[lrcammarosano]

I am with you on the notion that predatory pricing should be illegal is inane. If a company chooses to lower prices to gain market share or for whatever reason, that helps consumers and there is no reason for the government to get involved (indeed other than in cases of fraud or use of force/violence, the government should not be involved).

I am more interested in the creative ways that competitors can learn how to compete against a dominant or “monopolist” company.

Sometimes a company can compete on price by getting financing so they can improve their production, or they can create a better product, or service their product better and not have to compete on price.

The inability of companies to compete shouldn’t mean that the dominant player who achieved that position through foresight, skill and execution should be tossed off its perch by government.

The free market is the most democratic way of solving these issues.

[lrcammarosano]

Great response.
You are correct that the definition of the market place is often the key to making the determination of a monopoly. So for on line search advertising, Google may be dominant and may be deemed a monopoly but as you point out there are other markets for advertising which would reduce Google’s overall percentage of the advertising market.

You are incorrect, however, that for a monopoly to exist it needs to have 100% market share. Courts look to whether the firm has monopoly power to raise prices in part based on market share. If the market share is 75% courts will deem the company a monopoly but that in and of it self does not violated the sherman act, the monopoly must also exhibit “anti-competitive behavior in the exercise of its monopoly position,

To your point if online advertising were dominated by Google and there was no credible alternatives for price and volume, consumers would spend their advertising money offline.

Eventually, as you also point out an online competitors to google would emerge and be able to charge less. The interesting point is how would these competitors emerge-in order to be able to provide advertising opportunities the competitor would need to build audience and would need to compete with the free services that google offers.

That lead me to the blog post idea that perhaps a competitor might have to pay users to build audience to compete with Google’s free.

[lrcammarosano]

Here is a link to the audio reading of Rothbard’s For a New Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuaej3rnLYI

[lrcammarosano]

Obamey is worse because he serves the anti business wing of the statists.
Obamey is worse because 8 years will allow him to soldify his statist views.

[lrcammarosano]

The anti capitalist mentality and Liberalism by Mises are also worthwhile as they
covers some of the same ground as Rothbard.

I also really like -One is a crowd and Income Tax -The Root of all evil by chodorov
Chodorov focuses less on economics than Mises and Rothbard

[lrcammarosano]

Hi Brion
I don’t see any of your books over at mises.org.
Ill be ordering all three of your books at amazon (through lew rockwell’s blog)
Thanks

http://www.amazon.com/Brion-T.-McClanahan/e/B002C1UFMI

[lrcammarosano]

Another easy and rewarding read is For a New Liberty – The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard

This book gives you the essence of Rothbard not in a theoretical way like his Man Economy and State or The Anatomy of the State but against an historic and current events backdrop.

[lrcammarosano]

Rick
Congratulations on the appointment.
Where does the text book start its western civilization overview?

[lrcammarosano]

In Economics in One Lesson Henry Hazlitt argues that the impact of unions on the price of labor in greatly exaggerated (and in typical Austrian economics fashion gives no data to back up the claim)

Hazlitt concedes that labor unions help in the price discovery of the cost of labor.

[lrcammarosano]

Brion I think your point that historians tend to fawn over Presidents who “do something” is important. Start a war, abuse power, issue executive orders and you are a great president. Respect the constitution and you are a loser.
BTW
I am looking ahead in the syllabus and don’t see any thing on the Presidency of Grover Cleveland, I guess he didn’t do anything worth creating a lecture 🙂

[lrcammarosano]

Rothbard follows more in the line of Alfred Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov (no state) than Mises, Hayek and Ron Paul (limited state)

[lrcammarosano]

On Topic Book and a great read:
The Anti Capitalist Mentality by Mises

[lrcammarosano]

Those that believe war is good for the economy are the same people that believe in the broken window fallacy

See Frederic Bastiat and Henry Hazlett (Economics in one lesson) for a refutation of this senseless argument.

Don’t like to read? Check out these videos

[lrcammarosano]

Ted Sorenson is often “credited” with ghost writing Profiles in Courage

[lrcammarosano]

Brian wrote: “I’m becoming increasingly convinced that true libertarians generally do poorly in politics because they have absolutely no interest in controlling other people.”

This is true and is the reason that Frank Chodorov (One is a Crowd and Income Tax- The Root of all Evil) did not vote as he saw no reason to provide the state with the affirmation of his vote.

See also Our Enemy the State by Albert ay Nock-Chodorov’s intellectual mentor.

[Author]

Posts