In Human Action on the section about monopoly prices, Mises seems to lend creedence to predatory pricing. From what I have heard from contemporary Austrians, predatory pricing has been debunked as a myth. So was Mises refuted, and if so, does anybody know of any Austrian analysis specifically on predatory pricing?
What do you mean that it has been debunked as a myth? That predatory pricing did not happen? By definition, of course it happened. Whether the intended results occurred of predatory pricing is a different question. I suggest The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton Folsom.
Ah yes, that is what I mean. Mises seems to believe that it is possible that a business utilizing predatory pricing can actually obtain a monopoly positon.
“In the case of price slashing one group A plans to attain full [p. 364] monopoly or incomplete monopoly by forcing all or most of its competitors, the B’s, to go out of business. It cuts prices to a level which makes selling ruinous to its more vulnerable competitors. A may also incur losses by selling at this low rate; but it is in a position to undergo such losses for a longer time than the others and it is confident that it will make good for them later by ample monopoly gains. This process has nothing to do with monopoly prices. It is a scheme for the attainment of a monopoly position”.
My question is if this is a view commonly held by contemporary Austrians?
Wanting to attain a monopoly position is nothing more then wanting to out compete all of your competitors.
Mises is describing just one theoretical scheme. He’s not saying one can actually obtain such a position. On the free market, the position of every group is never disengaged from consumer demand no matter how many groups or how they got there. Nobody holds a permenant position on anything.