Re: Keynes and competition

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 24 May 2001, John O'Donnell wrote:
> It is not just an error of composition, it is an obvious
> error of definition. No matter how small the difference from
> other things, everything that is is uniquely itself. A
> monopoly exists for each and every item owned or otherwise
> controlled, however trivial that monopoly may be.

John,

Your post appears to confuse semantic and substantive issues.  If you
want to criticize economists, you have to understand what economists
are talking about.  To do that, you have to *learn* their vocabulary
and not assume that their technical terms have ordinary meaning.  For
example, when economists contrast competition and monopoly, both terms
are being used in a specific sense (i.e., market structure).

These are open to criticism, and receive plenty from economists.  (For
example, the effects of contestability on monopoly pricing is an old
literature.)  Attacking textbook simplifications and pretending it
constitutes an attack on the economics profession is popular but
pointless sport: the profession is not monolithic and is often
thoughtful.

Your criticism should not be that economists are wrong about the use
of these words: these words have an established usage.  Words don't
have essences, they have usages.  In contrast a valid criticism, which
you seem to be trying to make, is that neoclassical economists have
focused on the least useful concept of competition.  Competition as a
process, as developed extensively by the Austrians (and I fold
Schumpeter in to that crowd), is a more fruitful concept to work with
for understanding the policy problems that interest you.

Alan