And presumably this also holds if there is a legally protected monopoly? Even if the government outlaws competition, the company’s costs are still bid up and the company eventually earns no profits. So the social harm lies in the suppression of production; the monopolist does not profit by the monopoly any more than he would if he had competition (except maybe in the period immediately after the monopoly was granted when he might earn a windfall profit and costs have not yet been bid up). Have I got that right?
