You certainly haven’t addressed the problematic peculiarities and inner contradictions of the concept of monopoly price theory. So either you just don’t get them, or you’re just sort of ignoring them. I think it’s the latter.
That’s just plane nonsense.
Edit: You still haven’t provided a method by which you can point out the monopoly price in a free market. Your initial example failed by your own admission, so.. what now? Show me the farmer earning a monopoly price. Point him out for me.
If a farmer burns his crops in order to raise the price of his crops so as to increase net revenue, and succeeds in raising the price above what it would have been had he not burned the crops, then that is a monopoly price. The italicized part of the last sentence deals with a counterfactual. Counterfactuals are difficult for the economic historian to deal with, but they are widely used in the propositions of Austrian economics.
Any difficulty that an economic historian is confronted with in rigorously determining an instantiation of an economic phenomenon has no bearing on the praxeological validity of the conceptualization of the economic phenomenon.
" But that is not the same thing as saying, “the farmer is burning crops to improve his own lot via changing the structure of production to better serve consumers,” because the concrete act of burning the crops is not an instance of changing the structure of production to better serve consumers."
<= Why doesn’t the farmer count as a consumer himself?
Of course he is a consumer, but not with regard to the good in question.
“Of course he is a consumer, but not with regard to the good in question.”
I understand the distinction between the same people acting as a consumer/producer role in regard to specific items, but why isn’t he a consumer regarding the good in question? Why isn’t burning an act of consumption and it thus serves a purpose in his role as a consumer.
Because you assume that he considers it a bad and just wants to get done with it? Yeah, that’s probably it. (Just talking to myself here; and bouncing of ideas.)
Anyway; I’m still not quite sure why the consumers aren’t served. I’m sorry, but it all got lost a bit in the discussion. Could you repeat and explain as clear as you can (or quote a post where you do) why consumer capitancy is lost? Thanks.
It is simply that the concrete act of burning the crops is not done with the (even intermediary) intention of serving the consumers at the end of the production process(es) in question better.
You don’t mean just price but total revenue. I thought we established that already.
It seems that you have no way of ever showing a single instance of monopoly price; in the present or in history.
it must be profit, simply simply raising prices by destroying stock is nothing but a reverse statement of the law of diminishing marginal utility
“It is simply that the concrete act of burning the crops is not done with the (even intermediary) intention of serving the consumers at the end of the production process(es) in question better.”
But that’s not sufficient; because ‘withholding’ something from the market isn’t sufficient for a monopoly price, right? I withhold my labor from the market right now; doesn’t mean I’m a monopoly.
i’m not sure the ‘intention to serve the consumer’ is something that you need; I don’t work to serve the consumers, I work to earn a living. So you need something else there, I think.
Let me try to rephrase it - feel free to comment. (The reason why I’m doing this is (1) honest curiosity and (2) to get a clear grasp of the concept we are talking about before we can criticize it, if any criticism is needed.)
A price, preceded by the willingly destruction of excess supply, in order to raise the price and revenue, without getting a feeling of consumption from the act of destruction, is a monopoly price.
Does this grasp the sufficient and necessary conditions according to you? I’m sorry if it’s not. 
You don’t mean just price but total revenue. I thought we established that already.
Right, sorry.
It seems that you have no way of ever showing a single instance of monopoly price; in the present or in history.
Are you even considering the point I’ve been trying to make to you all thread about economics vs. economic history?..
Any difficulty that an economic historian is confronted with in rigorously determining an instantiation of an economic phenomenon has no bearing on the praxeological validity of the conceptualization of the economic phenomenon.
But that’s not sufficient; because ‘withholding’ something from the market isn’t sufficient for a monopoly price, right? I withhold my labor from the market right now; doesn’t mean I’m a monopoly.
No, it’s not, but it’s the part of the monopoly price scenario in which consumer captaincy is lost (which is what you asked for).
i’m not sure the ‘intention to serve the consumer’ is something that you need; I don’t work to serve the consumers, I work to earn a living. So you need something else there, I think.
Which is why I said “intermediary intention”.
A price, preceded by the willingly destruction of excess supply, in order to raise the price and revenue, without getting a feeling of consumption from the act of destruction, is a monopoly price.
Does this grasp the sufficient and necessary conditions according to you? I’m sorry if it’s not.
Where you say “preceded” I would say “caused”. It doesn’t have to be destruction: any kind of restriction will do. And instead of “revenue” the important thing is “net revenue”. I’m not sure what you mean by “getting a feeling”. It’s intention that matters, not feeling.
“Where you say “preceded” I would say “caused”. It doesn’t have to be destruction: any kind of restriction will do. And instead of “revenue” the important thing is “net revenue”. I’m not sure what you mean by “getting a feeling”. It’s intention that matters, not feeling.”
Wel; feeling is important because suppose the farmer likes burning crops, that it’s clear that he is a consumer in regards to the good. But if he destroys it because ‘he must’, because he finds it a bad, it’s clear that he’s not a consumer in regards to the good. That’s why I said feeling is important. But intention would work too: if he intends to destroy it because he thinks it’s a bad and not a good (‘burning crops’ could be a good), then he’s clearly not a consumer.
So; we have:
“A price, caused by the willingly destruction of excess supply, in order to raise net revenue, without this act serving him as a consumer, is a monopoly price.”
Would this do?
Small grammar note: “destruction” is a noun, so it calls for an adjective, not an adverb (“willing”, not “willingly”). And again, “restriction” not “destruction”. “Excess” is unnecessary. And I would say, “without this act serving anyone as a consumer with regard to the relevant production processes.” This rephrasing is necessary, because if it was to gratify the pyromania of others, it wouldn’t be a monopoly price; and serving his own consumption by increasing his profits doesn’t count, because it has nothing to do with the consumers at the end of the production processes in question. Also, while short encapsulations are pedagogically useful, you simply cannot have a full understanding of true monopoly prices without the requisite special conditions and circumstances listed by Mises here.
Is there a time element to the consideration? I am thinking of producers who have a reservation demand for their product in the present (given their entrepreneurial and not their consumer valuations), they act as ‘speculators’ who ration the sale of their products into future periods (so in the present period, they retain stock to be sold at a later date), are they monopolists on the basis of such behaviour?, or are they excluded from the definition of the Monopolist in some way?
I’m curious to hear his response to this, but I would say that he would have to answer yes.