The author mocks a return of democratic-socialist “make it a public utility” talk (post office/DMV jab). Classical Mises: a monopolist can restrict output and raise price only if demand is inelastic. Rothbard’s add-on: no one sees the demand curve, so “monopoly price” on an open market is almost unknowable; extra profit draws rivals. Standard Oil kerosene $0.45→$0.06/gal is offered against the robber-baron story.

State-made monopolies, he says, do fit the textbook: ban rivals, then under-innovate, ignore demand, and deliver slow service. “Natural” monopolies (one well, one pipe under streets) last longer when law blocks new tech (Starlink-style) and when the state owns the street, underprices digging, and picks a winner—Bastiat’s unseen.

Deliberate underpricing plus tax top-ups look like cheap bills, hide the levy, create shortages used for more control, and subsidize big users. Data centers rushing cheap power/water is his current example. Line: the sure monopoly is the one the state grants.

The democratic socialists are back, and, as always, they’re spouting promises to make things better and more affordable by turning them into public utilities! We are all supposed to be happy that more things will be administered with the enthusiasm and efficiency of the post office or the DMV.

However, when the state takes control of an industry, it almost never makes things better. While socialists argue that public utilities avoid wasteful duplication, undermine natural monopolies, and make the utilities more accountable to the people, they aren’t telling you the downsides.

Before Rothbard, the classical theory of monopolies was at a standstill. Mises described in Human Action how monopoly works in the classical framework: If a monopolist drops production below the market-clearing quantity, he may charge a higher price to the smaller number of buyers who want the product more urgently. If the demand curve is sufficiently inelastic, he makes extra profits compared to if he had produced the market-clearing quantity and sold them at the market-clearing price. The consumers lose compared to the competitive case, because they either overpay for the product or are unable to buy it.

Mises correctly observed that monopoly alone isn’t destructive; only if the monopolist actually can restrict production and sell his stock at a higher price does he profit at the expense of the consumer.

But Rothbard realized something even more significant. Nobody actually knows where the demand curve is, and therefore, it is extremely difficult to determine if a producer is charging monopoly prices in a market where competition is not restricted.

All of our evidence is extremely time-limited. Demand curves move........

© Eurasia Review