:10:30.080
there are a number of assumptions each producer is infinitesimally small as I mentioned they're tiny

77
00:10:30.080 --> 00:10:36.040
their actions do not affect the price on the market everyone has perfect knowledge

78
00:10:36.040 --> 00:10:44.040
All sellers and buyers know exactly the costs and prices that their competitors have and that people on the other side of the market have, okay?

79
00:10:44.040 --> 00:10:50.040
So all buyers know all prices of all the sellers in the world of that particular product.

80
00:10:50.040 --> 00:10:56.040
Also, the product is homogeneous, physically identical. There are absolutely no brand names, no advertising.

81
00:10:56.040 --> 00:11:05.040
The sellers can't even be differentiated if, for example, the legal industry is perfectly competitive.

82
00:11:05.040 --> 00:11:11.040
competitive, then all lawyers are clones of one another. They all look exactly alike, they all have the same experience, and so on.

83
00:11:11.040 --> 00:11:15.040
That's absurd. It doesn't exist in the real world.

84
00:11:15.040 --> 00:11:23.040
Their products are not homogeneous. Even two restaurants that serve basically the same meals,

85
00:11:23.040 --> 00:11:31.040
are at least in different areas, and they have different sales staff who have different personalities.

86
00:11:31.040 --> 00:11:48.040
So, this idea that anyone who's able to have any influence on his price or her price is some sort of a monopolist or has monopoly power, as they use the term,

87
00:11:48.040 --> 00:11:53.040
simply means that people face a downward sloping demand curve.

88
00:11:53.040 --> 00:12:05.040
So that any seller that faces a downward sloping demand curve, whatever its shape, can change the price.

89
00:12:05.040 --> 00:12:10.040
That is, when you face a horizontal demand curve, even if you raise the price by one cent,

90
00:12:10.040 --> 00:12:16.040
so if the price of wheat on the world market is $4 and you charge $4.01 or you try to charge that,

91
00:12:16.040 --> 00:12:22.040
you go from being able to sell as much as you want to being able to sell nada.

92
00:12:22.040 --> 00:12:28.040
Nothing, okay? So you have no control over your price, according to this theory of perfect competition.

93
00:12:28.040 --> 00:12:36.040
But once you recognize that all products are differentiated, then you recognize that everybody has some control over their price,

94
00:12:36.040 --> 00:12:43.040
which simply means that they can rate, they can set higher prices and not lose all their customers, okay?

95
00:12:43.040 --> 00:12:47.040
There's a range of prices they can set without losing all their customers. So what?

96
00:12:47.040 --> 00:12:57.040
So, Budweiser changes the price of its six-pack by ten percent. It faces a very elastic demand curve because there's many other brands of beer, okay?

97
00:12:57.040 --> 00:13:02.040
So if it changes its price by ten percent, it may lose fifty percent or sixty percent of its customers.

98
00:13:02.040 --> 00:13:08.040
Whether you face a downward sloping demand curve or not, there's still one price which will maximize your profit.

99
00:13:08.040 --> 00:13:38.040
of Profit. Every seller, whether that seller is GM or Microsoft or the hot dog vendor I talked about in New York City outside my university, every seller faces a downward sloping demand curve. That hot dog vendor can raise his price from $2 a hot dog to $2.10 or $2.25 and not lose all his student customers. He has no monopoly power. There are delis, there are coffee shops, there are fast food restaurants all within, you know,

100
00:13:38.040 --> 00:13:43.760
a quarter of a mile, there's probably, in the area where I am, probably over

101
00:13:43.760 --> 00:13:47.760
100 eating establishments within a quarter of a mile or half a mile or something like that.

102
00:13:47.760 --> 00:13:52.500
It's a few blocks walk.

103
00:13:52.500 --> 00:13:54.020
So, as we'll come back to this,

104
00:13:54.020 --> 00:13:57.060
every seller simply attempts to set the price

105
00:13:57.060 --> 00:13:58.620
in the elastic range

106
00:13:58.620 --> 00:14:02.520
of their demand curve.

107
00:14:02.520 --> 00:14:05.680
So this is not a good theory of monopoly.

108
00:14:05.680 --> 00:14:07.680
It's not a sensible theory of monopoly.

109
00:14:07.680 --> 00:14:11.680
A theory of monopoly does not apply to the real world,

110
00:14:11.680 --> 00:14:14.680
because it implies that everybody is a monopolist.

111
00:14:14.680 --> 00:14:17.680
Even if you go on, when you go on the job market,

112
00:14:17.680 --> 00:14:21.680
like I tell my undergraduates when they graduate,

113
00:14:21.680 --> 00:14:24.680
I mean, you know, when I teach this, I say,

114
00:14:24.680 --> 00:14:28.680
when you graduate, when you go on your job interviews,

115
00:14:28.680 --> 00:14:31.680
do you want to look just like the person that came before you,

116
00:14:31.680 --> 00:14:43.680
Do you want to differentiate yourself and make yourself more appealing to your prospective buyer, which is your prospective employer?

117
00:14:43.680 --> 00:14:52.680
Well, everybody is a monopolist because everybody wants to look different, better, more appealing to the person that they're selling their services to.

118
00:14:52.680 --> 00:14:58.680
and the theory of prices too. So this whole theory breaks down to saying that everybody is a monopolist.

119
00:14:58.680 --> 00:15:04.680
And that is absurd and it's useless for economic theory and analysis.

120
00:15:04.680 --> 00:15:10.680
Now we come to a much more sophisticated and older theory of competition.

121
00:15:10.680 --> 00:15:20.680
And that is that in order to... it's not a theory of monopoly, it's a theory of monopoly price.

122
00:15:20.680 --> 00:15:28.680
and that on the free market it is possible to achieve a monopoly price in certain very limited circumstances.

123
00:15:28.680 --> 00:15:38.680
Ludwig von Mises held this theory, as did other early neoclassical economists that were fairly Austrian.

124
00:15:38.680 --> 00:15:46.680
In fact, it was the theory of monopoly at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the early 20th centuries, up until about 1930 or so.

125
00:15:46.680 --> 00:15:54.680
And it's a much better theory than the two theories we just talked about, especially the last theory, which is the modern theory of monopoly power.

126
00:15:54.680 --> 00:16:04.680
And what this theory says is that if these two things are present, then the firm could have monopoly. What are they?

127
00:16:04.680 --> 00:16:14.680
First of all, the firm or the seller must own or control the entire supply of a necessary input.

128
00:16:14.680 --> 00:16:28.680
So, if someone controls or owns all the diamond mines, well, then that's one precondition for having a monopoly over the production, let's say, of gem-quality diamonds.

129
00:16:28.680 --> 00:16:41.680
If someone owns all the mercury deposits, and there are very, very few mercury deposits, so I'm trying to give you examples where there may be a possibility of this,

130
00:16:41.680 --> 00:16:48.680
And then that person may have achieved a monopoly price for selling mercury, okay?

131
00:16:48.680 --> 00:16:50.680
But that's not enough, okay?

132
00:16:50.680 --> 00:17:02.680
Someone can own the entire supply, but depending on the structure of their demand curve and the substitutes for the good that they're selling,

133
00:17:02.680 --> 00:17:05.680
they may not be able to achieve a monopoly price.

134
00:17:05.680 --> 00:17:08.680
Okay, so let me give you the example here.

135
00:17:08.680 --> 00:17:10.680
So there's two conditions.

136
00:17:10.680 --> 00:17:14.680
Let's say we have someone who owns all the diamond mines in the world.

137
00:17:23.680 --> 00:17:32.680
Okay, this person owns all the diamond mines in the world, and there's some competitive price for gem quality diamonds, certain amount of dollars per carat of diamonds.

138
00:17:33.680 --> 00:17:38.680
And that's the competitive price. Now, we'll talk about how they know that that's the competitive price later.

139
00:17:38.680 --> 00:17:52.680
Let's ignore that for a moment. If their demand curve is very, very flat like this, if they try to raise their price, the PM, which is a monopoly price, let's say, they're going to lose more than half their market here, the way I've drawn that.

140
00:17:52.680 --> 00:18:04.680
And it will not be profitable for them to raise their price. So even if they control all of one resource, but there are a lot of substitutes for their product, they may not be able to achieve a monopoly price.

141
00:18:04.680 --> 00:18:26.680
So, if they try to raise the price of these diamonds, then maybe people will start substituting emeralds or semi-precious stones, such as tanzanite, which is alexandrite, and number one, my wife knows all of these semi-precious stones, and they've become precious gems now, because people have shifted to these low-price gems.

142
00:18:26.680 --> 00:18:38.680
Also, I'll talk about substitutes. There are two companies now in the last two years that are capable of producing, through different technologies, absolutely flawless diamonds.

143
00:18:38.680 --> 00:18:49.680
These are not zirconium. These are real diamonds. And in fact, the diamond industry is fighting back against them by saying, well, they're too perfect. They're too flawless.

144
00:18:49.680 --> 00:18:54.680
Real diamonds, any given diamond is individual because it has a slight flaw in it.

145
00:18:54.680 --> 00:19:06.680
These are so perfect, they cannot be distinguished from regular diamonds that are mined, not even by a very, very expert jeweler.

146
00:19:06.680 --> 00:19:20.680
They have to be subjected to a spectrograph or some sort of electronic analysis to determine whether or not they were actually, they actually are natural diamonds or they were made through these two different technologies.

147
00:19:20.680 --> 00:19:39.680
So, as we'll see, even if somebody were to monopolize the entire supply of a given natural resource, that simply means that other people would begin to, if they restricted their supply and raise their price, other people would begin to search for technological substitutes for this.

148
00:19:39.680 --> 00:19:50.980
And consumers could very well substitute other types of close, in this case, stones, emeralds, rubies, and so on.

149
00:19:50.980 --> 00:19:53.580
But now, let's assume that there aren't good substitutes.

150
00:19:53.580 --> 00:19:58.580
So, the demand curve is inelastic above the competitive price.

151
00:19:58.580 --> 00:19:59.880
Those are the two preconditions.

152
00:19:59.880 --> 00:20:04.280
Then they can raise the price from PC to PM, okay?

153
00:20:04.280 --> 00:20:08.180
They can restrict supply, reduce the amount that they're selling to consumers,

154
00:20:08.180 --> 00:20:12.180
and raise the price and earn a higher total revenue.

155
00:20:12.180 --> 00:20:13.620
So those are the two preconditions.

156
00:20:13.620 --> 00:20:20.380
You must own the entire supply of a necessary input,

157
00:20:20.380 --> 00:20:22.060
which is difficult to conceive of.

158
00:20:22.060 --> 00:20:23.980
But even if you do that, you still

159
00:20:23.980 --> 00:20:29.380
must have a demand curve that is inelastic

160
00:20:29.380 --> 00:20:32.020
above the competitive price.

161
00:20:32.020 --> 00:20:48.020
In this case, the individual can, the owner, can achieve a monopoly price, which violates consumer sovereignty, even Mises says this.

162
00:20:48.020 --> 00:20:56.020
But now notice, what they're doing implicitly is setting up consumers as sovereign over producers.

163
00:20:56.020 --> 00:21:03.620
Now, we know that in a market economy, not everybody tries to maximize their monetary income, okay?

164
00:21:03.620 --> 00:21:10.720
People may have other motives that, in other words, what everyone maximizes is their psychic, what we call their psychic income.

165
00:21:10.720 --> 00:21:14.020
Not everybody takes the highest paying job, okay?

166
00:21:14.020 --> 00:21:21.820
Working conditions matter, or the fact that the product that's being produced, they like.

167
00:21:21.820 --> 00:21:25.920
Someone might not want to work in the cigarette industry because they don't like the output,

168
00:21:25.920 --> 00:21:30.920
They'll take a lower-paying job, working, producing various kinds of foods.

169
00:21:30.920 --> 00:21:34.920
And the same will be true of producers.

170
00:21:34.920 --> 00:21:40.920
As Walter Block pointed out in a famous article, let's say you can restrict supply.

171
00:21:40.920 --> 00:21:43.920
Why is it necessarily monopolistic?

172
00:21:43.920 --> 00:21:47.920
The owner might restrict supply just out of motive of conservation.

173
00:21:47.920 --> 00:21:51.920
That is, they own this land and it has trees on it,

174
00:21:51.920 --> 00:21:56.920
on it and they could increase the amount of output of the lumber but they don't

175
00:21:56.920 --> 00:22:01.520
because they like keeping in its natural state, okay, or someone could restrict

176
00:22:01.520 --> 00:22:08.320
supply and raise price not just to increase their total revenue but because

177
00:22:08.320 --> 00:22:16.920
they want to, let's say, enjoy leisure, okay, or they might want to speculate

178
00:22:16.920 --> 00:22:20.480
that is that they believe they see a higher price in the future so they'll

179
00:22:20.480 --> 00:22:33.480
They'll withhold production today, this natural resource, they'll withhold exploiting as much as they can today and they'll produce, use it to produce goods in the future.

180
00:22:33.480 --> 00:22:39.480
So that's not, you can't charge that person with monopolizing.

181
00:22:39.480 --> 00:22:45.480
However, if you can do both, that's even better, right?

182
00:22:45.480 --> 00:22:52.480
If you can reduce your supply of some good, produce less, and earn higher total revenue, then you achieve two goals.

183
00:22:52.480 --> 00:23:01.480
You have, let's say, more leisure, or you have more of the good to sit around and contemplate, let's say a forest, and you have more monetary revenue.

184
00:23:01.480 --> 00:23:07.480
So no one can really separate out your motives. The motives are intertwined.

185
00:23:07.480 --> 00:23:13.480
Remember, everyone's goal is psychic income, and that's not necessarily solely to maximize their money income.

186
00:23:13.480 --> 00:23:16.480
Now, let me give you an example.

187
00:23:16.480 --> 00:23:22.480
One of the people that, one of the economists that developed this theory of monopoly,

188
00:23:22.480 --> 00:23:29.480
or at least expounded, William Hutt, who was an Austrian, was pushed on the point and said,

189
00:23:29.480 --> 00:23:34.480
well, what about a boxer? Let's take a famous boxer, Muhammad Ali.

190
00:23:34.480 --> 00:23:40.080
This is the demand for his boxing services, okay?

191
00:23:40.080 --> 00:23:45.680
Let's say that he's boxing, he can box four matches a year and he can earn two million dollars a match,

192
00:23:45.680 --> 00:23:49.380
and his total revenue would be eight million dollars, okay?

193
00:23:49.380 --> 00:23:55.180
And someone says, well, that's a competitive price for a boxer of his caliber, two million dollars a boxing match.

194
00:23:55.180 --> 00:24:01.080
Let's say, then, he cuts back on his supply because he has an inelastic demand curve,

195
00:24:01.080 --> 00:24:03.680
or because he wants more leisure. We don't know why.

196
00:24:03.680 --> 00:24:09.680
Okay, we can't determine why. Both things are goods. He has more leisure and a higher price and total revenue.

197
00:24:09.680 --> 00:24:14.680
So now he fights two times a year instead of four times a year. Price rises to five million dollars a fight.

198
00:24:14.680 --> 00:24:20.680
And lo and behold, he increases total revenue. Is he acting as a monopolist?

199
00:24:20.680 --> 00:24:28.680
We can't say for sure. What we do know is that he certainly enjoys more leisure and he enjoys a greater amount of money.

200
00:24:28.680 --> 00:24:36.080
Well, Professor Hutt said, he can and should be, and he was a free market economist,

201
00:24:36.080 --> 00:24:46.080
if it can be determined that he's cutting back his prices, withholding his labor services purely to raise price and increase his total revenue,

202
00:24:46.080 --> 00:24:51.880
and not for reasons of leisure, I don't know how you would know this, then he should be forced to fight four times a year, okay?

203
00:24:51.880 --> 00:24:58.580
So on the market, on the free market, we don't have consumer sovereignty in the sense that everyone is totally subjected to consumers,

204
00:24:58.580 --> 00:25:04.580
You're only subjected to consumer sovereignty if your sole goal is to maximize profit.

205
00:25:04.580 --> 00:25:09.580
In that case, then, you have to produce what consumers want or you're not going to maximize your profit.

206
00:25:09.580 --> 00:25:16.580
However, people, since human beings have a broad range of goals and people use their property in different ways,

207
00:25:16.580 --> 00:25:26.580
they don't have to use it to maximize their profits, then what we have is really individual sovereignty.

208
00:25:26.580 --> 00:25:40.580
So everyone decides when, at what price, and how much of their property to exchange on the market, and how much to withhold, and if the price is higher, well, the price is higher, okay?

209
00:25:40.580 --> 00:25:48.580
So we're still allowing for the moment that you can say that this is a monopoly price, okay, because the two conditions are there.

210
00:25:48.580 --> 00:26:09.580
The personality, in this case, owns a specific resource that no one else owns, that is, his own boxing services, which are unique, when boxing were unique, and secondly, he faces, we're assuming here, an elastic demand curve above the, quote, competitive price, unquote.

211
00:26:09.580 --> 00:26:15.580
So this is the older neoclassical theory of monopoly price. It seems to make some sense.

212
00:26:15.580 --> 00:26:27.580
It does point out that on the market there's continual competition, they would even admit that over time people could come in with various substitutes for the product,

213
00:26:27.580 --> 00:26:35.580
various substitutes, let's say, for diamonds or for mercury, and the demand curve could become more elastic and they would have to lower their price.

214
00:26:35.580 --> 00:26:45.580
But still in all, they admit the theoretical possibility, and Israel Kirzner, a contemporary Austrian economist, also holds this theory.

215
00:26:45.580 --> 00:27:00.580
They admit that on a free market, it's theoretically possible that in certain very, very rare circumstances, there can be monopoly or a monopoly price.

216
00:27:00.580 --> 00:27:10.580
All right, what I want to do now is to go on and talk about cartels, and then I want to come back and give a criticism of this theory, okay,

217
00:27:10.580 --> 00:27:19.580
because this theory also holds in the case of cartels, and will show that there is a grain of truth in this theory,

218
00:27:19.580 --> 00:27:26.580
but that it's not, this cannot happen on the market, it happens as a result of government intervention into the market.

219
00:27:30.580 --> 00:28:00.580
Okay, now what about a cartel? Cartel is a situation in which a number of producers are competing initially against one another and there's a lower price, they're producing more than they, they're producing a certain amount and then they notice that, now remember, each individual demand curve is more elastic than the single demand curve for the entire product, so if you have a lot of coffee producers,

220
00:28:00.580 --> 00:28:18.580
Each one faces a very elastic demand curve. That is, if one coffee producer raises his price, let's say, from the equilibrium price or the competitive price of $2.50, well then he'll lose a lot of his market and it will be profitable for him to raise it above $2.50.

221
00:28:18.580 --> 00:28:21.260
That's why the price stays at $250.

222
00:28:21.260 --> 00:28:28.820
However, if all of the coffee producers get together and they all pool their resources

223
00:28:28.820 --> 00:28:35.940
and they make an agreement, a cartel agreement, to each cut back by 20% on their output,

224
00:28:35.940 --> 00:28:40.180
then what's going to happen is that the overall amount of coffee in the market,

225
00:28:40.180 --> 00:28:47.260
the overall supply, we're assuming it's a homogeneous good here, will decrease by 20%.

226
00:28:47.260 --> 00:28:53.460
and they will be able to take advantage of an inelastic industry demand curve.

227
00:28:53.460 --> 00:28:56.860
Each firm's demand curve, each coffee producer's demand curve was very elastic.

228
00:28:56.860 --> 00:29:01.560
That is, they cut their price, consumers would easily substitute other brands of coffee,

229
00:29:01.560 --> 00:29:08.160
because consumers perceive them as very, very close substitutes.

230
00:29:08.160 --> 00:29:15.460
So, you know, if Maxwell House raised the price, then people would substitute Folgers.

231
00:29:15.460 --> 00:29:19.060
Maxwell House would lose a lot of its customers, so it wouldn't be profitable to raise the price.

232
00:29:19.060 --> 00:29:25.360
However, if all of these producers got together, and they produced coffee together, and they marketed it,

233
00:29:25.360 --> 00:29:33.660
and they set one price, let's say $4, then you would get a situation where consumers would get less coffee,

234
00:29:33.660 --> 00:29:45.360
and the total revenue would rise. It would rise from $250 million, let's say, per year or per month, to $320 million.

235
00:29:45.360 --> 00:29:49.360
So, you would have the cartel, they'd be earning higher prices.

236
00:29:49.360 --> 00:29:55.360
In fact, what they might initially do, if they have coffee, if they have 100 million already, it's already produced,

237
00:29:55.360 --> 00:30:05.360
and they realize they have an inelastic demand curve, it would pay them to burn 20% or 20 million pounds of coffee.

238
00:30:05.360 --> 00:30:13.360
Now, surely this is injuring consumers in some sense. This is inconsistent with the free market.

239
00:30:13.360 --> 00:30:16.360
Well, we have to say a number of things about this.

240
00:30:16.360 --> 00:30:22.360
First of all, when these coffee producers reduce the output,

241
00:30:22.360 --> 00:30:27.360
what happens to the non-specific factors of production?

242
00:30:27.360 --> 00:30:31.360
Those workers that are laboring in the production of coffee, let's say.

243
00:30:31.360 --> 00:30:33.360
They're fired, they're let go.

244
00:30:33.360 --> 00:30:39.360
And they go to work on banana plantations and they become jungle guides.

245
00:30:39.360 --> 00:30:44.360
So now the free market is providing less coffee and more bananas to consumers.

246
00:30:44.360 --> 00:30:46.360
The price of bananas are now lower.

247
00:30:46.360 --> 00:30:50.360
Whenever a cartel restricts supply, some resources are released.

248
00:30:50.360 --> 00:30:54.360
Obviously they don't want to pay these people to do nothing, they fire them.

249
00:30:54.360 --> 00:30:59.360
And a certain amount of electricity, a certain amount of machinery, all these things are released and go into other industries.

250
00:30:59.360 --> 00:31:02.360
And let's assume the other industry is bananas, so you get more bananas.

251
00:31:02.360 --> 00:31:06.360
Who is to say that consumers don't want more bananas and less coffee?

252
00:31:06.360 --> 00:31:14.360
So if you say that this is injuring consumers because they're paying higher prices for coffee and there's less coffee,

253
00:31:14.360 --> 00:31:20.360
you're also saying it's bad for consumers to have more bananas and lower prices of bananas.

254
00:31:20.360 --> 00:31:24.360
All that these people are doing is that they're reallocating their investments.

255
00:31:24.360 --> 00:31:29.360
They're also reducing the amount that they're investing in coffee and they're investing it in something else,

256
00:31:29.360 --> 00:31:34.360
either in increasing production of bananas or they're loaning it out on the market

257
00:31:34.360 --> 00:31:38.360
and it's going into producing, let's say, more automobiles being loaned out.

258
00:31:38.360 --> 00:31:46.360
So you get more goods being produced on the market when you have the restriction.

259
00:31:46.360 --> 00:31:56.360
Secondly, the production of any good is necessarily restricted by the fact that there's a scarcity of capital.

260
00:31:56.360 --> 00:31:58.360
Consumers want a lot of different goods.

261
00:31:58.360 --> 00:32:12.360
So what if the total was of anything, let's say it's 100 million pounds, well, why is that competitive? Why shouldn't it be 120 million pounds?

262
00:32:12.360 --> 00:32:18.360
Why shouldn't these producers all produce a little bit more? That would give consumers even more coffee and lower prices.

263
00:32:18.360 --> 00:32:24.360
In fact, if you follow the logic, reducio ad absurdum, meaning that you follow it to its logical conclusion,

264
00:32:24.360 --> 00:32:41.360
Any price above zero in an industry is restricting supply, but supply is always restricted because there are more profitable, as you increase the supply of one good, and the marginal utility of that good falls, it becomes more and more profitable to produce other goods that people want.

265
00:32:41.360 --> 00:32:45.360
So, you're blaming the people that are producing the goods.

266
00:32:45.360 --> 00:32:49.360
People that are anti-cartel, they think there's too little coffee.

267
00:32:49.360 --> 00:32:52.360
There's no government restrictions here. It's a voluntary cartel.

268
00:32:52.360 --> 00:32:55.360
Why don't they enter and produce more coffee?

269
00:32:55.360 --> 00:32:58.360
Or why don't other entrepreneurs produce more coffee?

270
00:32:58.360 --> 00:33:00.360
If it's really that profitable.

271
00:33:00.360 --> 00:33:05.360
And I'll show you that cartels will break down if they're not really adjusting to consumers.

272
00:33:11.360 --> 00:33:26.360
Another point is that all production takes place under uncertainty. No one knows the demand curve. No one knows the future demand curve. They don't know what the demand curve for coffee will be next year.

273
00:33:26.360 --> 00:33:39.360
Whether people will shift to wanting more cocoa or a report will come out by the FDA or by the surgeon general that coffee is very, very unhealthy for you and the demand might shift back. They don't know any of this.

274
00:33:39.360 --> 00:33:53.360
So, they produce a certain amount, okay, somebody can produce, let's say, and everyone acts like this, not just cartels, they produce a hundred million pounds of coffee, and they find that they produced in the inelastic range of their demand curve.

275
00:33:53.360 --> 00:34:08.360
They produced too much. So, they produced a sub-competitive amount. Why not, I mean, every seller, if they find that their demand curve is actually more inelastic than they estimated, will adjust in the next period by doing what?

276
00:34:08.360 --> 00:34:38.360
Cutting their supply, okay. So even if the hot dog vendor finds that, you know, he's selling a certain number of hot dogs at two dollars a piece and that Pace students like his hot dogs a lot and they like his personality and so on, even though they're competitors close by, and he finds that, you know what, I can raise my price from two dollars, cut back the amount of hot dogs I have to buy, sell fewer and sell them to Pace University students for 250. Well, we would just say, well he's just adjusting his price.

277
00:34:38.360 --> 00:34:45.360
to the demand. He miscalculated his demand. The cartel is not doing anything differently than that, okay?

278
00:34:45.360 --> 00:34:52.360
There's nothing to say that there should be ten coffee producers instead of one, right?

279
00:34:52.360 --> 00:34:59.360
Someone could respond to me, well, okay, yeah, but, you know, he's one of many food vendors in the area.

280
00:34:59.360 --> 00:35:04.360
Here, there's ten producers and they're going down to one. Isn't that less competitive, okay?

281
00:35:04.360 --> 00:35:12.360
Well, is it less competitive or less satisfying to consumers that we have one football league instead of ten football leagues?

282
00:35:12.360 --> 00:35:20.360
In fact, every time we've had multiple football leagues or basketball leagues, there's tended to be a merger, which better satisfies consumers.

283
00:35:20.360 --> 00:35:28.360
If they continue on and there's no new competition and they earn profits, then it's a better adjustment of resources to consumers.

284
00:35:28.360 --> 00:35:31.360
Why isn't the cartel adjusting better to consumers?

285
00:35:31.360 --> 00:35:36.360
Now remember, when you combine all these, you save on marketing and so on, so your costs go down.

286
00:35:36.360 --> 00:35:42.360
So as Murray Rothbard points out, a cartel is an unstable form of organization.

287
00:35:42.360 --> 00:35:47.360
If it doesn't benefit consumers, a couple things can happen.

288
00:35:47.360 --> 00:35:52.360
Number one, it doesn't lower costs, then other producers are going to come in and say,

289
00:35:52.360 --> 00:35:55.360
you know what, there's huge profits being made in coffee at $4.

290
00:35:55.360 --> 00:35:59.360
So instead of producing bananas, I'm going to increase my...

291
00:35:59.360 --> 00:36:10.360
I'm going to shift my land over to producing coffee, so other tropical products will be shifted over to coffee.

292
00:36:10.360 --> 00:36:21.360
And that would expand the supply and the cartel will initially say, you know what, if you agree to pay to charge $4, we'll let you in to the cartel.

293
00:36:21.360 --> 00:36:28.360
So they can do that for the first few producers, but whenever you allow someone else new into the cartel, what do the existing members have to do?

294
00:36:28.360 --> 00:36:33.360
And this is the problem that OPEC has. They always have to cut back more on their production.

295
00:36:33.360 --> 00:36:37.360
Because if you want to keep the price of $4, you still have to produce only $80 million.

296
00:36:37.360 --> 00:36:40.360
If you're letting a new guy in that's producing two or three million pounds of coffee,

297
00:36:40.360 --> 00:36:46.360
then that means everybody else has to cut back. So there begins to be dissension in the cartel.

298
00:36:46.360 --> 00:36:53.360
So you have external pressure. And adding to the external pressure from outside entrepreneurs,

299
00:36:53.360 --> 00:37:03.360
If people that enter are invited into cartels, into the cartel, then that's going to give other entrepreneurs an incentive to come into this profitable cartel.

300
00:37:03.360 --> 00:37:11.360
So eventually people are going to continue to enter the industry because it's high profits and the cartel is not going to be able to absorb them and they're going to just out-compete the cartel.

301
00:37:11.360 --> 00:37:14.360
They'll just lower their price and the whole cartel will fall apart.

302
00:37:14.360 --> 00:37:16.360
That's what happened to OPEC.

303
00:37:16.360 --> 00:37:24.860
OPEC raised prices to something like $36. More and more people got into producing oil, discovering oil in 1979 onward.

304
00:37:24.860 --> 00:37:31.360
By 1985, despite inflation, the price of a barrel of oil went from $36 all the way down to $12.

305
00:37:31.360 --> 00:37:40.360
The whole cartel had collapsed. So OPEC is really a cartel in name only.

306
00:37:40.360 --> 00:37:46.960
Now, there's internal pressure, too. If there's really profit in this being earned, high profit being earned,

307
00:37:46.960 --> 00:37:50.560
then a few of the producers are going to want to produce more.

308
00:37:50.560 --> 00:37:56.660
There's going to be a big fight, first of all, setting up the cartel. Some people are going to say, you know what, we're small producers.

309
00:37:56.660 --> 00:38:02.560
And we were growing. And it's usually the bigger producers that want the cartel.

310
00:38:02.560 --> 00:38:06.460
They want to freeze everybody where they are. So the small producers stay small.

311
00:38:06.460 --> 00:38:10.460
Well, everybody cuts back by 20 percent, the large producers stay larger.

312
00:38:10.460 --> 00:38:15.460
The small producers many times will say, that's not fair, I want to produce, I want to grow.

313
00:38:15.460 --> 00:38:19.460
So you take a bigger cutback, you cut back by 50 percent, I'll cut back by 5 percent.

314
00:38:19.460 --> 00:38:21.460
That's what happened in OPEC.

315
00:38:21.460 --> 00:38:27.460
Saudi Arabia, as the biggest producer, was forced many times to cut back much more than it was supposed to

316
00:38:27.460 --> 00:38:34.460
because other countries like Iran and Iraq and so on were producing more than they were supposed to produce in the cartel.

317
00:38:34.460 --> 00:38:43.460
That causes internal pressure. Eventually, to get more business, the smaller members, or the members that bring in new technology and lower costs,

318
00:38:43.460 --> 00:38:49.460
what they do is that they secretly give rebates. They secretly cut prices.

319
00:38:49.460 --> 00:38:56.460
And when they do that, they begin to steal customers from other producers.

320
00:38:56.460 --> 00:39:01.460
And the other producers begin to worry about this, and they cut their price, and the cartel falls apart.

321
00:39:01.460 --> 00:39:13.460
Even if demand has fallen and there is no real cheating, some of the producers that are losing because demand has fallen begin to suspect others are cheating and they begin to cheat and then the cartel breaks down.

322
00:39:13.460 --> 00:39:20.460
So it's unstable in that sense. If it's not really a better adjustment of resources to consumers, it breaks down on the free market.

323
00:39:20.460 --> 00:39:30.460
If it is a better adjustment of resources, that is, if it lowers costs, then what happens is that these firms merge into one like the NFL.

324
00:39:30.460 --> 00:39:40.460
So a cartel will either break down the free market or because it's a more productive organization than having separate producers it will merge into a permanent firm.

325
00:39:40.460 --> 00:39:53.460
And the final point of course here is what's the difference between a cartel in which people simply pool their resources partially and make only pricing decisions and output decisions together but no other decisions

326
00:39:53.460 --> 00:40:00.460
and a corporation where people pool all their capital and they make all decisions together.

327
00:40:00.460 --> 00:40:07.460
So in other words, why can't you call McDonald's a cartel or McDonald's a corporation?

328
00:40:07.460 --> 00:40:09.460
How does that differ from a cartel?

329
00:40:09.460 --> 00:40:15.460
You have all of these people, the owners, the stockholders, owning all of these resources spread throughout the country

330
00:40:15.460 --> 00:40:19.460
and the McDonald's are adjusting their policies to one another.

331
00:40:19.460 --> 00:40:21.460
They're not competing against one another.

332
00:40:21.460 --> 00:40:32.860
Why is a cartel bad and a corporation that owns a lot of different resources, why is a corporation okay?

333
00:40:32.860 --> 00:40:43.860
Really there's no difference. This is unstable in the sense that it's either a way station to a corporation if it's really more productive or it will break down on the free market.

334
00:40:43.860 --> 00:41:09.860
Okay, so they're unstable, okay, now let's, and once again, the theory of monopoly price is applied here, it said that 250 was the competitive price, he had 10 people, you know, 10 competitors, and $4 is the monopoly price, okay, the 10 competitors own all of the...

335
00:41:09.860 --> 00:41:18.860
Let's somehow say that they own all the land that's fit to grow coffee on, they get together and then they raise, they have an inelastic demand curve, they raise their price.

336
00:41:18.860 --> 00:41:21.860
Okay, so that fits the theory of monopoly price.

337
00:41:21.860 --> 00:41:24.860
Now that wouldn't happen with coffee because there isn't one necessary input.

338
00:41:24.860 --> 00:41:31.860
There's a lot of different kind of land that can be used to produce coffee.

339
00:41:31.860 --> 00:41:52.860
So what I want to do now is to give a critique of this theory of monopoly price and then we'll talk about what is behind monopoly and cartels, what keeps them when they're inefficient, what keeps them in business.

340
00:41:52.860 --> 00:42:09.860
One other point I want to make about cartels is this. If people really didn't like having less coffee and paying a higher price, they could do one of two things that would make the demand curve more elastic.

341
00:42:09.860 --> 00:42:21.860
One is they could boycott the coffee cartel. That is, consumers could get together and they could all consciously buy less at $4 than they would have anyway.

342
00:42:21.860 --> 00:42:26.860
That is, they can consciously change their value scales and begin buying tea and cocoa and so on.

343
00:42:26.860 --> 00:42:29.860
If they do that, what will happen to the shape of that demand curve?

344
00:42:29.860 --> 00:42:32.860
Well, they'll buy less, so the demand curve will become much flatter,

345
00:42:32.860 --> 00:42:39.860
and the total revenue that the cartel is earning at $4 will drop and the cartel will then lower the price.

346
00:42:39.860 --> 00:42:46.860
Or secondly, they can bribe the cartel to lower the price.

347
00:42:46.860 --> 00:42:48.860
How can you bribe the cartel to lower the price?

348
00:42:48.860 --> 00:42:58.860
You can offer to buy more at $250, okay, than you did before, and that means that the total revenue at $250 would go up above the total revenue at $4.

349
00:42:58.860 --> 00:43:03.860
That would also make your demand curve flatter and they could lower the price.

350
00:43:03.860 --> 00:43:13.860
The key to remember is there is no monopoly exploitation here because who controls the demand curve?

351
00:43:13.860 --> 00:43:20.860
Consumers, it's consumers that are placing coffee high on their value scales, okay?

352
00:43:20.860 --> 00:43:24.860
So, they're controlling, they can completely control the shape of the demand curve.

353
00:43:24.860 --> 00:43:27.860
It emerges from voluntary actions.

354
00:43:27.860 --> 00:43:31.860
It's consumers plus substitutes that are available to consumers.

355
00:43:31.860 --> 00:43:36.860
So, if either consumers lower the values of coffee on their value scales,

356
00:43:36.860 --> 00:43:39.860
or if others come in with good substitutes for coffee,

357
00:43:39.860 --> 00:43:48.860
The demand curve is going to become, as a result of voluntary action, much flatter and the cartel is going to break down.

358
00:43:48.860 --> 00:44:02.860
So there is no coercion involved in this.

359
00:44:02.860 --> 00:44:11.360
Okay, now why is the monopoly price on a market, whether it's developed from someone, you know, via a cartel or via an outright monopoly?

360
00:44:11.360 --> 00:44:25.760
Why is it an illusion, something that really does not exist and cannot exist on a completely free market, okay, where there are, there's no infringement of property rights, okay?

361
00:44:25.760 --> 00:44:30.860
Well, you cannot distinguish a competitive price from a monopoly price, right?

362
00:44:30.860 --> 00:44:37.960
First of all, why is 250 the competitive price? Who says it's a competitive price?

363
00:44:37.960 --> 00:44:42.320
If there were more producers in there, it would be even lower.

364
00:44:42.320 --> 00:44:46.200
If there were fewer producers, because maybe they saw better opportunities elsewhere,

365
00:44:46.200 --> 00:44:51.080
and maybe that's what the people in the cartel did, they said, you know what, we're going to take our resources out of coffee

366
00:44:51.080 --> 00:44:54.800
because we think there's going to be a big boom in people eating bananas,

367
00:44:54.800 --> 00:45:04.500
or people coming down to South America, Latin America and going into, who want to go on guided tours of the jungle.

368
00:45:04.500 --> 00:45:09.000
So we're going to expand our jungle guide business or whatever it is.

369
00:45:09.000 --> 00:45:12.300
So we're going to move resources, our investments.

370
00:45:16.300 --> 00:45:24.700
On the free market, every producer, large or small, whether they are the exclusive owner of some factor like Muhammad Ali or someone who owns all the diamonds in the world,

371
00:45:24.700 --> 00:45:30.820
diamond mines in the world, all of them have to estimate their demand curve

372
00:45:30.820 --> 00:45:37.660
and all of them have to adjust supply to the point at which they think their profits are going to be the highest

373
00:45:37.660 --> 00:45:45.340
if then when the market conditions emerge, when their goods are ready to be sold

374
00:45:45.340 --> 00:45:50.940
they find that the demand curve, whoever they are, is more inelastic than they initially thought

375
00:45:50.940 --> 00:45:53.620
they will restrict supply and raise price

376
00:45:53.620 --> 00:46:00.980
So, there is no way to tell the difference between a competitive price and a monopoly price, okay?

377
00:46:00.980 --> 00:46:09.140
If the demand curve is inelastic above a given price that emerges on the market, the incentive is to raise prices, to maximize your profits.

378
00:46:09.140 --> 00:46:12.420
So why can't we call it a sub-competitive price?

379
00:46:12.420 --> 00:46:20.540
That is, they made a mistake about estimating the demand curve and now they're adjusting to the inelasticities in that demand curve.

380
00:46:20.540 --> 00:46:25.740
There is no way to say that they're moving from a competitive to a monopolistic price.

381
00:46:25.740 --> 00:46:30.340
Prices are never, people are never completely right about what prices will maximize profits.

382
00:46:30.340 --> 00:46:32.340
They're always making mistakes and they're adjusting.

383
00:46:32.340 --> 00:46:35.340
They're either lowering the price or they're raising the price.

384
00:46:35.340 --> 00:46:39.440
And raising price means you have to restrict supply.

385
00:46:39.440 --> 00:46:43.240
And as I mentioned, you know, the hot dog vendor is doing the same thing continually,

386
00:46:43.240 --> 00:46:47.240
as the demands that the students exercise for his product are changing over time.

387
00:46:51.680 --> 00:46:59.680
So it's meaningless to define a monopoly price as a price that's higher than a competitive price that involves restriction of supply

388
00:46:59.880 --> 00:47:03.240
because a sub-competitive price is defined the same way.

389
00:47:03.880 --> 00:47:09.880
That is that the price above the sub-competitive price or the demand curve above the sub-competitive price is inelastic.

390
00:47:09.960 --> 00:47:12.160
You can earn higher total revenue by raising a price.

391
00:47:12.160 --> 00:47:21.160
So, there's no distinction. Now, what then is monopoly? Is there any sort of a meaningful definition of monopoly?

392
00:47:21.160 --> 00:47:30.160
Well, in fact, yes, and it's based on this theory. It's a development, an extension of this theory.

393
00:47:30.160 --> 00:47:38.160
And it was really Murray Rothbard that developed this price. And actually, it's the oldest theory of monopoly.

394
00:47:38.160 --> 00:48:07.160
Monopoly, and that is that monopoly is always a grant of legal privilege to sell, to produce and sell, to a single seller or a group of sellers, so it's a grant of legal privilege, or to put it another way, it involves a legal exclusion, the exclusion by the force of law of competing entrepreneurs.

395
00:48:08.160 --> 00:48:34.160
So, to give you one example, this is an example I gave earlier in the seminar, when the Reagan administration placed tariffs on foreign automobiles, or I'm sorry, placed some voluntary export restraints on Japanese automobiles,

396
00:48:34.160 --> 00:48:47.360
What it did was it coercively or forcibly changed the structure of the demand curve.

397
00:48:47.360 --> 00:48:56.660
The demand curve now D2 became more inelastic because there were no good substitutes in the range of $10,000 to $12,000, let's say.

398
00:48:56.660 --> 00:49:01.660
Those substitutes were reduced because there were fewer substitutes.

399
00:49:01.660 --> 00:49:05.660
Consumers had a coercively restricted choice.

400
00:49:05.660 --> 00:49:12.660
They would have freely made their exchanges, many of them would have, with the Japanese auto producers.

401
00:49:12.660 --> 00:49:14.660
And they were prevented from doing that.

402
00:49:14.660 --> 00:49:23.660
So what Rothbard points out is that, first of all, you must have a legal privilege.

403
00:49:23.660 --> 00:49:32.660
Now the legal privilege is what we might call the control over a particular resource, but it's an artificial resource.

404
00:49:32.660 --> 00:49:36.660
It's a recourse to government violence that is given as a privilege.

405
00:49:36.660 --> 00:49:42.660
So there is a resource that, and it has a value, we'll talk about it when we talk about the taxi industry in New York City.

406
00:49:42.660 --> 00:49:49.660
To have a license to get into driving taxi cabs costs you a lot of money, and I'll explain why.

407
00:49:49.660 --> 00:50:05.660
So there is a resource, but it's a resource that comes from government creating it through some sort of policy that forcibly bars competing entrepreneurs, either partially or completely, from coming into the market.

408
00:50:05.660 --> 00:50:25.660
So you have that control, but it's really a legal control, and secondly, if the demand curve didn't change that much in shape, if it stayed at D1 or a little bit more steep but still pretty flat, you could not have a monopoly price even though you restricted the competition.

409
00:50:25.660 --> 00:50:38.660
So Rothbard points out that you have to have legal exclusion or legal prevention of entry plus a demand curve that's inelastic above the current price.

410
00:50:38.660 --> 00:50:43.660
So there are two, he distinguishes between a monopoly price and a free market price.

411
00:50:43.660 --> 00:50:50.660
The price that arises on a market in which the demand curve is not coercively changed in shape

412
00:50:50.660 --> 00:50:57.060
versus a price that arises when the government gives a monopoly privilege to a seller or group of sellers.

413
00:50:57.060 --> 00:51:16.660
There are two preconditions, and this is a theory of monopoly price, but it substitutes for control over a given resource legal privilege to keep competitors out of the market.

414
00:51:16.660 --> 00:51:23.660
And then, it is a meaningful definition because the demand curve is being changed in shape.

415
00:51:23.660 --> 00:51:27.660
It's not a voluntary demand curve, or it's not completely a voluntary demand curve.

416
00:51:27.660 --> 00:51:30.660
It's one that arises out of, let's say, restricted choice.

417
00:51:34.660 --> 00:51:38.660
So there is no such thing as a difference between competitive and monopoly price on the free market.

418
00:51:38.660 --> 00:51:45.660
There's a difference between competitive price and free market price, I'm sorry, monopoly price and free market prices in general.

419
00:51:45.660 --> 00:51:50.660
In general, all prices on the free market are competitive.

420
00:51:50.660 --> 00:51:56.660
They're inherently competitive because entrepreneurs are always free to offer a better package,

421
00:51:56.660 --> 00:52:00.660
to engage in rivalry.

422
00:52:00.660 --> 00:52:04.660
To the extent that they're not, then you have the change.

423
00:52:04.660 --> 00:52:09.660
Then you have the change in the shape of the demand curve and you have potential for monopoly price.

424
00:52:09.660 --> 00:52:29.160
Now, even if the auto industry was unable to raise its prices, consumers were still forced, many of them, not to make exchanges with Japanese auto producers, so they're still injured, they still have lower utility, even though there's no monopoly price that is possible.

425
00:52:29.160 --> 00:52:38.660
Also, on this market, what happens now to the people that were producing automobiles, all the workers?

426
00:52:38.660 --> 00:52:44.660
They are let go because now there's fewer automobiles being produced, okay, and they're in a higher total revenue.

427
00:52:44.660 --> 00:52:48.660
So they let go of these nonspecific resources, resources that can be used in other industries.

428
00:52:48.660 --> 00:53:00.660
So we do get an increase. Let's say they go into the production of shoes or of clothing, okay, the people that are laid off in the auto industry.

429
00:53:00.660 --> 00:53:08.660
So we have more shoes and we have more clothing on the market, lower prices for those things, but we have fewer automobiles.

430
00:53:08.660 --> 00:53:14.660
Can we say that that's an inefficient allocation of resources? We can.

431
00:53:14.660 --> 00:53:24.660
Because when they leave this industry, let's assume that they were earning, let's say, $15 in either industry, $15 per hour.

432
00:53:24.660 --> 00:53:32.660
What's going to happen is that as the ones that are laid off go into another industry, the value falls, the marginal revenue product in the other industry falls.

433
00:53:32.660 --> 00:53:36.660
It goes from, let's say, $15 to $12 because they pushed out the supply.

434
00:53:36.660 --> 00:53:44.660
So resources are forced into lower valued uses. So it does serve consumers less well.

435
00:53:44.660 --> 00:53:52.660
We do not want fewer automobiles. Consumers will voluntarily, if there's no legal restriction,

436
00:53:52.660 --> 00:53:56.660
shift their demand curve back to what it was and we would have more automobiles.

437
00:53:56.660 --> 00:54:04.660
So, the shift of resources is a result of a government legal compulsion, okay?

438
00:54:04.660 --> 00:54:10.660
And that restriction of supply causes a misallocation of resources to lower value users.

439
00:54:14.660 --> 00:54:18.660
There's also the lack of potential competition.

440
00:54:18.660 --> 00:54:48.660
In this condition, the industry will become more and more inefficient, okay, under these conditions because not only do they not face active competition, okay, well, the NFL doesn't face active competition, but it maintains a product that's continually changing and improving because they're always afraid of potential competition, someone else coming in, another league coming in. And that goes away once you have a monopoly. We know we can see that with the post office, okay, how bad their service is, and I'll give you an example in a moment.

441
00:54:48.660 --> 00:54:58.660
Now, last thing, do monopolists, monopolists in Rothbard's sense, do they earn profit?

442
00:54:58.660 --> 00:55:08.660
No, profit is an entrepreneurial return, which tends to disappear because other entrepreneurs will come in and produce substitutes and rival them with other products.

443
00:55:08.660 --> 00:55:30.660
products. But if they don't earn a monopoly profit, profit is a free market return. What do they earn? They earn what we call monopoly gain. And the gain is to the restriction that they enjoy, the license or the tariff.

444
00:55:30.660 --> 00:55:43.660
And now I'll give you some examples and I'll show you, you know, what types of monopoly gains or what they look like, how it engages the monopoly gains, excuse me.

445
00:55:43.660 --> 00:55:49.660
So let me just go into a few examples here.

446
00:55:49.660 --> 00:55:58.660
One of the best examples of a coercive cartel is a taxi industry in New York City.

447
00:55:58.660 --> 00:56:14.660
Back in 1939, taxi owners who were hit hard by the Depression, as everyone was, got together and they appealed to the city government, the city of New York, to restrict the supply of taxis.

448
00:56:14.660 --> 00:56:22.660
So the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission was formed back in 1939.

449
00:56:22.660 --> 00:56:33.660
They allowed, they awarded, they grandfathered in the people that were already in the industry, and those people were given licenses. They're called medallions, taxi medallions.

450
00:56:33.660 --> 00:56:41.660
Those medallions, the number of medallions given out at the time was 11,700.

451
00:56:41.660 --> 00:56:48.660
So there were 11,700 taxis permitted in New York City at the time.

452
00:56:48.660 --> 00:56:58.660
Now, since 1939, income has risen tremendously. The demand for taxi rides has shifted to the right. People's incomes have gone up.

453
00:56:58.660 --> 00:57:07.660
Guess how many more medallions have been awarded? Zero. Zero. Okay.

454
00:57:07.660 --> 00:57:17.660
There was a bit, Mayor Koch, back in the 1980s, seeing, you know, if you're in New York City during rush hour, you can't get a taxi.

455
00:57:17.660 --> 00:57:23.660
During a rainstorm, you can't find a taxi. When the theater lets out, you can't find a taxi.

456
00:57:23.660 --> 00:57:29.660
Around train stations, very difficult to find a taxi. And yet, taxis will whiz by you with one person in them.

457
00:57:29.660 --> 00:57:36.660
Now compare that to Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. has a pretty open market in taxis.

458
00:57:36.660 --> 00:57:50.660
in taxis, okay, it's pretty free. All you have to do is pay a $200 registration fee and then prove you're not an ex-felon and you can invest, buy a taxi and begin operating and competing.

459
00:57:50.660 --> 00:58:03.660
And it was very interesting back in the 1980s when I'd be going down to Washington, I would take the train down. It was so competitive that taxi drivers, as you were coming out of the train station, the big union station there in Washington,

460
00:58:03.660 --> 00:58:08.660
They'd be running up to you and they'd be grabbing at your bags to try to get them into their taxi.

461
00:58:08.660 --> 00:58:11.660
And they would fill the taxi up. They wouldn't just pick up one person.

462
00:58:11.660 --> 00:58:15.660
They'd fill the taxi up and they'd stop at different places.

463
00:58:15.660 --> 00:58:18.660
Also, there was no taxi meters. There was no meters.

464
00:58:18.660 --> 00:58:23.660
Here's where it was a little bit controlled. Within a certain area in the inner part of the city,

465
00:58:23.660 --> 00:58:29.660
around the central part of the city, around the train station, it was something like $2 for the ride.

466
00:58:29.660 --> 00:58:36.660
Yeah, but they've done... you see that they're spending in regulated prices, because like you said, they have the zone prices, right? Instead of...

467
00:58:36.660 --> 00:58:37.660
There's zone pricing.

468
00:58:37.660 --> 00:58:41.660
...instead of like other cities where it's a fair rate that's a little bit more...

469
00:58:41.660 --> 00:58:46.660
But there's still... but it's high enough that... you know, I don't think it's a binding price ceiling.

470
00:58:46.660 --> 00:58:51.660
It's high enough that it's profitable to have a lot of people who are going to be able to buy a lot of things.

471
00:58:51.660 --> 00:59:00.660
But it's high enough that, I don't think it's a binding price ceiling. It's high enough that it's profitable to have a lot of taxis.

472
00:59:00.660 --> 00:59:07.660
So it might be set at the equilibrium price or slightly above it or maybe even slightly below, but I've never noticed any shortage at all of taxis.

473
00:59:07.660 --> 00:59:17.660
Finally, they have Amtrak personnel, the train personnel actually force them back behind a line and then people would line up and get the taxis and it moves very quickly.

474
00:59:17.660 --> 00:59:23.660
Now, in New York City, they cannot, if there are two people at a corner, they can pick people up at the same stop, okay?

475
00:59:23.660 --> 00:59:30.660
So this is a further restriction of supply. However, if you're down the block and they pick one person up, they can't stop for you.

476
00:59:30.660 --> 00:59:37.660
They have to take that first person to their destination, his or her destination, and come back and pick you up or they look for other people.

477
00:59:37.660 --> 00:59:42.660
So, not only do they restrict the number of cabs, they restrict the space within the cab, okay?

478
00:59:42.660 --> 00:59:53.660
So, as a monopoly cartel, now guess how much it costs you, since you can't get any more licenses from the Taxi and Limousine Commission, to get into the business.

479
00:59:53.660 --> 01:00:01.660
Not only do you have to purchase the insurance and the automobile, you have to purchase a medallion from an existing owner of that medallion.

480
01:00:01.660 --> 01:00:18.760
And that was $144,000, okay, and I don't have a date on this article, this must be in the mid-90s, and it had fallen to $129,000 in the year that this was written, okay, it had been up as high as $144,000.

481
01:00:18.760 --> 01:00:23.060
Back in the 70s and 80s, it was only $80,000, it was $60,000 to $80,000, okay.

482
01:00:23.060 --> 01:00:31.260
Now, what does that represent, that $129,000 that that medallion sells for?

483
01:00:31.260 --> 01:00:38.780
Yeah, it's the value of being permitted, being given legal permission to enter the industry.

484
01:00:38.780 --> 01:00:46.380
If tomorrow New York went to a system like Washington, what would happen to the value of those medallions?

485
01:00:46.380 --> 01:00:51.660
They'd fall to zero. Those medallions, the price of that medallion is the discounted present,

486
01:00:51.660 --> 01:01:06.660
It's the present value or the discounted stream of future monopoly gains and those gains are returns to the permission to enter.

487
01:01:06.660 --> 01:01:14.660
Now what eventually happened was that there was such a scarcity of taxis, especially above 125th Street, Harlem, the lower income part of New York,

488
01:01:14.660 --> 01:01:20.660
and they didn't have very good ambulance service up there either. So people used to take taxis to go to the emergency room.

489
01:01:20.660 --> 01:01:50.660
But there were very few taxis around. Eventually, there were these illegal taxis that used to cruise secretly. They were called gypsy cabs. They still are. They are quasi-legal now. They're permitted to pick people up above 125th Street, in the outlying boroughs like Queens and Brooklyn, where there are also shortages of taxis, and bring them into Manhattan. But they're not allowed to cruise Manhattan and pick people up and bring them out again. But they do anyway, which is a great thing. And then there's also cars that you can take.

490
01:01:50.660 --> 01:01:58.660
They can call to come pick you up. They're allowed to compete with the taxis, so you can call, but they can't cruise, but they all cruise, too.

491
01:01:58.660 --> 01:02:08.660
They're all big limousines. So there's a lot of illegal competition in this industry, which of course benefits consumers.

492
01:02:08.660 --> 01:02:13.660
It lessens the restrictiveness of this cartel.

493
01:02:13.660 --> 01:02:26.660
If you got rid of the cartel arrangement, if you abolished the Taxi Limousine Commission, and those medallions fell to zero, would the people like the original gainers be hurt?

494
01:02:26.660 --> 01:02:32.660
What you'd have is a lot of people who just bought those medallions at the full price, losing their capital.

495
01:02:32.660 --> 01:02:37.660
In other words, if you go into the industry now, you don't have any monopoly gain.

496
01:02:37.660 --> 01:02:41.660
You pay for the full monopoly gain to the last owner of that medallion.

497
01:02:41.660 --> 01:02:51.660
So the people who benefited were the people who were originally in the industry, and then their heirs who got those medallions, or the people who bought the medallions when their prices were low.

498
01:02:51.660 --> 01:02:57.660
Let's say if they bought them in the 80s, it's $60,000, and now it's $129,000. They have a gain.

499
01:02:57.660 --> 01:03:04.660
So that's why it's difficult to get rid of them. Some people are going to be genuinely hurt who have not participated in any of that monopoly gain.

500
01:03:04.660 --> 01:03:19.660
That's not to say that you shouldn't get rid of them, from my own personal point of view as a libertarian, yes, get rid of them, I mean, that's tough, I mean, someone is involved in this monopoly scheme and hasn't gained much for it, well, that's too bad.

501
01:03:19.660 --> 01:03:27.660
Now let me turn to another one of my favorite and least efficient monopolies, the post office.

502
01:03:27.660 --> 01:03:51.660
About 1980, this shows how inefficient the post office is, there was a Cub Scout den on Long Island, New York, that began to hand deliver Christmas cards, they did a free of charge in the neighborhood, just as a good deed, and they promised same day delivery.

503
01:03:51.660 --> 01:04:03.660
Now, of course, trying to mail a Christmas card during Christmas time, not only do they not get it there the next day or within two days, sometimes you don't get it for weeks because they're so inefficient.

504
01:04:03.660 --> 01:04:14.660
So the local postmaster found out about this and he went to the den mother of these little cub scouts, six and seven year olds,

505
01:04:14.660 --> 01:04:31.660
And he told them that they were violating the private express statutes, which were passed in the 1870s, which said that you cannot deliver first class mail, you cannot use mailboxes, that can only be used by the post office.

506
01:04:31.660 --> 01:04:43.660
So he wanted to charge them $38.25 for the lost postage, and they were told, oh I know, these were actually just flyers, they had just put flyers in people's mailboxes to advertise the service.

507
01:04:43.660 --> 01:05:13.660
and the size of service, so instead of mailing the flyers through the post office, so that they were going to charge them $38.25 and then another a fine up to $76,000, okay, for violating the postal statutes, okay, and so they write here, another threat to the postal monopoly nipped in the bud, okay, and then there was even a bigger article on all this and you know basically saying the same thing,

508
01:05:13.660 --> 01:05:22.660
It was a big outcry, fortunately. People were just outraged that they were going to fine this cub scout then, $76,000.

509
01:05:22.660 --> 01:05:35.660
So a U.S. District Court judge in New York ruled last April that the cost to free expression imposed by the postal law outweighed the services arguments that the law was necessary to prevent the loss of revenue and to protect against mail fraud.

510
01:05:35.660 --> 01:05:45.660
So, they're allowed to put the flyers into the mailboxes.

511
01:05:45.660 --> 01:05:50.660
People can put flyers into mailboxes, but they still can't carry, you can't put mail.

512
01:05:50.660 --> 01:05:54.660
In other words, you can't compete and put actual mail and cards in there.

513
01:05:54.660 --> 01:05:58.660
So, he upheld that part of it.

514
01:05:58.660 --> 01:06:09.660
But just think about it. If they're afraid of a den of Cub Scouts, how many weeks would they last if Federal Express and UPS were allowed to deliver first-class mail?

515
01:06:09.660 --> 01:06:14.660
I think it would be a number of weeks. I think they would collapse within a few weeks. It wouldn't even take a few months.

516
01:06:14.660 --> 01:06:24.660
So, this is incredibly inefficient. It's very interesting. If you go to any other, if you go to a retail outlet, a private retail outlet,

517
01:06:24.660 --> 01:06:34.660
Where do the employees park?

518
01:06:34.660 --> 01:06:40.660
They park far away in the least successful spots, right? The consumers are given the best spots.

519
01:06:40.660 --> 01:06:48.660
When I go to my post office, the spots that are closest to the building are always designated postal employees only.

520
01:06:48.660 --> 01:06:52.660
It's really run for the benefit of the employees, not for the consumers.

521
01:06:52.660 --> 01:06:55.660
There is no consumer sovereignty here.

522
01:06:57.660 --> 01:07:09.660
Another example that I want to give of a very interesting example of a form of monopoly.

523
01:07:09.660 --> 01:07:30.660
There was this entrepreneur from Kentucky who found that through experimentation that grapes could be harvested, wine grapes could be harvested on strip mines, strip mines could be turned into vineyards.

524
01:07:30.660 --> 01:07:50.660
So, he began to market a wine, and it was on the strip-mined hills, and he's also the president of the Falcon Coal Company, also.

525
01:07:50.660 --> 01:07:56.660
StripMind Wine, or actually I guess he rented it out. StripMind, at least the land out.

526
01:07:56.660 --> 01:08:00.660
StripMind Wine was the inspiration of William Oliver, a law professor from Indiana University.

527
01:08:00.660 --> 01:08:06.660
Oliver, a Kentuckian who runs his own winery in Bloomington, persuaded Jackson, the head of the coal company,

528
01:08:06.660 --> 01:08:12.660
and the Falcon Coal Company to plant six acres of French hybrid grapes back in 1972,

529
01:08:12.660 --> 01:08:15.660
as an experiment in reclaiming StripMind mountainsides.

530
01:08:15.660 --> 01:08:19.660
However, when they tried to bring the wine to market, guess what happened?

531
01:08:19.660 --> 01:08:36.660
There were local liquor laws invoked by not only people that were interested in temperance, that didn't want this wine produced, but also the bourbon industry, which is a big industry in Kentucky.

532
01:08:36.660 --> 01:08:40.660
Why would the bourbon industry be interested in wine?

533
01:08:40.660 --> 01:08:42.660
Well, because it's a competitor.

534
01:08:42.660 --> 01:08:53.660
So they use these laws, the company, they use the laws to suppress any further production of this wine or at least marketing of the wine.

535
01:08:53.660 --> 01:08:54.660
I don't know whatever happened.

536
01:08:54.660 --> 01:09:03.660
He had plans to continue and try and try to do it in other states and get laws changed and so on.

537
01:09:03.660 --> 01:09:15.340
Monopoly isn't just an implication of a large firm. It's not something that you have to be a large firm to exercise.

538
01:09:15.340 --> 01:09:23.180
You just have to get the government on your side. Local liquor laws, which restrict the number of liquor licenses, are also Monopoly's scheme.

539
01:09:23.180 --> 01:09:32.420
So that restaurants, when they open up, in order to get customers, they have to pay a high price to get a liquor license from existing establishments.

540
01:09:32.420 --> 01:09:39.220
So before you can open a restaurant, you usually have to buy, even if you don't like this other restaurant, you only have to buy this restaurant just to get its liquor license.

541
01:09:39.220 --> 01:09:44.500
And that return to the liquor license, again, is a reflection of the monopoly gains.

542
01:09:44.500 --> 01:09:53.660
Another example is health laws and other sorts of local laws that prevent people from competing.

543
01:09:53.660 --> 01:09:55.100
I don't have the article here.

544
01:09:55.100 --> 01:09:58.780
Yeah, I do.

545
01:09:58.780 --> 01:10:05.740
This occurred back during the gasoline lines in the 1970s.

546
01:10:05.740 --> 01:10:11.420
There was a young kid who was extremely entrepreneurial.

547
01:10:11.420 --> 01:10:18.340
And he found that people that were waiting on gasoline lines during, in the early morning, from 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock,

548
01:10:18.340 --> 01:10:22.620
people getting up very, very early, trying to get some of the gasoline during the shortage,

549
01:10:22.620 --> 01:10:28.700
that they didn't want to get out of line, or they couldn't get out of line, and get coffee.

550
01:10:28.700 --> 01:10:41.580
But they wanted coffee, so what he did, he and his father, his father helped them, he outfitted a wagon with all these signs and he put a number of thermoses of coffee, had his mother make him coffee and so on.

551
01:10:41.580 --> 01:10:49.500
And he went along the line and he sold coffee and also donuts and so on, out of the wagon.

552
01:10:49.500 --> 01:11:01.740
And this evil deli owner, evil monopolist deli owner, Barry Wurzel, he was getting very upset about this, he was losing customers.

553
01:11:01.740 --> 01:11:10.100
So the 33-year-old owner of Barry's place, okay, where a small container of coffee sells for 35 cents, this is back in the 70s,

554
01:11:10.100 --> 01:11:17.260
watched unhappily for several days as drivers purchased coffee from the red wagon which plied the lines in front of his store.

555
01:11:17.260 --> 01:11:22.260
So what did he do? He called the Board of Health to find out if his competitor's business was legal.

556
01:11:22.260 --> 01:11:26.760
It wasn't. So the Board of Health asked the Roseland Police, that was the town in New Jersey where this occurred,

557
01:11:26.760 --> 01:11:33.760
to deliver a letter to Billy yesterday morning, notifying him he was violating borough ordinances because he didn't have a peddler's license.

558
01:11:33.760 --> 01:11:41.760
Billy's father, William, who's a supermarket manager, who said he doesn't worry about the store's cookie sales when the Girl Scouts are outside selling theirs,

559
01:11:41.760 --> 01:11:45.760
He doesn't try to monopolistically put them out of business.

560
01:11:45.760 --> 01:11:52.760
He intends to apply for a license for his kid.

561
01:11:52.760 --> 01:11:56.760
And then he goes on to say, the father says, the whole thing is just so ridiculous.

562
01:11:56.760 --> 01:12:06.760
The kid is out making $5 profit a day and Barry, the deli owner, tells the policeman and Billy that he has mouths to feed at home and Billy is cutting into his business.

563
01:12:06.760 --> 01:12:13.160
Okay, so there's a bigger brouhaha. The luncheonette owner then countered,

564
01:12:13.160 --> 01:12:17.520
I'm taking a bum rap. I was a kid and I have three kids. I'm not trying to stop them,

565
01:12:17.520 --> 01:12:20.880
but when they're sticking their heads in my door and saying you can get it cheaper outside,

566
01:12:20.880 --> 01:12:25.640
the kid was actually selling it at a lower price, it makes you a little bit irritable, okay.

567
01:12:25.640 --> 01:12:30.720
Then they go on to say, the Java feud reached the boiling point Wednesday morning when several

568
01:12:30.720 --> 01:12:35.800
customers told Werfel, his 60-pound competitor, the kid, had a sign in his wagon containing

569
01:12:35.800 --> 01:12:49.000
meaning derogatory references to luncheonette, the sign said, cheaper than Barry's and drinkable too.

570
01:12:49.000 --> 01:12:56.200
Hollywood contends, the father contends, that Worf will chase the kid down the street.

571
01:12:56.200 --> 01:13:00.500
Then somebody else jumped out of one of the cars on the gas line and told the kid,

572
01:13:00.500 --> 01:13:04.500
Don't worry, I'll protect you. He won't hurt you.

573
01:13:04.500 --> 01:13:09.140
I don't know what actually finally happened to all this, but I mean it's funny in one sense, but in another sense,

574
01:13:09.140 --> 01:13:12.780
whenever anybody can get the government to suppress a competitor,

575
01:13:12.780 --> 01:13:15.240
they'll use that legal power.

576
01:13:15.240 --> 01:13:17.140
And that shifts back supply

577
01:13:17.140 --> 01:13:24.140
and injures consumers and yields a monopoly price to Barry in this case.

578
01:14:00.500 --> 01:14:04.500
And local vendors want them to crack down on these people, right?

579
01:14:04.500 --> 01:14:10.500
I mean, that's, you know, they have, they contribute to campaigns, you know, the mayor likes to be on good terms with the business community,

580
01:14:10.500 --> 01:14:18.500
so he's going to suppress these local, these vendors that move around and who have very low costs and can sell at lower prices, okay?

581
01:14:18.500 --> 01:14:20.500
Even though it benefits consumers.

582
01:14:20.500 --> 01:14:25.500
Now, there's something to be said about police not allowing vendors to clog up streets, that's a different story, okay?

583
01:14:25.500 --> 01:14:28.500
And in New York, all vendors have to have licenses.

584
01:14:28.500 --> 01:14:34.500
In New York, the vendors get around it quite a bit.

585
01:14:34.500 --> 01:14:39.500
They set up and they see cops and they know how to close their shop up really quickly

586
01:14:39.500 --> 01:14:42.500
and pick up their stuff and move down the street.

587
01:14:42.500 --> 01:14:46.500
One time I was in New York, I think it was two years ago,

588
01:14:46.500 --> 01:14:49.500
and it was actually below zero Fahrenheit.

589
01:14:49.500 --> 01:14:51.500
It was horribly cold and I forgot my hat.

590
01:14:51.500 --> 01:14:55.500
So I was going to go into a hat store right near Pace University.

591
01:14:55.500 --> 01:15:25.500
University, you know, the hats were like 20 bucks and over, and there's this great vendor, right across the street, illegal, and it was like five dollars for a ski cap, and I still have it, it's still good, so I went over there and bought it, so at the cost of two coal to come out, so that's why all the vendors were all out, which is great, I mean, you're right, I mean, there's fulfilling a need there. Okay, any other questions? Yes, Chris?

592
01:15:25.500 --> 01:15:40.500
So you're saying, you're asking if there's a difference between the right to exclude people, on the one hand, who people...

593
01:15:40.500 --> 01:16:09.500
The question is more specific. In the case of a patent, someone is given a right to exclude other people who do not have the patent, from infringing on his patent rights, so he has a right in some sense.

594
01:16:09.500 --> 01:16:17.500
Is that different from the other types of policies that I've been referring to and that we would call monopoly policies, okay?

595
01:16:17.500 --> 01:16:29.500
Well, most economists, or many economists, not most, many economists and most Austrian economists think that patents are a monopoly, okay?

596
01:16:29.500 --> 01:16:31.500
They're different from a copyright, okay?

597
01:16:31.500 --> 01:16:45.500
Two people could discover the same process independently, or even one could discover it before someone else, but someone patents it first, and then they have a right to exclude anyone else from it, from duplicating the process.

598
01:16:45.500 --> 01:16:49.500
Yes, that would be a monopoly.

599
01:16:49.500 --> 01:17:05.500
Now, you might say it's a beneficial monopoly, on some grounds, but Rothbard is distinguished between a patent and a copyright, a copyright on a book or even a copyright on a machine.

600
01:17:05.500 --> 01:17:18.500
In the case of a copyright, the person who comes up with something that's very similar, the person holding the copyright has to prove that they somehow stole that from him.

601
01:17:18.500 --> 01:17:25.500
They stole the ideas from him. Whereas in the case of Patton, the burden is on the person who introduces the product independently.

602
01:17:25.500 --> 01:17:28.500
He's considered guilty immediately.

603
01:17:28.500 --> 01:17:38.500
Now other libertarians such as Stephen Kinsella claim that there shouldn't be any intellectual rights and intellectual property.

604
01:17:38.500 --> 01:17:41.500
So this is an ongoing debate, is what I'm getting at here.

605
01:17:41.500 --> 01:17:53.500
I would say that I'm pretty certain that patents are a monopoly privilege, because people can independently discover similar products or processes.

606
01:17:53.500 --> 01:17:59.500
Why should one person be given the right, the legal right to exclude others from that?

607
01:17:59.500 --> 01:18:07.500
In one case it's the Governmental Act, and in another case it's the Prize Act because the government won't enforce that.

608
01:18:07.500 --> 01:18:09.500
The government will enforce the patent.

609
01:18:09.500 --> 01:18:15.500
It's up to the owner to bring a civil suit.

610
01:18:15.500 --> 01:18:20.500
Ultimately there is some sort of threat of violence.

611
01:18:20.500 --> 01:18:23.500
That is a threat of prosecution.

612
01:18:23.500 --> 01:18:26.500
Even in the case of a civil suit.

613
01:18:26.500 --> 01:18:30.500
Or actually a threat of having your property forcibly taken from you.

614
01:18:30.500 --> 01:18:33.500
Treble damage, right.

615
01:18:33.500 --> 01:18:40.500
Right. So it's still enforceable, it's still enforced ultimately by the state, by the state courts and so on.

616
01:18:40.500 --> 01:18:45.500
Any other questions? Okay, thank you.