Where exactly did I say anything about the perfect competition model?
Variations in firm sizes, to my understanding, would be a result of the struggle between efficiency from economies of scale and the inefficiency of not having internal markets (large firms can suffer from the same problems of knowledge that the government faces to some extent). Profit margins, nay profits themselves, are the result of misallocation of resources in the economy - the areas with less than optimal resources will experience high profits.
Your exposition of classical liberal defence of homesteading was a wonderful distraction. However, you specifically mentioned that the difference between Rothbard’s theory and theirs was that it lacked a labour-mixing component. That is utter nonsense. The classical liberals were rightly challenged on their view of how homesteading occurs (and the ‘good and enough’ view has been demolished since). Rothbard’s reference to Locke in MES was perfectly appropriate, given that Locke was indeed one of the first authors to fully develop the notions of homesteading and self-ownership.
Also, your comment to Morty is irrelevant - where did he evoke ‘perfect competition’?
If the government says that only one firm may produce goods, that firm may not be the most efficient and productive producer, and thus the supply of goods will logically be less than it would be without the monopoly. Marginal demand is irrelevant to this.
The non sequitur of “natural monopoly” is that it tries to make this true for the reverse situation, where one firm is so productive that it can produce the whole supply, lowering prices to such an an extent that other firms cannot turn a profit from increasing the supply any further. Evidently that is a very good situation for consumers, and if this super-productive firm is forbidden from producing because a less productive firm has a monopoly, consumers lose out.
Ah, yes–John Locke. Didn’t we already have a long thread on this at Anti-state.com?
Locke made theological assertions about God granting the earth to all mankind, and he did have his “provisos”, but neither of these are properly justified or proven, they’re merely assertions. Take those out, and your left with what Rothbard was basically saying. Locke’s idea of mixing labor with land to acquire it is independent of his theological assertions and provisos.
That’s misleading. Varying degrees of competition exist. Less competition = higher profit margins at the expense of the consumer surplus.
No disagreements here. I just thought you seemed to be appealing to the idea of perfect competition – that’s all.
How can you “take out” a premise of Locke’s and then claim that such an argument is still Lockean?
If Rothbard disagreed with Locke, he should note that. Invoking a false claim of agreement is sloppy.
For Christians including Locke, religious ideas like “God exists” are core axioms of belief that you can’t simply ignore are integral aspects of their beliefs.
It would be me like me saying, “If you take away praxeology, Austrian economics is mainstream.”
Because part of Locke’s premise stands on its own, independent of its other parts. You’ve apparently read the original material by Locke, as I have.
Is it not clear that one part does not depend upon the other part? It is to me.
Editing your post while I’m responding to the original? A recipe for confusion.
If Locke’s argument absolutely depended upon God granting land to all mankind in common, then the whole argument becomes irrational. But as I said, only parts of it depend upon his theological assertions. The other parts ARE rational, independent arguments that stand on their own without the theological assertions. And if Rothbard dealt with Locke’s provisos, that’s hardly sloppy, but does exactly what you’re asking to be done.
It doesn’t. Locke’s entire argument begins with the assumption of Christianity being true and work from there. If you actually read “Two Treatises” you’ll see how extremely laced with theology his argument is, invoking God from the very beginning and citing scripture all throughout.
I do it frequently, because I admit I tend to hit the post button before properly proofreading and also, when I do proofread, improvements to my articles tend to pop in my head.
Locke’s argument is irrational. Georgism is inconsistent for the reasons Rothbard himself has pointed out. Rothbard’s lack of noting Locke’s Georgism is either dishonest or ignorant.
Is it impossible to mix your labor with the land without the premise of God? Of course it isn’t. Therefore, his basic idea of homesteading is not irrational, and does not depend upon theology. His provisos, on the other hand, depend upon the theological argument for support, and are otherwise unsupported.
Supply is only affected by the amount of production occuring. You could perceivably have many firms entering a competitive market producing the same supply as a “non-competitive” market with only one firm.
I still want the name of your Economics professor, just so I can e-mail your school and inform them of his incompetance as a teacher.
For one, competition is not what makes up aggregate supply. What economists mean by competition is not merely the number of firms in an industry, it’s the dynamic interaction between them. Second, again, aggregate supply only means the amount of product created. One can not say that it is only possible for a large quantity of firms in an industry to reach greatest possibly supply.
The difference is that government monopolies are enforced through the state and thus not applicable to market pressures. Even a monopoly obtained through the free market is subject to market pressures.
Rothbard always talked about how Locke’s theory was flawed, as all initiators of a general theory tend to be. I’m not certain what specifics he went into, but I do know that he denied the Lockean proviso.