WEBVTT

NOTE Monopoly and Competition

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.720
I'm delighted to be here. I'm honored and privileged.

2
00:00:03.720 --> 00:00:06.080
I go way back with this book.

3
00:00:06.080 --> 00:00:10.400
I met Murray Rothbard in 1966,

4
00:00:10.400 --> 00:00:13.360
and I started reading the book soon after.

5
00:00:13.360 --> 00:00:17.600
And the problem I had with it was that it really blew me away.

6
00:00:17.600 --> 00:00:21.600
The way I see it, it's sort of a combination of Mozart, Bach and Handel,

7
00:00:21.600 --> 00:00:27.680
my three favorite composers all rolled into one and in print.

8
00:00:27.680 --> 00:00:32.580
and to just give a personal story at the outset,

9
00:00:32.580 --> 00:00:37.380
I was just so impressed with this and so amazed that he would even want to speak to me

10
00:00:37.380 --> 00:00:40.680
and all he wanted to be was friends with me, but I couldn't get that through my head, you know,

11
00:00:40.680 --> 00:00:46.080
I couldn't call him Murray, he kept saying call me Murray, call me, I couldn't do it

12
00:00:46.080 --> 00:00:54.580
and my way of trying to be worthy of being in his august presence was to criticize him.

13
00:00:54.580 --> 00:01:15.580
Yes! I know it's hard for you to believe, but that was my way of being friendly with somebody, to criticize him, and, you know, he was just so patient with me, it's amazing that he tolerated me for so long, and I'm still doing that, and it's my way of being friendly, but it's a little weird, but what the heck.

14
00:01:15.580 --> 00:01:19.580
Chapter 10 is 125 pages.

15
00:01:19.580 --> 00:01:25.580
I really think that if we were going to have an entire week seminar on any one of the chapters,

16
00:01:25.580 --> 00:01:27.580
this could be a good candidate.

17
00:01:27.580 --> 00:01:29.580
It's very long.

18
00:01:29.580 --> 00:01:31.580
It's got a lot of stuff in it.

19
00:01:31.580 --> 00:01:39.580
I'll never be able to do justice to it if I had 10,000 years, and certainly not in 40 minutes or so.

20
00:01:39.580 --> 00:01:45.580
If I had to summarize it very briefly, I would do it in the form of a joke.

21
00:01:45.580 --> 00:01:47.280
And here's the joke. It's a two-part joke.

22
00:01:47.280 --> 00:01:51.980
The first part of the joke is there were three Soviet prisoners in jail in the Gulag,

23
00:01:51.980 --> 00:01:56.080
and as prisoners do, they were comparing notes as to why they're in prison.

24
00:01:56.080 --> 00:02:00.280
So the first guy says, well, I came to work late,

25
00:02:00.280 --> 00:02:04.480
and they accused me of cheating the state out of my labor services.

26
00:02:04.480 --> 00:02:07.780
So the second guy said, well, I came to work early, every day early,

27
00:02:07.780 --> 00:02:11.280
and they accused me of brown-nosing, put me in jail.

28
00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:14.980
The third guy said, I can work every day exactly on time.

29
00:02:14.980 --> 00:02:18.480
And they accused me of owning a western wristwatch.

30
00:02:18.480 --> 00:02:22.480
They put me in jail.

31
00:02:22.480 --> 00:02:27.880
Second part of the joke, there were three U.S. prisoners in jail on antitrust violations.

32
00:02:27.880 --> 00:02:30.080
First guy said, I charge more than everyone else

33
00:02:30.080 --> 00:02:37.280
and they accused me of gouging, profiteering, exploiting, withholding and restraining trade.

34
00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:44.880
The second guy said, well, I charge lower prices than everyone else and they accused me of predatory price cutting and cutthroat competition.

35
00:02:44.880 --> 00:02:48.980
The third guy said, well, I charge the same prices as everyone else.

36
00:02:48.980 --> 00:02:54.480
A little difficult to see how that could be given these other two guys, but it's just a joke.

37
00:02:54.480 --> 00:03:01.980
And they accused me of colluding, cartelizing and conspiring.

38
00:03:01.980 --> 00:03:10.360
The point, I think, is that this antitrust law on the basis of which monopoly theory is predicated,

39
00:03:10.360 --> 00:03:15.560
neoclassical monopoly theory anyway, is dead from the neck up.

40
00:03:15.560 --> 00:03:21.260
I mean, if you can be put in jail for anything, higher, lower, the same prices,

41
00:03:21.260 --> 00:03:25.380
I mean, a law is supposed to distinguish between that which is legal and that which is illegal.

42
00:03:25.380 --> 00:03:31.140
This doesn't do that. This just can put anyone in jail for any pricing, pretty much.

43
00:03:31.140 --> 00:03:35.640
So, the whole thing is highly problematic, to put it politely.

44
00:03:38.640 --> 00:03:42.140
Who else restrains trade?

45
00:03:42.140 --> 00:03:46.140
Well, monogamous marriage is a restraint of trade.

46
00:03:46.640 --> 00:03:49.140
Because when you get married monogamously,

47
00:03:49.140 --> 00:03:54.640
you each agree not to trade other people on certain aspects of economics,

48
00:03:54.640 --> 00:03:57.640
given economics' broad enough interpretation.

49
00:03:57.640 --> 00:04:08.040
I think one good way of debunking things is to make things like this reductios,

50
00:04:08.040 --> 00:04:14.040
and the way you make a reductio is to apply the logic to an area where they don't apply the logic to.

51
00:04:14.040 --> 00:04:21.040
So I think when you realize that you can put married people in jail for antitrust, restraint of trade,

52
00:04:21.040 --> 00:04:24.640
that's just another way of saying how silly it is.

53
00:04:24.640 --> 00:04:54.640
Okay, in the chapter, the first thing he starts off with is consumer sovereignty and individual sovereignty, this guy, Hutt, who has done great work and other things, but here he's not so good, and I think Murray quite properly criticizes him, and Murray says, in effect, you know, what's this individual sovereignty, rather, what's this consumer sovereignty? It should be individual sovereignty. Why, you know, why put consumers up on a throne? Why make consumers the king when the free market

54
00:04:54.640 --> 00:05:01.880
makes everyone a king. The next thing he gets into is this business of coffee burning.

55
00:05:01.880 --> 00:05:08.760
Sometimes people burn coffee, producers of coffee burn coffee, and this seems to be a horrible thing,

56
00:05:08.760 --> 00:05:15.080
a violation of consumer sovereignty. And Murray says, well, why burn? Burning is an indication of

57
00:05:15.080 --> 00:05:20.120
excess production. They should have produced less, which is hardly satisfactory to the people who

58
00:05:20.120 --> 00:05:25.460
who were objecting to the burning in the first place.

59
00:05:25.460 --> 00:05:30.020
That would be like withholding to produce less coffee than somebody thinks that should

60
00:05:30.020 --> 00:05:35.120
be produced and that is presumably problematic or evil.

61
00:05:35.120 --> 00:05:41.600
Now Murray gets into a more technical part of this chapter when he says that entrepreneurs,

62
00:05:41.600 --> 00:05:45.340
all of them, utilize inelastic parts of the demand curve.

63
00:05:45.340 --> 00:05:55.180
So I thought I would review elasticity a little bit and one of the things, here is sort of

64
00:05:55.180 --> 00:06:02.860
a summary way of looking at elasticity for a downward sloping part of the demand curve.

65
00:06:02.860 --> 00:06:08.340
If total revenue goes up it's elastic, if it stays constant it's unitary, if it falls

66
00:06:08.340 --> 00:06:14.160
it's inelastic and what elasticity is, is the percentage change in quantity divided

67
00:06:14.160 --> 00:06:17.220
by the Percentage Change in Price.

68
00:06:17.220 --> 00:06:25.420
So what Murray is saying is that if people are objecting to a price rise,

69
00:06:25.420 --> 00:06:30.960
all they have to do is go from C, a relatively inelastic demand curve,

70
00:06:30.960 --> 00:06:34.960
to D, a more elastic demand curve.

71
00:06:34.960 --> 00:06:42.620
And if they don't do that, it ill behooves them to be complaining about this in the first place.

72
00:06:42.620 --> 00:06:46.620
A little bit more about elasticity.

73
00:06:46.620 --> 00:06:53.020
What I have on the top diagram is a straight line demand curve

74
00:06:53.020 --> 00:06:56.940
and it shows that the elasticity along it varies

75
00:06:56.940 --> 00:07:02.500
from infinitely elastic at the top to zero elasticity at the bottom

76
00:07:02.500 --> 00:07:06.020
and in the middle the elasticity is one.

77
00:07:06.020 --> 00:07:10.180
And the way I put the two together, namely this stuff over here

78
00:07:10.180 --> 00:07:40.180
with this thing that I'm reviewing from the first slide is what I have in the in the top is price and quantity and in the bottom I have price and quantity or price times quantity which is total revenue namely what I do is I make a box here or a square or a rectangle and the rectangle here is a height so this box would be this height this smaller box would be that smaller height and you could see that at this point a tangency to the

79
00:07:40.180 --> 00:07:45.180
The top of that curve would be flat, so it would be unitary elasticity.

80
00:07:45.180 --> 00:07:51.180
This is just by way of review. I'm sure this is old hat to most of you, but it might be new to some people.

81
00:07:51.180 --> 00:07:57.180
Just let me take a show of hands. How many know this stuff backwards and forwards?

82
00:07:57.180 --> 00:07:59.180
Okay, about half of you.

83
00:07:59.180 --> 00:08:07.180
I know that there are some people here who are not into economics and philosophy and other things, political science, so a little bit of a review.

84
00:08:07.180 --> 00:08:16.680
For the people, I sometimes fool my undergraduate students by asking which curve is more elastic, A or B.

85
00:08:16.680 --> 00:08:20.980
So let's solve this democratically as we solve all problems.

86
00:08:20.980 --> 00:08:24.180
How many say A is more elastic?

87
00:08:24.180 --> 00:08:30.380
How many say B is more elastic?

88
00:08:30.380 --> 00:08:36.180
How many say what is the correct thing is?

89
00:08:36.180 --> 00:08:37.980
Where on the demand curve are we going?

90
00:08:37.980 --> 00:08:40.380
No, the question, he asked where on the demand curve are we going?

91
00:08:40.380 --> 00:08:45.480
I said, which demand curve is more elastic, A or B?

92
00:08:45.480 --> 00:08:48.980
And the answer is B.

93
00:08:48.980 --> 00:08:50.780
How many say B?

94
00:08:50.780 --> 00:08:53.480
How many say A?

95
00:08:53.480 --> 00:08:58.480
The right answer is to go back here.

96
00:08:58.480 --> 00:09:02.080
You can't say because elasticity is very,

97
00:09:02.080 --> 00:09:05.280
rather demand curves vary in elasticity throughout them.

98
00:09:05.280 --> 00:09:08.580
So both of those curves, A and B, have the same elasticity.

99
00:09:08.580 --> 00:09:15.980
They may vary from zero to infinity and go through unity.

100
00:09:15.980 --> 00:09:18.580
Okay, just a little trick question.

101
00:09:18.580 --> 00:09:32.280
There is a sort of a problem with something that Murray says somewhere, if I can fish it out.

102
00:09:32.280 --> 00:09:34.280
Yeah, what he says here...

103
00:09:42.280 --> 00:09:44.280
Whoops, I went too far.

104
00:09:44.280 --> 00:09:46.280
This power is...

105
00:09:49.280 --> 00:09:54.280
There has been an unfortunate tendency of writers to refer to an elastic demand curve or an inelastic demand curve

106
00:09:54.280 --> 00:09:57.280
without pointing out that every curve has different ranges

107
00:09:57.280 --> 00:10:01.280
along which there will be varying degrees of elasticity or inelasticity.

108
00:10:01.280 --> 00:10:13.280
But that's not really true as stated because there are several counter-examples to that, namely here is a rectangular hyperbola.

109
00:10:13.280 --> 00:10:18.280
It's not as well drawn as it could be, but I'm not an artist, but I did my best.

110
00:10:18.280 --> 00:10:30.280
And there the elasticity is constant at one because the boxes drawn on it at any point would be the same size if I drew it correctly.

111
00:10:30.280 --> 00:10:34.680
And over here the elasticity is infinite, and over here the elasticity is zero.

112
00:10:34.680 --> 00:10:40.280
So in order to make Murray's thing correct, it's just a sort of a typographical oversight.

113
00:10:40.280 --> 00:10:46.680
I don't think it's a serious problem. Everyone knows this, but I think the book will be reissued.

114
00:10:46.680 --> 00:10:50.280
And when it is reissued, perhaps that should be changed.

115
00:10:51.280 --> 00:10:58.680
Okay, now that we've got a sort of a review of elasticity, let's talk a little bit about monopoly.

116
00:10:58.680 --> 00:11:02.680
And what we have with regards to monopoly is three definitions.

117
00:11:02.680 --> 00:11:07.680
The first definition is that we're all monopolists because we're all unique.

118
00:11:07.680 --> 00:11:11.680
Walter Block's services are a little bit different than Joe Salerno's services,

119
00:11:11.680 --> 00:11:13.680
which are a little different than David Gordon's services.

120
00:11:13.680 --> 00:11:16.680
So we're each unique, we're each a monopolist.

121
00:11:16.680 --> 00:11:19.680
We should all go to jail for that, which is silly,

122
00:11:19.680 --> 00:11:25.680
because it doesn't make any real sense.

123
00:11:25.680 --> 00:11:30.480
But that's one possible definition of monopoly, uniqueness, and we're all monopolists.

124
00:11:30.480 --> 00:11:36.880
The second one, the one that Rothbard adheres to, and the one that I adhere to,

125
00:11:36.880 --> 00:11:39.880
and I think the one most Austrian economists would adhere to,

126
00:11:39.880 --> 00:11:43.680
is that monopoly is a grant of state privilege.

127
00:11:43.680 --> 00:11:49.280
The Duke of Flatbush or somewhere would fight the good fight against the Duke of somewhere else,

128
00:11:49.280 --> 00:11:53.680
and he would get a monopoly of salt or candles or whatever,

129
00:11:53.680 --> 00:11:58.180
And this means that if anyone else tries to make salt or candles, they go to jail.

130
00:11:58.180 --> 00:12:01.280
Perfectly coherent sense of the word monopoly.

131
00:12:01.280 --> 00:12:06.780
And there are a whole bunch of typographical errors where, in my view,

132
00:12:06.780 --> 00:12:09.980
Murray doesn't put quotes around monopoly when he's not using it this way.

133
00:12:09.980 --> 00:12:13.080
In other words, this is the only legitimate use of monopoly.

134
00:12:13.080 --> 00:12:18.180
The third use of monopoly is he who achieves a monopoly price.

135
00:12:18.180 --> 00:12:22.080
And here Murray says, well, there ain't no such thing as a monopoly price.

136
00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:26.880
How do you distinguish a monopoly price from a non-monopoly price?

137
00:12:26.880 --> 00:12:34.080
The way the mainstream types do it is they do it that way.

138
00:12:34.080 --> 00:12:38.080
They have this diagram.

139
00:12:38.080 --> 00:12:39.580
Let me take a show of hands again.

140
00:12:39.580 --> 00:12:43.580
How many are familiar with this and know why the curves wiggle the way they do

141
00:12:43.580 --> 00:12:47.380
and why marginal cost rises and average cost pulls up and all?

142
00:12:47.380 --> 00:12:49.180
Raise your hands if you...

143
00:12:49.180 --> 00:12:51.880
Okay, most people are familiar with that.

144
00:12:51.880 --> 00:12:59.720
Okay, so what we have here is where supply and demand equal, there's the demand curve,

145
00:12:59.720 --> 00:13:06.520
the supply curve is the upward sloping marginal cost curve, we get this point C for competition or perfect competition,

146
00:13:06.520 --> 00:13:15.720
and here we get the, boy that's mislabeled, this is the quantity of competition,

147
00:13:15.720 --> 00:13:21.560
there's the quantity, well I'll get to that in a second, so this is the quantity that the perfectly competitive industry produces,

148
00:13:21.560 --> 00:13:26.720
And this is the price, PC, the price that the perfectly competitive industry would do.

149
00:13:26.720 --> 00:13:36.560
And we get the monopoly, M, for PM and QM, is where the marginal revenue curve hits the marginal cost curve.

150
00:13:36.560 --> 00:13:41.240
And you go up to the demand curve and you get the price and the quantity.

151
00:13:41.240 --> 00:13:47.400
Well, what Murray says is, this is all well and well, he doesn't say this is all well and good, he says there's a lot of nonsense.

152
00:13:47.400 --> 00:13:50.320
But all it is is a bunch of curves.

153
00:13:50.320 --> 00:13:56.520
Out there in the real world, you have the price of beans is 50 cents or the price of corn is 75 cents.

154
00:13:56.520 --> 00:13:59.040
Is that a monopoly price or a competition price?

155
00:13:59.040 --> 00:14:01.320
And there's no bloody way to know.

156
00:14:01.320 --> 00:14:08.320
You can draw all the curves you want, but there is no distinction.

157
00:14:08.320 --> 00:14:15.200
Now, the mainstream say that there are four criticisms of monopoly and I summarize them here under M&C.

158
00:14:15.200 --> 00:14:18.960
Notice that the monopolist price is higher than the competitive price.

159
00:14:18.960 --> 00:14:22.880
PM is higher than PC and somehow a higher price is no good.

160
00:14:22.880 --> 00:14:26.080
Give me a break. I mean, where do they get that from?

161
00:14:26.080 --> 00:14:32.160
And Q, monopoly has a low Q and the competitor has a higher Q

162
00:14:32.160 --> 00:14:36.640
and somehow more quantity is better than less quantity.

163
00:14:36.640 --> 00:14:39.360
This is very strange.

164
00:14:39.360 --> 00:14:44.160
Some, I was once having a debate with someone and said, well, how do you know

165
00:14:44.160 --> 00:14:49.960
The difference between the competitive price and monopoly price is, well, whatever the price is in a market

166
00:14:49.960 --> 00:14:56.560
where you have a concentration ratio that's very low, rather very high, a for-firm concentration ratio

167
00:14:56.560 --> 00:15:03.060
or a Herfindahl index that's a little too high, just raise the price and that's a better, that's the monopoly price.

168
00:15:03.060 --> 00:15:07.260
Well, Murray's answer was, well, suppose you, if you knew that the antitrust division would do that,

169
00:15:07.260 --> 00:15:10.160
you would locate here and they would push you up here.

170
00:15:10.160 --> 00:15:14.080
So, it's sort of being at sea without a rudder.

171
00:15:14.080 --> 00:15:19.520
There's no objective criteria to get between a monopoly price and a competitive price.

172
00:15:19.520 --> 00:15:28.160
Now, the third criticism of monopoly is that the monopoly profits are FPMMG,

173
00:15:28.160 --> 00:15:33.520
whereas the competitive price profits are zero, and we all know that profits are evil.

174
00:15:33.520 --> 00:15:37.480
I'm not fully serious here, and that's the other criticism.

175
00:15:37.480 --> 00:15:45.680
On the other hand, if the monopoly is sold, it'll be sold at a price that presumably capitalizes the monopoly profits,

176
00:15:45.680 --> 00:15:51.440
and we will then move to this AC, the red one, and there'll be no profits at that point.

177
00:15:51.440 --> 00:15:58.360
So the real problem is not so much price or quantity or profits, the real problem is the deadweight loss.

178
00:15:58.360 --> 00:16:04.200
And the deadweight loss is AMC, this sort of triangular area here.

179
00:16:04.200 --> 00:16:08.500
And when you mention deadweight loss to a mainstream economist,

180
00:16:08.500 --> 00:16:11.000
they start growling and snarling.

181
00:16:11.000 --> 00:16:14.200
It's sort of like those guys who take that pill and they turn into a werewolf,

182
00:16:14.200 --> 00:16:19.500
you know, their hair grows longer and their fingernails, you know, they start...

183
00:16:19.500 --> 00:16:22.000
Deadweight loss is, you know, an abomination.

184
00:16:22.000 --> 00:16:26.400
I don't think God favors deadweight loss, you know, from their point of view.

185
00:16:26.400 --> 00:16:30.100
And this is a misallocation of resources.

186
00:16:30.100 --> 00:16:33.600
Well, there are problems with this.

187
00:16:33.600 --> 00:16:40.840
Many, many problems. First of all, what they're saying is that QC is the right amount to produce, QM is too little.

188
00:16:40.840 --> 00:16:49.940
Now, we do have a theory that in the ex-ante sense, if I trade you this pen for your wristwatch,

189
00:16:49.940 --> 00:16:57.300
I like the wristwatch more than the pen, and I gain the value to me of the difference between them and you get this wristwatch for the pen,

190
00:16:57.300 --> 00:17:02.680
and we have mutual gain from voluntary trade in the ex-ante sense. Fine.

191
00:17:02.680 --> 00:17:09.280
But what they're saying here is that when trades don't take place, this shows a misallocation of resources.

192
00:17:09.280 --> 00:17:13.880
Well, right now, I have this watch and Jeff Herbiner doesn't have it.

193
00:17:13.880 --> 00:17:18.480
Now, he could have it, but the presumption is that since I have it and he doesn't have it,

194
00:17:18.480 --> 00:17:23.080
and we didn't trade, that somehow this is a misallocation of resources.

195
00:17:23.080 --> 00:17:25.380
This is nonsense on stealth.

196
00:17:25.380 --> 00:17:29.980
What they're saying is not that you can deduce or infer benefits from voluntary trade,

197
00:17:29.980 --> 00:17:36.940
but that you can induce or infer misallocation of resources from non-trades.

198
00:17:36.940 --> 00:17:43.660
It's as if I traded them nine cans of corn and I refuse to trade any more.

199
00:17:43.660 --> 00:17:47.420
The plain state of rest and they're saying, well, you should trade more.

200
00:17:47.420 --> 00:17:49.900
Well, look at this from the point of view of the boxer.

201
00:17:49.900 --> 00:17:52.900
The boxer wants to fight nine times a year.

202
00:17:52.900 --> 00:17:56.220
And the antitrust people say, no, you have to fight 12 times a year.

203
00:17:56.220 --> 00:17:58.420
Otherwise, you're withholding.

204
00:17:58.420 --> 00:18:02.420
This is highly problematic.

205
00:18:02.420 --> 00:18:05.300
The second one is interpersonal comparisons of utility.

206
00:18:05.300 --> 00:18:09.100
What they're saying is that people value it at the level of the demand curve.

207
00:18:09.100 --> 00:18:18.740
It only costs other people the marginal cost and therefore there's a lack of utility.

208
00:18:18.740 --> 00:18:23.340
Well this commits the fallacy of interpersonal utility comparisons.

209
00:18:23.340 --> 00:18:28.140
Another problem is for the Austrians, once the thing is produced, it's got no cost.

210
00:18:28.140 --> 00:18:35.740
Remember, what the cost is alternatives foregone, and if you've already produced it, there's no alternatives foregone.

211
00:18:35.740 --> 00:18:48.540
So, what we could do if we took that into account is move to a slightly different diagram here where there are no costs.

212
00:18:48.540 --> 00:18:53.540
The marginal costs and the average costs are coincident with the horizontal axis,

213
00:18:53.540 --> 00:19:08.140
But still we have evil monopoly because the marginal revenue curve and the marginal cost curve hit here and so you get this M, P, M, Q, M and this would be P, C and Q, C.

214
00:19:08.140 --> 00:19:21.140
So again we have the deadweight loss but so we now don't have the problem of costs in the alternatives foregone sense.

215
00:19:21.140 --> 00:19:23.580
Let me start that again.

216
00:19:23.580 --> 00:19:29.300
Most economic textbooks in the beginning, when they talk about cost, they say it's alternative cost foregone.

217
00:19:29.300 --> 00:19:36.580
But then, another chapter later, or a couple of pages later, they give you this stuff, which completely violates that.

218
00:19:36.580 --> 00:19:43.500
There is a book, I think Thirlby and Buchanan, which goes into this.

219
00:19:43.500 --> 00:19:46.180
Buchanan is not an Austrian.

220
00:19:46.180 --> 00:19:49.380
He thinks Austrian is a cult, which is a whole other issue.

221
00:19:49.380 --> 00:19:53.180
But on cost, subjective cost, he's pretty good or he's pretty Austrian.

222
00:19:53.180 --> 00:19:56.680
I guess he's a cultist on that one issue.

223
00:19:56.680 --> 00:20:04.880
Okay, another problem with this diagram,

224
00:20:04.880 --> 00:20:10.080
and this is something that my colleague and good friend Bill Barnett and I just wrote an article on is,

225
00:20:10.080 --> 00:20:15.080
see, when you have this, let's look at the demand curve here and the marginal revenue curve here.

226
00:20:15.080 --> 00:20:21.080
The reason they diverge is every time you sell one more unit, you go from here to here.

227
00:20:21.080 --> 00:20:31.280
What you do is you sell one extra unit, but all the previous units you get one penny less for, right?

228
00:20:31.280 --> 00:20:35.680
So the marginal revenue diverges from the average revenue.

229
00:20:35.680 --> 00:20:40.580
The demand curve is really the average revenue curve in neoclassical economics.

230
00:20:40.580 --> 00:20:42.780
So you get a marginal revenue curve.

231
00:20:42.780 --> 00:20:50.980
Well, what Bill and I are saying is, look, this deviation, this lowering of price, it's really a cost.

232
00:20:50.980 --> 00:20:56.780
So, what we're going to do, notice here there's no marginal revenue curve, I've just got it in dots.

233
00:20:56.780 --> 00:21:07.180
The real way to deal with the divergence of average revenue and marginal revenue is not to make a marginal revenue curve,

234
00:21:07.180 --> 00:21:14.980
but rather to make marginal costs higher, to indicate the losses that you obtain when you sell one more unit

235
00:21:14.980 --> 00:21:20.180
given that we're not having, what is it, no price discrimination anymore, you have to sell the price,

236
00:21:20.180 --> 00:21:23.580
have to sell the quantity for the same price.

237
00:21:23.580 --> 00:21:28.380
So if we get the proper marginal cost curve, notice what we get.

238
00:21:28.380 --> 00:21:35.280
We get the point M, another attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, we get the point M is the optimal point

239
00:21:35.280 --> 00:21:38.580
And what we ought to do is put the perfect competitor in jail.

240
00:21:38.580 --> 00:21:40.980
So I think the title of our paper was, you know,

241
00:21:40.980 --> 00:21:45.180
put the perfect competitors in jail or some, you know,

242
00:21:45.180 --> 00:21:47.780
non-historical title like that.

243
00:21:47.780 --> 00:21:51.180
And you can also illustrate that same point here.

244
00:21:51.180 --> 00:21:54.780
Namely, if you don't have a marginal revenue curve,

245
00:21:54.780 --> 00:21:58.980
the old marginal cost is over here because sunken costs are sunk.

246
00:21:58.980 --> 00:22:04.780
But the new marginal cost curve takes up over there and hits M.

247
00:22:04.780 --> 00:22:10.460
So again, the point that they say is a misallocation of resources, we say is really perfectly competitive.

248
00:22:10.460 --> 00:22:17.420
I mean, the whole thing is just sort of kablooey because when you start with, what is it garbage in, garbage out?

249
00:22:17.420 --> 00:22:25.300
When you start with garbage and you infer or deduce logically from it, you get garbage results.

250
00:22:25.300 --> 00:22:27.420
And that's what we're trying to do with our reductios.

251
00:22:34.780 --> 00:22:42.780
Another problem that Murray says, if you take seriously this diagram,

252
00:22:44.780 --> 00:22:46.780
there it is,

253
00:22:49.780 --> 00:22:52.780
if you take seriously this diagram, Murray says,

254
00:22:52.780 --> 00:22:57.780
well look, if this is the optimal point and every company is monopolistic to some degree or another,

255
00:22:57.780 --> 00:23:01.780
we ought to have unemployment in general equilibrium,

256
00:23:01.780 --> 00:23:03.780
which ought to be a problem for the mainstream.

257
00:23:03.780 --> 00:23:08.780
You know, if everybody is withholding, if everybody is restraining trade to some degree or other,

258
00:23:08.780 --> 00:23:14.780
the monopolists do it more than the quasi-perfect competitors, but everybody is cutting back,

259
00:23:14.780 --> 00:23:17.780
well, there ought to be unemployment.

260
00:23:17.780 --> 00:23:20.780
Another point that Murray gets from Mises is what I call the grumbler.

261
00:23:20.780 --> 00:23:23.780
I think this is a point made in a previous session.

262
00:23:23.780 --> 00:23:28.780
Notice who you're blaming for not producing enough, the people who are producing pretty much.

263
00:23:28.780 --> 00:23:31.780
If you want to blame people for not producing enough for this,

264
00:23:31.780 --> 00:23:35.780
If you're not producing enough of this, go blame someone who's not producing any.

265
00:23:35.780 --> 00:23:39.780
If you think the price of oil is too high or computers are too high,

266
00:23:39.780 --> 00:23:45.780
don't put those people in jail, put the people, put McDonald's in jail for not producing enough oil.

267
00:23:45.780 --> 00:23:50.780
I mean, it makes more sense if you're going to, again, if you're going to start with that logic

268
00:23:50.780 --> 00:23:58.780
and you're going to deduce correctly, you would be putting anyone else in jail except for the so-called monopolists.

269
00:23:58.780 --> 00:24:05.780
This is the point that Peter made about the circularity of these curves, which I won't go into.

270
00:24:07.780 --> 00:24:15.780
Okay, the next point I want to make is my favorite diagram of Murray Rothbard's.

271
00:24:15.780 --> 00:24:20.780
And my favorite diagram of Murray Rothbard's appears right here.

272
00:24:20.780 --> 00:24:24.780
Let me make that bigger.

273
00:24:24.780 --> 00:24:31.780
I, I don't know, if, if the Mises Institute had a flag, they were going to make another, a black flag.

274
00:24:31.780 --> 00:24:36.780
They should put that sucker on the flag. It's just such a gorgeous flag.

275
00:24:36.780 --> 00:24:49.780
Because what they're saying is, see, what the mainstream types are saying is that there's an inefficiency of monopolistic competition

276
00:24:49.780 --> 00:24:55.480
because what you have is an average cost curve is the familiar U-shaped cost curve.

277
00:24:55.480 --> 00:25:02.480
Again, this is just in mainstream economics, but an awful lot of what Austrians do is critique mainstream economics.

278
00:25:02.480 --> 00:25:07.480
I like to tell my students that when they take our courses from Austrians,

279
00:25:07.480 --> 00:25:10.480
not only will they get the mainstream stuff, but they'll get critiques of it,

280
00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:15.480
which will make the mainstream stuff come even more alive than if you just tell it without a critique.

281
00:25:15.480 --> 00:25:21.280
But the reality of graduate education now is that an Austrian must know the mainstream,

282
00:25:21.280 --> 00:25:23.880
otherwise they're sort of not with it.

283
00:25:23.880 --> 00:25:27.080
But you see the point B is the most efficient point.

284
00:25:27.080 --> 00:25:33.980
But if you have a downward sloping demand curve, the only place that it can be tangent is at some point A up and to the left of B,

285
00:25:33.980 --> 00:25:35.580
which is inefficient.

286
00:25:35.580 --> 00:25:38.880
And what Murray is doing in effect,

287
00:25:38.880 --> 00:25:42.680
and now I'm going to exaggerate greatly what he did,

288
00:25:42.680 --> 00:25:51.480
is I'm going to have an average cost curve in two ways.

289
00:25:51.480 --> 00:25:55.880
The top one is an average cost curve, but it's not a smooth curve.

290
00:25:55.880 --> 00:25:58.080
And the second one isn't smooth either.

291
00:25:58.080 --> 00:26:01.280
And the point is that you can have, well, not a tangency,

292
00:26:01.280 --> 00:26:03.480
but a touching of a downward sloping demand curve

293
00:26:03.480 --> 00:26:05.580
and this sort of an average cost curve

294
00:26:05.580 --> 00:26:10.480
if you have it a kinked curve rather than a smooth curve.

295
00:26:10.480 --> 00:26:34.480
And here Murray comes up with something, a constant refrain among Austrians, and that is that what the mainstream is doing is that economics is supposed to be the dog and the tail is supposed to be math, namely, math is supposed to serve economics, but here the dog is mathematics and the economics is serving the mathematical dog, if I could put it in such terms.

296
00:26:34.480 --> 00:26:38.480
Why do they like smooth curves? Are they smoother than we are?

297
00:26:38.480 --> 00:26:42.480
No, it's because smooth curves, you can differentiate them and you can have tangencies,

298
00:26:42.480 --> 00:26:50.480
whereas curves that are more realistic, that show human action, which is not infinitesimally divisible,

299
00:26:50.480 --> 00:26:56.480
gets this sort of a result.

300
00:26:56.480 --> 00:27:02.480
And so the inefficiency of the market is solely a function of indivisibility,

301
00:27:02.480 --> 00:27:10.240
The inefficiency of the market here is solely a function of the smoothness of the curve.

302
00:27:10.240 --> 00:27:17.840
When you make the curve non-smooth, then you don't get any inefficiency.

303
00:27:17.840 --> 00:27:25.600
Now there was this horrible curve.

304
00:27:25.600 --> 00:27:29.340
The one I originally showed you was from an earlier version.

305
00:27:29.340 --> 00:27:53.180
The later version of this is a very poorly drawn version of it, I'll get this in a second, here it is.

306
00:27:53.180 --> 00:27:58.780
See, if you look at your page 734, that's a smooth average cost curve.

307
00:27:58.780 --> 00:28:01.780
The guy who drew that should be shot.

308
00:28:01.780 --> 00:28:04.780
I've just joined this group called Libertarians for Force and Fraud,

309
00:28:04.780 --> 00:28:07.780
so it's okay to shoot people for drawing things badly.

310
00:28:07.780 --> 00:28:10.780
But in the next revision of this...

311
00:28:10.780 --> 00:28:12.780
Ah, okay, I didn't know if you had,

312
00:28:12.780 --> 00:28:16.780
but the next one should be one of those two versions.

313
00:28:16.780 --> 00:28:20.780
The earlier version was a little bit better, but it wasn't as sharply...

314
00:28:20.780 --> 00:28:26.780
Good. Okay. Well, we can trust Joe on artistic kinds of things.

315
00:28:33.780 --> 00:28:36.780
There are other kinds of monopoly that Murray covers.

316
00:28:36.780 --> 00:28:40.780
Locational monopoly, natural monopoly, unions, patents.

317
00:28:40.780 --> 00:28:43.780
I'll not cover locational monopoly.

318
00:28:43.780 --> 00:28:47.780
I will cover natural monopoly in my section on

319
00:28:47.780 --> 00:28:53.780
and privatizing courts and police, which are said to be natural monopolies.

320
00:28:53.780 --> 00:29:00.780
I won't do unions even though it's a beautiful, beautiful 30 pages in there, a magnificent 30.

321
00:29:00.780 --> 00:29:03.780
If you want to read about unions, read those 30 pages.

322
00:29:03.780 --> 00:29:07.780
And I won't do patents now because I've been asked questions about patents.

323
00:29:07.780 --> 00:29:12.780
So I will now get to the formally written questions.

324
00:29:12.780 --> 00:29:18.780
Okay, the first one is, can you contrast Rothbard's position on copyright with that of Mises and Hayek?

325
00:29:18.780 --> 00:29:25.780
Well, I was too lazy to look up Mises and Hayek on patents, so I can't, but what I will do instead,

326
00:29:25.780 --> 00:29:31.780
this is a good professorial type of thing, whenever you can answer a question or are too lazy to look it up,

327
00:29:31.780 --> 00:29:35.780
just answer a different question and you can fool the ogle sometimes.

328
00:29:35.780 --> 00:29:41.780
Well, the question I'll answer is, what's the difference between Rothbard and Kinsella?

329
00:29:41.780 --> 00:29:51.780
I regard Kinsella as the main man on patents and copyrights. Kinsella won the award for the best article in JLS, QJ?

330
00:29:51.780 --> 00:29:57.780
JLS. But before I get into that, I just want to tell you guys a little story.

331
00:29:57.780 --> 00:30:06.780
My first meeting with Murray at a formal convention was at the New York State Economics Convention.

332
00:30:06.780 --> 00:30:11.820
and he gave a paper and I was his commentator and I forget the exact point

333
00:30:11.820 --> 00:30:20.140
that I made it was in my one of my very first articles in around 1973 or four on

334
00:30:20.140 --> 00:30:24.780
on ethics ethics and economics and Murray gave this point and I criticized

335
00:30:24.780 --> 00:30:27.620
him I said well you know professor Rothbard is right here but he made this

336
00:30:27.620 --> 00:30:31.140
mistake and then when Murray came to reply said well I accept professor

337
00:30:31.140 --> 00:30:46.140
and Joseph Block's criticism. This is remarkable. I mean, if Ayn Rand were giving a paper and some Randian randroid criticized her paper, that would be it.

338
00:30:46.140 --> 00:30:57.140
The next episode was Hoppe. Hans Hoppe came up with what I regard as a brilliant, magnificent insight about the argument from argument,

339
00:30:57.140 --> 00:31:03.440
which I won't go into now, but it's sort of an establishment of the principles of libertarianism.

340
00:31:03.440 --> 00:31:09.640
And Murray had written about this years before, and Hans's was clearly better than Murray's.

341
00:31:09.640 --> 00:31:14.140
And what was Murray's reaction to this? Was it, well, you know, Hans is a young pup in the hell with him,

342
00:31:14.140 --> 00:31:17.640
or, you know, he disagrees with me, therefore he must be wrong? No.

343
00:31:17.640 --> 00:31:21.940
Murray took the attitude, well, Hans is right, Hans is magnificent,

344
00:31:21.940 --> 00:31:26.440
and Murray defended Hans's insights against all sorts of critics.

345
00:31:26.440 --> 00:31:37.440
Well, Stefan Kinsella wrote his paper after Murray passed away. Murray passed away in 1995, Kinsella was 2000, 2001, something like that.

346
00:31:37.440 --> 00:31:43.440
I have to believe that if Murray were alive when Stefan wrote his paper, Murray would have said,

347
00:31:43.440 --> 00:31:55.440
you're right, I was wrong, and I take the Kinsellian position, and for those of you who want to read more about patents and copyrights, go get Kinsella in the JLS.

348
00:31:55.440 --> 00:32:03.080
What Kinsella is saying is that property rights only apply to scarce things.

349
00:32:03.080 --> 00:32:10.600
And information, recipes, once they're out there, are no longer scarce.

350
00:32:10.600 --> 00:32:16.680
So if one of you were to take my book, Defending the Undefendable, and print it,

351
00:32:16.680 --> 00:32:20.160
without my permission, would you be stealing anything of mine?

352
00:32:20.160 --> 00:32:22.480
Kinsella says no, I say no.

353
00:32:22.480 --> 00:32:26.240
If one girl puts her hair up in a ponytail and another girl then sees it and puts her

354
00:32:26.240 --> 00:32:29.680
hair up in a ponytail, not that the second girl goes to the first girl and disrupts the

355
00:32:29.680 --> 00:32:34.240
first girl's ponytail, just puts up a second ponytail, did the second girl steal anything

356
00:32:34.240 --> 00:32:41.240
from the first girl? No. Nothing tangible. And the whole point of property rights is

357
00:32:41.920 --> 00:32:46.400
to reduce or eliminate disputes as to who owns property rights. The second girl owns

358
00:32:46.400 --> 00:33:02.400
So what's her head of here? Not the first girl. Similarly with copyrights for music or for books or medicines, pharmacies, whatever it is.

359
00:33:02.400 --> 00:33:12.400
Now, here's another question.

360
00:33:12.400 --> 00:33:15.400
I sort of lost my track of thought.

361
00:33:15.400 --> 00:33:17.400
Let me start again.

362
00:33:17.400 --> 00:33:20.400
Murray took the view that there was a difference between copyrights and patents.

363
00:33:20.400 --> 00:33:24.400
What he said is patents are illegitimate because if there were two people

364
00:33:24.400 --> 00:33:28.400
who were inventing the bicycle and one guy gets the patent office five minutes

365
00:33:28.400 --> 00:33:31.400
before the other guy, the first guy gets the patents of the bicycle

366
00:33:31.400 --> 00:33:43.400
The second guy gets nothing even though they both worked on it for five years and that, in a sense, if you believe in that ideas give you property rights, well then the second guy has been stolen from.

367
00:33:43.400 --> 00:33:51.400
The burden of proof would be on the second guy to prove that he invented it independently.

368
00:33:51.400 --> 00:34:10.400
He did favor copyrights, but see the problem with copyrights, and the problem with the reductio against this, is if you really believe that you own things because you created ideas about them, then why do patents and copyrights only last 15 years?

369
00:34:10.400 --> 00:34:17.400
I own this wristwatch and I'm going to own it forever, and if it lasts longer I can give it to my son, my grandchildren, whatever, great grandchildren can get it.

370
00:34:17.400 --> 00:34:25.040
But if I create some idea, why only 17 years or 92 years or the life of this or that, it's silly.

371
00:34:25.040 --> 00:34:32.880
Secondly, to use Hans Hoppe's insights, you commit a performative contradiction when you attack,

372
00:34:32.880 --> 00:34:37.760
when you defend the idea of patents or copyrights or intellectual property. Why is that?

373
00:34:37.760 --> 00:34:43.360
Because notice, let's say here I now do it. I say, patents and copyrights are great.

374
00:34:43.360 --> 00:34:46.240
People do own their ideas.

375
00:34:46.240 --> 00:34:50.120
Notice I just used a whole bunch of words in the English language.

376
00:34:50.120 --> 00:34:53.440
Each one of those words was created by somebody.

377
00:34:53.440 --> 00:34:57.640
Say, the word, the, was created by Mr. The.

378
00:34:57.640 --> 00:35:01.920
And I should have to pay him before I used the word, the.

379
00:35:01.920 --> 00:35:04.840
And I don't know where he is, so I can't say the word, the.

380
00:35:04.840 --> 00:35:09.680
But so for every other word in the English or any other language, namely, you can't say this.

381
00:35:09.680 --> 00:35:14.360
because the mere saying of it denies rights and intellectual property.

382
00:35:14.360 --> 00:35:22.880
So the thing is shown to be fallacious on the grounds of performative contradiction.

383
00:35:22.880 --> 00:35:25.480
Okay, some more questions.

384
00:35:25.480 --> 00:35:29.920
Transactions cost should affect both the effectiveness of a cartel or monopolist

385
00:35:29.920 --> 00:35:32.560
and possible entrance into the market.

386
00:35:32.560 --> 00:35:36.960
Does Austrian economics find transactions cost useful in the analysis of the market?

387
00:35:36.960 --> 00:35:42.560
And if so, in what sense does Austrian economics include or embrace this concept?

388
00:35:42.560 --> 00:35:47.800
I agree with Peter totally, except with the way he spells Cosian.

389
00:35:47.800 --> 00:35:51.520
I think it should be C-O-A-S-E-A-N, and he spells it I-A-N.

390
00:35:51.520 --> 00:36:00.920
But apart from that, I think that transactions costs have a good wall to play in the size of the firm.

391
00:36:00.920 --> 00:36:06.240
The waiter, when the waiter goes to the cook and says, you know, get me a roast beef,

392
00:36:06.240 --> 00:36:09.040
The cook doesn't say, well, that'll be $20 or something.

393
00:36:09.040 --> 00:36:14.240
They just order each other around under the orders of the manager of the restaurant.

394
00:36:14.240 --> 00:36:15.740
That's fine.

395
00:36:15.740 --> 00:36:22.240
But there's another use of Cosianism transactions cost, which is highly problematic.

396
00:36:22.240 --> 00:36:24.140
And a lot of Austrians have criticized this.

397
00:36:24.140 --> 00:36:27.940
So let me give you the two-minute version of the evil coast.

398
00:36:27.940 --> 00:36:34.940
And the evil coast, I think, pervades everything is ever written except for the theory of the firm.

399
00:36:34.940 --> 00:36:40.060
For example, the lighthouse business, he's now seen as a good guy in the lighthouse,

400
00:36:40.060 --> 00:36:44.460
but my buddy Bill Barnett and I have two articles out attacking him viciously on the lighthouse.

401
00:36:44.460 --> 00:36:48.500
I'll get to the lighthouse in one of my later subjects, but, you know,

402
00:36:48.500 --> 00:36:54.820
sort of mentioning the word COAS is like a red flag in front of a bull I sort of want to attack.

403
00:36:54.820 --> 00:36:58.380
Okay, so here's the two-minute version of COAS.

404
00:36:58.380 --> 00:37:00.220
For COAS, there are two states of the world.

405
00:37:00.220 --> 00:37:03.340
There's the zero transactions cost state of the world,

406
00:37:03.340 --> 00:37:06.340
and then there's the high transactions cost state of the world.

407
00:37:06.340 --> 00:37:09.500
Now, in the zero transactions cost state of the world,

408
00:37:09.500 --> 00:37:14.020
if I'm having a dispute with someone, say Bob,

409
00:37:14.020 --> 00:37:18.380
Bob Murphy and I are having a dispute as to who is the proper owner of this wristwatch.

410
00:37:18.380 --> 00:37:24.460
Well, what Coase says is that in the zero transactions state of the world,

411
00:37:24.460 --> 00:37:30.340
it doesn't matter who the court awards the wristwatch to, to me or to Bob.

412
00:37:30.340 --> 00:37:32.940
Suppose I really value it a lot more.

413
00:37:32.940 --> 00:37:35.820
Well, if the court values it to me, I'll keep it.

414
00:37:35.820 --> 00:37:40.140
On the other hand, if the court awards the wristwatch to Bob,

415
00:37:40.140 --> 00:37:41.420
I'll bribe him out of it.

416
00:37:41.420 --> 00:37:43.460
Namely, he doesn't really value it as much as I do,

417
00:37:43.460 --> 00:37:46.220
and there are no transactions, costs of making bargains.

418
00:37:46.220 --> 00:37:48.780
So I'll say, hey, Bob, the court gave you the watch,

419
00:37:48.780 --> 00:37:50.220
but I'll give you 20 bucks for it.

420
00:37:50.220 --> 00:37:50.740
What are you saying?

421
00:37:50.740 --> 00:37:52.500
He says, sure, I don't really want it that much,

422
00:37:52.500 --> 00:37:56.580
and I really do want it, so I get it.

423
00:37:56.580 --> 00:37:58.820
I had a big debate with Demsets over that.

424
00:37:58.820 --> 00:38:02.020
I think that's wrong for certain technical reasons.

425
00:38:02.020 --> 00:38:08.740
Mainly, it depends upon whether I have enough money to bribe Bob out of it, but that's a minor point.

426
00:38:08.740 --> 00:38:14.140
The major point is, now we have the high transactions cost of the world.

427
00:38:14.140 --> 00:38:22.780
Think pollution. There are, I don't know, 50 million cars and 300 million recipients of the pollution.

428
00:38:22.780 --> 00:38:27.500
So who owns the right to pollute, the cars or the recipients of the pollution?

429
00:38:27.500 --> 00:38:32.500
If you award it to one of the other guys, you can't make a bargain with so many millions of people.

430
00:38:32.500 --> 00:38:38.500
So now it really is important who the court awards the wristwatch to.

431
00:38:38.500 --> 00:38:42.500
So if they award it to me, I'll keep it.

432
00:38:42.500 --> 00:38:50.100
And if they award it to him, he'll keep it because we can't bribe each other out of it so that the better user of it gets it.

433
00:38:50.100 --> 00:38:54.700
So what is Coase's advice to the court as to who should get it?

434
00:38:54.700 --> 00:39:01.440
Coase's advice to the court is, give it to whoever would have got it in the zero-transactions cost model.

435
00:39:01.440 --> 00:39:07.580
Notice that for Coase, property rights are future-oriented, right?

436
00:39:07.580 --> 00:39:15.620
Whereas the libertarian view on property rights is past-oriented, namely, who homesteaded, who bought it, who made it,

437
00:39:15.620 --> 00:39:20.740
who got it as a gift, who won it in a bet, things like that.

438
00:39:20.740 --> 00:39:25.060
There are several reductios that you could use on this.

439
00:39:28.100 --> 00:39:30.740
Suppose Bob values this watch more than I in the court.

440
00:39:30.740 --> 00:39:34.340
First of all, how is the bloody court going to know any of this?

441
00:39:34.340 --> 00:39:37.020
That's one very important problem.

442
00:39:37.020 --> 00:39:43.340
The second one is, suppose Bob is a utility monster.

443
00:39:43.340 --> 00:39:44.860
He loves everything.

444
00:39:44.860 --> 00:39:47.900
You know, there was this cartoon, not a cartoon,

445
00:39:47.900 --> 00:39:50.340
an ad about Billy, let's let Billy eat it.

446
00:39:50.340 --> 00:39:53.340
He hates everything, so if he likes this serial, it's good.

447
00:39:53.340 --> 00:39:54.340
Life serial?

448
00:39:54.340 --> 00:39:55.340
Mikey.

449
00:39:55.340 --> 00:39:56.340
Mikey, Mikey.

450
00:39:56.340 --> 00:39:58.840
Well, Bobby loves everything.

451
00:39:58.840 --> 00:40:01.780
So he'll get to own everything in the whole world.

452
00:40:01.780 --> 00:40:05.460
Because he loves things more than the rest of us do.

453
00:40:05.460 --> 00:40:08.000
Or take the case of rape.

454
00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:13.140
If somebody rapes somebody, the old-fashioned court would say, well, this is an invasion

455
00:40:13.140 --> 00:40:17.660
of property rights of the female body.

456
00:40:17.660 --> 00:40:21.100
Under the Coasean analysis, not so fast.

457
00:40:21.100 --> 00:40:23.780
We have to go into the costs and the benefits.

458
00:40:23.780 --> 00:40:30.360
And if the rape victim had low self-esteem or was a prostitute or whatever, and the raper

459
00:40:30.360 --> 00:40:35.060
was a guy at sea for three months and really needed it or something, and his value of the

460
00:40:35.060 --> 00:40:38.940
rape was more than her costs, and how we're going to determine that, who knows?

461
00:40:38.940 --> 00:40:41.940
Well, he could go scot-free.

462
00:40:41.940 --> 00:40:47.420
One of my articles on this was defending, what's his name, O.J. Simpson, on the case

463
00:40:47.420 --> 00:40:52.740
So the murder of his wife, and I was saying, well, you know, he was a case for O.J., the Kosian case for O.J.

464
00:40:52.740 --> 00:40:57.620
Sure he killed her, but he should go free, because he valued her death more than she valued her life.

465
00:40:57.620 --> 00:41:01.740
And who's going to say no? I mean, the whole thing is preposterous.

466
00:41:01.740 --> 00:41:09.340
And yet, there are now, there are now courts, there are now, most law schools have a law on economics.

467
00:41:09.340 --> 00:41:15.380
I mean, Posner and Kosin, Demsets and those guys are taking over the law schools, a lot like wildfire.

468
00:41:15.380 --> 00:41:19.300
And this is the sort of stuff that they're peddling.

469
00:41:19.300 --> 00:41:22.900
Okay, the next question.

470
00:41:22.900 --> 00:41:25.980
Rothbard argues that if consumers were really angry...

471
00:41:25.980 --> 00:41:28.980
How much time? When do I go into it?

472
00:41:28.980 --> 00:41:30.700
Oh, so I got a few more minutes.

473
00:41:30.700 --> 00:41:34.780
Rothbard argues that if consumers were really angry at this monopolistic action,

474
00:41:34.780 --> 00:41:39.580
they could easily make their demand curves elastic. Remember I illustrated that?

475
00:41:39.580 --> 00:41:42.460
What about OPEC in the 70s?

476
00:41:42.460 --> 00:41:55.460
Well, I think this applies to OPEC or anything, but OPEC is a little different than the ordinary cartel because it's a cartel run by governments, so it's not a full analogy.

477
00:41:55.460 --> 00:42:10.460
You see, most neoclassical economists say that cartels are subject to break up from internal and external contradictions, namely if the cartel raises the price higher.

478
00:42:10.460 --> 00:42:15.380
Each member of the cartel has an incentive to cheat a little bit, to produce a little

479
00:42:15.380 --> 00:42:20.900
bit more than they're called for, and that'll break up the cartel from internal cheating.

480
00:42:20.900 --> 00:42:27.060
And from external entry, if the cartel succeeds in raising prices, there'll be more profits

481
00:42:27.060 --> 00:42:32.100
and other people will enter in order to get those profits, so cartels are unstable.

482
00:42:32.100 --> 00:42:39.100
Murray makes those points too, but he says, look, a cartel is just like a cooperative

483
00:42:39.100 --> 00:42:44.260
Adventure, and the ultimate end of a cartel is a firm. You know, so what's wrong with a cartel?

484
00:42:44.260 --> 00:42:53.300
A very different way of looking at cartels than the mainstream do it. Okay, the next one is,

485
00:42:53.300 --> 00:43:03.380
how is there not a monopoly price as I learned to solve for in micro? I'm sorry, there's no

486
00:43:03.380 --> 00:43:25.380
What is it, Virginia? I hate to burst your bubble, but just because you solve for it in micro class doesn't mean that there's a legitimate distinction between monopoly and competition, and I gave my illustrations about that.

487
00:43:25.380 --> 00:43:29.380
Here's another one on patents. This is the one I was looking for before.

488
00:43:29.380 --> 00:43:37.380
If there were no patents, what would be the incentive for drug companies to invest billions in new drugs if another company could come along and copy it?

489
00:43:37.380 --> 00:43:47.380
Now, that's a very good utilitarian or practical objection to the Kinsellian view on patents and copyrights.

490
00:43:47.380 --> 00:43:55.380
Kinsella makes two points. First of all, he says, look, what we want to do is first find out what the law should be.

491
00:43:55.380 --> 00:44:03.460
And if the law is predicated on libertarian law of non-aggression, well then patent violations

492
00:44:03.460 --> 00:44:08.980
do not violate that and should be allowed, namely intellectual property is not a legitimate

493
00:44:08.980 --> 00:44:09.980
subject.

494
00:44:09.980 --> 00:44:16.360
Then he makes another point, he says, as a matter of practicality, it's not clear that

495
00:44:16.360 --> 00:44:17.660
patents will help.

496
00:44:17.660 --> 00:44:22.520
See, right now, if you want to invent something, what you have to do is go through a minefield

497
00:44:22.520 --> 00:44:25.040
of other patents, right?

498
00:44:25.040 --> 00:44:29.880
You have to hire a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of chemists or physicists or engineers

499
00:44:29.880 --> 00:44:34.360
to make sure that, in other words, if the best way to invent your new thing is to just

500
00:44:34.360 --> 00:44:38.000
go directly, you can't go directly because there are patents like landmines all over

501
00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:39.000
the place.

502
00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:42.000
You have to go here, you have to zig there, you have to go there.

503
00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:46.640
So by the end of the day, it's a little hard to, it's an empirical question as to whether

504
00:44:46.640 --> 00:44:51.440
we'd have more or less inventions with patents or intellectual property or not.

505
00:44:51.440 --> 00:45:00.440
And Kinsella says, well, you know, let's get the law compatible with the basics of justice or libertarian law. Let's not worry about that.

506
00:45:00.440 --> 00:45:08.440
Another point that he makes is that there's a whole bunch of things that everyone thought wouldn't be but were.

507
00:45:08.440 --> 00:45:15.440
For example, when Betamax and VCRs first came out, everyone said there'd be no more movies.

508
00:45:15.440 --> 00:45:24.440
Because you go to a movie, it's ten bucks each, you go rent a VCR for three bucks and you get 25 of your best friends in there.

509
00:45:24.440 --> 00:45:30.440
It's a lot cheaper. The idea, what they found was timing is very important.

510
00:45:30.440 --> 00:45:36.440
The VCR doesn't come out until six months later, and if you want to see the movie now, you go buy it.

511
00:45:36.440 --> 00:45:43.440
So movies weren't ruined. When paperback books came out, you young folk don't remember, in your lives there are always paperbacks,

512
00:45:43.440 --> 00:45:48.880
But us old fogies, we remember the days before paper, I'm not sure about that, but I think so.

513
00:45:48.880 --> 00:45:55.480
But when, maybe not, I'm no historian, but when paperback books first came out,

514
00:45:55.480 --> 00:46:01.640
everyone said nobody produced hardcover books anymore because you'd wait for the paperback.

515
00:46:01.640 --> 00:46:03.560
But that wasn't so.

516
00:46:03.560 --> 00:46:08.800
Another example is Paris gowns, and I'm not a crossdresser, so I'm not as into this as I could be.

517
00:46:08.800 --> 00:46:12.160
Some of you experts in the audience will correct me if I'm wrong on this.

518
00:46:12.160 --> 00:46:16.520
I think David Weir's dress... No, I'm just kidding.

519
00:46:16.520 --> 00:46:26.360
My understanding of the Paris dresses is they sell for 10,000 bucks and then six months later you can buy them in Mises for 50 bucks or something like that.

520
00:46:26.360 --> 00:46:34.280
And they're exact copies, but the point is that if you can make the thing sooner, you can get a lot of money right away.

521
00:46:34.280 --> 00:46:41.480
So even if you invent something for a drug or a movie or something like that,

522
00:46:41.480 --> 00:46:48.080
You can make hay while the sun shines and there still will be a lot of productivity.

523
00:46:48.080 --> 00:46:55.480
Another point, if one of you were to plagiarize one of my books and start selling it,

524
00:46:55.480 --> 00:47:01.880
what you would do is shift out the demand curve to the right for my lecturing services and I'll get a lot more money.

525
00:47:01.880 --> 00:47:09.580
So, and usually you don't get that much money from book sales, but you get more from, what do you call it, the lecture gigs.

526
00:47:09.580 --> 00:47:16.860
Same for music. If you start pirating some rock and roll group and giving it to all your friends,

527
00:47:16.860 --> 00:47:20.380
then more people want to hear them at a live concert.

528
00:47:20.380 --> 00:47:24.180
So it's unclear as to which way the empirics go.

529
00:47:24.180 --> 00:47:30.860
It's an empirical question. It's thymological, it's not praxeological.

530
00:47:30.860 --> 00:47:33.540
Okay, I had a few other points that I wanted to make.

531
00:47:33.540 --> 00:47:56.420
So let me see if I can dig them out, here's one, this is on page 700,

532
00:47:56.420 --> 00:48:05.320
The same situation applies for brand names, even those, even in those situations where a minority of the consumers do regard several brands as actually the same good.

533
00:48:05.320 --> 00:48:09.920
As long as the bulk of consumers regard them as different goods, then they are different goods.

534
00:48:09.920 --> 00:48:15.320
I'm going to cross out that business about the prices differ, because that I think is true.

535
00:48:15.320 --> 00:48:19.420
But I don't see why the bulk of consumers have to regard them as different goods.

536
00:48:19.420 --> 00:48:26.120
It seems to me that it's a matter of individualism, and if one person regards it as different, then it's different for him.

537
00:48:26.120 --> 00:48:30.620
So, I think that there's a little weakness here on the question of subjectivity.

538
00:48:30.620 --> 00:48:33.820
Although, I agree that if only a few people diverge,

539
00:48:33.820 --> 00:48:37.720
then this will have much less effect on prices.

540
00:48:37.720 --> 00:48:44.420
Here's another one on 705.

541
00:48:44.420 --> 00:48:49.620
To obtain a monopoly price, he sells only part of the supply and withholds selling the other part

542
00:48:49.620 --> 00:48:53.620
because selling a lower quantity raises the total revenue.

543
00:48:53.620 --> 00:48:56.020
In other words, price should be total revenue there.

544
00:48:56.020 --> 00:49:01.020
Again, I think these are misprints or, I'm sure everyone knows that,

545
00:49:01.020 --> 00:49:06.520
but in the interest of correcting this for the next edition, I thought I'd mention that.

546
00:49:06.520 --> 00:49:14.420
And also, I suppose it's just part of my nature as an attack dog to, you know, when I see some problem to mention it.