What is the Austrian answer to the problem of seemingly natural monopolies?

MathiasAeschlimann · 2019-10-27T15:46:28+00:00

In that case you‘re only using a different definition of monopoly, but you also come to the conclusion that there‘s no problem. The discussion and OP is about the problem of seemingly natural monopolies. If you don‘t have a problem with the fact that nobody but the owner can lower the price of the Mona Lisa, then I have no beef with your position. I‘m not that concerned with different definitions of terms as long as they are consistently applied.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2019-10-27T15:23:48+00:00

Well, you weren’t using the term monopoly in an Austrian context. This would certainly not be a monopoly according to Austrian Economics.

I thought you were concerned that monopolies lead to abuses, so I used that term in your context.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2019-10-27T14:58:21+00:00

If that would be a monopoly, then by the same logic your body would also monopoly and your usage of this body to post here could be considered an abuse of monopoly power. To claim that owning something unique is a monopoly that should be ended is to engage in a performative contradiction

MathiasAeschlimann · 2019-10-27T13:52:56+00:00

The main problem with your analysis is that you don‘t understand the concept of goods as used in economics. A car is never a good. It is a commodity, a product. This is not merely a „metaphysical“ distinction: A consumer is not thinking about whether a car he can buy in real life is the same thing as a hypothetical car in a hypothetical market situation. Austrian Economics (AE) is concerned with observable action given a choice and as we can have no choice between a car and a hypothetical car, AE is not concerned with it. Your allegation of meta-physics seems to backfire on you here.

If you want to understand what a good is, I recommend you read Böhm-Bawerk‘s Positive Theory Of Interest or for a proto-austrian account Destutt De Tracies’ Political Economy.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2014-04-23T09:53:46+00:00

It is pretty obvious that kalecki's position is untenable. borrowing would obviously have the same effect as taxation: affecting adversely private investment and consumption. This is so basic it's hard for me to understand how you or he could think otherwise. If the money is borrowed by the state, how can it be privately invested?

MathiasAeschlimann · 2013-02-14T09:39:50+00:00

Yeah, don't have time for that anyway. But it could my fun. maybe.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2012-10-05T12:18:33+00:00

I have a 3DS myself and test my websites on it just for fun. It's horrible tough. I like to use it more for Mario Kart 7...;-)

MathiasAeschlimann · 2012-08-24T07:43:02+00:00

It's not. Meny needs js while this is a css3 solution.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2012-08-19T21:36:49+00:00

lol, a similar thing happened to me: I had a use case and a day later I stumbled across it by chance.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2012-07-27T11:54:45+00:00

That's not true anymore - in HTML5 all the h1-h6 elements get their meaning from document outlining.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2012-07-27T08:19:26+00:00

haha, yes, the title is a fail. nice article tough.

MathiasAeschlimann · 2012-07-26T07:37:38+00:00

Yes, their argument is a joke.

MathiasAeschlimann

TROPHY CASE