AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Us monopoly history9/3/2023 ![]() ![]() A revived anti-monopoly movement must make full use of this difference to ensure that taxes encourage investment while eliminating rent-extraction as a business model. A steeply progressive version of the same tax would reduce the economic and political power of monopolists and reintroduce competition in an economy increasingly burdened by rent extraction.įor too long policymakers have failed to distinguish between productive profits and rents derived from market concentration and the control of scarce resources. READ ARTICLE Corporate taxation to curb monopoly power: a brief history and a proposalĬorporate income tax in the United States was originally introduced as an antitrust measure. The resulting social and economic costs of monopoly are artefacts of the political process and can be reversed by government action. READ ARTICLE How local, state, and federal tax policies in the us undermine small business and fuel corporate concentrationįor decades the United States’ tax system has favoured large corporates over locally embedded and competitive firms. But we still have a few more rolls of the dice. It is obvious to everyone that the game is rigged. Monopolists and rentseekers have been running rings round the democratic fiscal state for decades. Either way, preventing entry does not make sense.Reframing tax policy to reset the rules of the monopoly game If, on the other hand, the industry is not a natural monopoly, then preventing competition is undesirable. The reason is as follows: If the industry really is a natural monopoly, then preventing new competitors from entering is unnecessary because no competitor would want to enter anyway. Economists tend to oppose regulating entry. A firm that wants to compete with the local utility, for example, cannot legally do so. Besides regulating price, governments usually prevent competing firms from entering an industry that is thought to be a natural monopoly. Other economists want no regulation because they believe that even natural monopolies must face some competition (electric utilities must compete with home generation of wind power, for example, and industrial customers can sometimes produce their own power or buy it elsewhere), and they want the natural monopoly to have a strong incentive to cut costs. Most favor regulation to prevent the natural monopoly from charging a monopoly price. Whether, and how, government should regulate monopoly is controversial among economists. In other words, selling at a competitive price would transfer $400 from the monopolist to consumers and create an added $220 of value for society. ![]() The monopolist would lose $400 (200 units times the $2 per unit reduction in price), but consumers would gain the same $400. But the monopolist chooses not to produce the extra 220 units because to sell them at $5 apiece he would have to cut the price on the other 200 units from $7 to $5. Producing the extra 220 units, therefore, would benefit society to the tune of $220. Because the monopolist would cover his costs of producing the extra 220 units, he would lose nothing. These additional 220 units would cost only $5 each, so the consumer would gain 220 × $1 of satisfaction if the competitive price of $5 were set. Let us assume these additional 220 units have an average value of $6 for consumers. Now, as these individuals have no advantage given them by the law over other persons, it is clear they can only sell more of their commodity than other persons by producing the commodity cheaper and better.Ĭustomers would be delighted to buy 220 more units if the price were $5: the demand schedule tells us they value the extra 220 units at prices that do not fall to $5 until they have 420 units. If a number of individuals were to unite for the purpose of producing any particular article or commodity, and if they should succeed in selling such article very extensively, and almost solely, such individuals in popular language would be said to have a monopoly. It seems then that the word monopoly was never used in English law, except when there was a royal grant authorizing some one or more persons only to deal in or sell a certain commodity or article. This belief was well expressed in an excellent article on monopoly in the Penny Cyclopedia (1839, vol. The only monopolies that could persist, they thought, were those that got the government to exclude rivals. Before and during the period of the classical economics (roughly 1776–1850), most people believed that this process of monopolies being eroded by new competitors was pervasive. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |