OPE-L message, Re: [OPE-L] oligopolies and consumers: a response to Murray Ro

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Dear Jerry:

(1) Jerry on 05/02/2007: What is the empirical evidence which shows that monopolies and oligopolies have a great concern for technological progress?

The kind of evidence you are asking for is like that one concerning every sunrise. The weight of the proof is over the shoulders of those who claim able to speed up the technological progress in a market-less economy.

(2) Jerry on 05/02/2007: In an oligopolistic market with product differentiation the emphasis is generally on promotion (advertising, marketing) rather than on developing technological breakthroughs and engaging in price competition. Furthermore, entry into such a market is generally made possible not by technological progress but by promotion (and, of course, large sums of money capital to open operations and/or merge with other firms already in the market).

I don’t know exactly what are you trying to mean here. If the superfluous of promotion; you are underestimating the difficult task of identifying and targeting preferences, by the way, a task underestimated by classical Marxism in the belief that the planner could directly target real preferences. Taking a look at the controversy of interpersonal comparisons of utility in Welfare Economics revels that it is not just an issue of common sense. The Marxist objective notion of value could be reason of this underestimation.

If the absence of technical progress; well it doesn’t happen every day of the week.

Best regards,

Alejandro Agafonow

----- Mensaje original ----
De: "glevy@xxxxxxxxx" <glevy@xxxxxxxxx>
Para: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Enviado: miércoles, 2 de mayo, 2007 15:57:49
Asunto: Re: [OPE-L] oligopolies and consumers: a response to Murray Rothbard's apologetics

>>>The question is whether the natural monopoly’ virtues might be isolated
from the prejudices it shows under capitalism. Its virtues concern the
technological progress due to the upper average profits attracting
rival capitals.<<<

Hi Alejandro:

What is the empirical evidence which shows that monopolies and
oligopolies have a great concern for technological progress? In an
oligopolistic market with product differentiation the emphasis is
generally on promotion (advertising, marketing) rather than on
developing technological breakthroughs and engaging in price
competition.   Furthermore, entry into such a market is generally made
possible not by technological progress but by promotion (and, of course,
large sums of money capital to open operations and/or merge with other
firms already in the market).

>>> Maybe Rothbard couldn’t sound convincingly for you. What do you think
about the following quotation from a market socialist? […] for it
remains to be seen whether buyers will accept the price for the given
supply and thus confirm the correctness of the suppliers’ decision or
will force a change of the market by putting to the seller the
alternative of either reducing the price or renouncing the sale of
part of the supply. The theory of monopoly, as elaborated through
decades of economic study, recognizes that even private monopoly need
not necessarily pursue an oppressive price policy. Eduard Heimann
(1934): “Planning and the Market System”, Social Research, vol. 6, pp.
486-504. <<<

I agree that "it remains to be seen".
As for the validity of the claims of  the  mainstream theory of monopoly,
that also "remains to be seen".

Since Heinmann wrote his article, there has been some relevant experience
in  "socialist" nations such as Hungary and the former Yugoslavia which
highlight how social problems can occur with at least a certain kind of
"market liberalization" and "market socialism".  For instance, in Hungary
there was the experience of  "departmentalism" which could be seen as
undermining the socialist principle of solidarity.  In Yugoslavia, you had
double-digit inflation (as well as high rates of unemployment) for extended
periods.    If one wants to consider  the actual possibilities for
"feasible socialism"  (Nove), it is more important, in my view, to examine
actual historical experiences than mainstream economic theories.

In solidarity, Jerry