News

The idea that government can regulate monopolies to promote competition is a fallacy. If anything, such intervention only stifles market competition and lowers living standards.

Monopolies are believed to undermine individuals’ well-being, including being the cause of large increases in the prices of goods and services. According to Jean Tirole, the 2014 Nobel winner in economics, monopolies undermine the efficient functioning of the market economy by influencing the prices and the quantity of products, making consumers worse off.

Thus, monopolies supposedly cause market conditions to deviate from the ideal state of “perfect competition.” Effective enforcement of government regulations, then, is needed to control monopolies. Tirole has devised methods to strengthen the regulation of industries dominated by a few large firms.

The ‘perfect competition’ model

In the world of perfect competition, the following features characterize a market:

• There are many buyers and sellers in the market.
• Homogeneous products are traded.
• Buyers and sellers are perfectly informed.
• There are no obstacles or barriers to enter the market.

In the world of perfect competition, buyers and sellers have no control over the price of the product. They are price takers. The assumption of perfect information and thus absolute certainty implies that there is no room left for entrepreneurial activity. For in the world of certainty there are no risks and therefore no need for entrepreneurs. If this is so, who then introduces new products and how?

According to the proponents of the perfect competition model, any real situation in a market that deviates from this model is regarded as suboptimal to consumers’ well-being. It is recommended that the government intervene whenever such deviation occurs.

Contrary to this way of thinking, we suggest that competition emerges not because of a large number of participants as such but because of a large variety of products.

Competition in products, not firms

The greater the variety, the greater the competition is going to be and therefore more benefits for the consumers. Once an entrepreneur introduces a product, he acquires 100% of the newly established market.

A product that makes a profit attracts competition. The producers of older products must come with new ideas and new products to catch the attention of consumers. The popular view that a producer that dominates the market could exploit his position by raising the price above the truly competitive level is erroneous. The goal of every business is to make profits, but producers must offer consumers a suitable price and, if possible, secure a price where the quantity that is produced can be sold at a profit.

According to Henry Hazlitt, “In a free economy, in which wages, costs, and prices are left to the free play of the competitive market, the prospect of profits decides what articles will be made, and in what quantities—and what articles will not be made at all. If there is no profit in making an article, it is a sign that the labor and capital devoted to its production are misdirected: the value of the resources that must be used up in making the article is greater than the value of the article itself.”

To set a suitable price, the producer-entrepreneur must consider how much money consumers are likely to spend on the product. He also has to consider the prices of competitive products and his production costs.

Any attempt by the alleged dominant producer to disregard these facts will cause him to suffer losses. Furthermore, how can one establish whether the price of a product charged by a dominant producer is above the so-called competitive price level? How could one establish what the competitive price is supposed to be?

Murray Rothbard wrote, “In the market, there is no discernible, identifiable competitive price, and therefore there is no way of distinguishing, even conceptually, any given price as a ‘monopoly price.’ The alleged ‘competitive price’ can be identified neither by the producer himself nor by the disinterested observer.”

Furthermore, “There is no way to define ‘monopoly price’ because there is also no way of defining the ‘competitive price’ to which the former must refer.”

Also, “On the free market there is no way of distinguishing a ‘monopoly price’ from a ‘competitive price’ or a ‘sub competitive price’ or of establishing any changes as movements from one to the other. No criteria can be found for making such distinctions. The concept of monopoly price as distinguished from competitive price is therefore untenable.”

Definition of monopoly

Rothbard wrote, “Let us turn to its classic expression by the great seventeenth-century jurist, Lord Coke: A monopoly is an institution or allowance by the king, by his grant, commission, or otherwise … to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, for the sole buying, selling, making, working, or using of anything, whereby any person or persons, are sought to be restrained of any freedom or liberty that they had before, or hindered in their lawful trade …

“In other words, by this definition, monopoly is a grant of special privilege by the State, reserving a certain area of production to one particular individual or group. Entry into the field is prohibited to others and this prohibition is enforced by the gendarmes of the State.”

He concluded, “Hence, monopoly can never arise on a free market, unhampered by State interference. In the free economy, then, according to this definition, there can be no ‘monopoly problem.’”

It is obvious, then, that monopoly can never arise on a free market. If government officials attempt to enforce a lower price this price could wipe out the incentive to produce the product. So rather than improving consumers’ well-being, government policies will only make things much worse.

Again, in contrast to the perfect competition model, what gives rise to a greater competitive environment is not a large number of participants in a particular market but rather a variety of competitive products. Government policies, in the spirit of the perfect competition model, are destroying product differentiation and thus destroying competition.

Erroneous idea of homogeneous products

The idea that suppliers should offer a homogeneous product is not tenable. Since product differentiation is what the free market sets in motion, it means that every supplier of a product has 100% control as far as his product is concerned, making him a monopolist. What gives rise to a product differentiation is that every entrepreneur has different ideas and talents. This difference is manifested in the way the product is made, the way it is packaged, the place in which it is sold, and the way it is offered to the client.

For instance, a hamburger that is sold in a beautiful restaurant is a different product from a hamburger sold in a takeaway shop. So, if the owner of a restaurant gains dominance in the sales of hamburgers, should he then be restrained for this?

Should he then alter his mode of operation and convert his restaurant to a takeaway shop in order to comply with the perfect competition model? All that has happened here is that consumers have expressed a greater preference to dine in the restaurant rather than buying from the takeaway shop. What is wrong with this?

If consumers were to abandon takeaway shops and buy hamburgers only from the restaurant, does this mean that the government must step in and intervene? The whole issue of a harmful monopoly has no relevancy in the free-market environment.

A harmful monopolist is likely to emerge when the government, by means of licenses, restricts the variety of products in a market. (The government bureaucrats decide what products should be supplied in the market.) By imposing restrictions and thus limiting the variety of goods and services offered to consumers, government curtails consumers’ choices, thereby undermining their well-being.

Conclusion

The idea that government can regulate monopolies to promote competition is a fallacy. If anything, such intervention only stifles market competition and lowers living standards. Furthermore, what matters for individuals’ well-being is not the number of firms but the variety of goods and services. Harmful monopolies cannot emerge in a free market. Instead, we can expect monopolies to emerge when governments heavily regulate an industry and become involved in production and licensing firms and individual occupations.

---

MESSAGE TO DEEP STATE MINIONS: Don’t Follow Your Orders, Come Out With Your Hands Up & Join The Resistance

---

‘The View’ harpies continue anti-Trump insanity

Vile “View” host Joy Behar told her audience Donald Trump was being “unchristian” when he informed Thursday night’s RNC crowd he believed God was watching after him when he was shot in the ear by would-be assassin Matthew Crooks on Saturday.

Joy Behar: “When something like this happens to you, like this assassination attempt, and you say something like ‘God was watching me,’ that is a very un-Christian thing to say because it’s very narcissistic.” pic.twitter.com/R4E7m8XISm

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 19, 2024

She began her bizarre rant by explaining she was raised a Catholic and considers herself “a Christian girl.”

“When something like this happens to you like this assassination attempt and you say something like ‘God was watching me,’ that is a very unchristian thing to say because it’s very narcissistic,” Behar said.

Continuing, “The View” host claimed Trump’s comment insinuated God wasn’t watching over Corey Comperatore, who was killed in the Trump rally shooting, or the people at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Behar went on, “It’s like, ‘Oh, God was watching me and not them.’ There’s something very disturbing about that.”

“God should have pulled the plug on that mic yesterday,” chimed in Behar’s co-host Ana Navarro.

Navarro also insinuated she wished the bullet had hit Trump in the mouth.

VILE: Ana Navarro says she wishes Trump was sh*t in the mouth. pic.twitter.com/Xyep60w5g0

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 19, 2024

Segments like this are why the daytime talk show is known as one of the biggest propaganda arm of the globalists.

---

---

But don’t expect any heads to roll. Indeed, if this story follows the usual narrative that accompanies federal screw-ups, we can expect higher budgets for the agencies that fell down on the job.

Within minutes of the July 13 attempted assassination of Donald Trump, observers were asking how the assassin managed to gain a clear shot of Donald Trump at the Butler Farm Show Grounds near Butler, Pennsylvania. Since then, the question remains unanswered, but many allegations about the shooting have emerged. For example, multiple sources plausibly contend that both local police and the Secret Service had spotted the armed shooter—on a nearby roof with a rangefinder and a gun—several minutes before the shooting occurred. Law enforcement officers and agents chose to do nothing. 

Videos of the event show bystanders vocally warning both police and federal agents of the shooter’s presence. Again, law enforcement did nothing. The New York Post reports that a “counter sniper team” staffed by local law enforcement were actually inside the building below the shooter himself. Again, law enforcement officials couldn’t be bothered with controlling access to this roof which offered an ideal position for a potential assassin. 

Meanwhile, a variety of former snipers and those with anti-sniper training—i.e., former Navy SEALS and Green Berets—noted repeatedly in both social media and mainstream media outlets that it would be impossible for any competent law enforcement agents to so blatantly botch security in this way. 

New information continues to flow in but virtually all of it forces us to one of two conclusions: the police officers and federal agents at the Butler rally were either (1) disastrously incompetent or (2) complicit in the assassination attempt. 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the truth of the matter given how little information we have right now. Certainly, the Secret Service (USSS) will not be providing any honest assessment of the situation. Local police will close ranks to protect themselves and their jobs—as is standard practice. We can expect investigations to go on for years with law enforcement officials stonewalling Congress every step of the way. Moreover, FBI agents will likely be called into conduct much of the investigation, and we know how that will go. As Thomas Massie wrote a few hours after the shooting, the FBI is “The same bureau that investigated the Las Vegas shooting and the January 6th pipe bombs is now investigating the attempted assassination of Trump. …This is also the same bureau that raided Mar-a-Lago. … I’m sure they’ll get to the bottom of this soon.”

Option 1: Law Enforcement Was Complicit in the Assassination Attempt

Local law enforcement—namely, the Pennsylvania State Police—and the USSS partnered up to screen the area for weapons and for potential areas from which an assassin might operate. Clearly, neither of these agencies performed these tasks properly. The Secret Service’s failure is especially damning given that the agency’s primary mission—apart from investigating counterfeiters—is to protect their assigned subjects from assassination.

So, was the USSS intentionally “forgetful” when it came to securing the area? Was the slowness of the USSS’s agents in confronting the shooter part of a conspiracy to “allow” the assassin access to Trump? At this point, one can only guess, but we do know there are many reasons to suspect the idea. After all, the Secret Service is your typical federal agency, and its members are your typical federal bureaucrats who do quite well for themselves under the status quo. They have every reason to oppose any political figure who is seen—rightly or wrongly—as one who threatens the current establishment in any way. After all, it became abundantly clear during the Trump years that FBI agents had no qualms about illegally spying on Trump. FBI agents also cooked up the narrative of “Russian collusion” in an effort to cripple the Trump administration. 

It’s easy to see why federal agents would be opposed to a Trump presidency. Federal agents enjoy large salaries, high levels of prestige, and the promise of a long, cushy, well-funded retirement—all paid for by taxpayers. There’s good reason for USSS agents to actively oppose any candidate seen as a significant threat to the status quo. Moreover, federal agents handling presidential security are part of the Washington, DC culture. They are, to use modern parlance, “swamp creatures.” 

Yet, one might question the “complicity” charge on the grounds that it would be exceptionally difficult to keep an assassination conspiracy quiet among any sizable number of law enforcement agents. That’s true enough, but in this case, it would only be necessary for those in positions of leadership to be part of the conspiracy. 

The conspirators would only need to ensure complacency and a reluctance to speak up among the rank and file.

This is not hard to achieve. The conspirators—assuming they are in positions of leadership—could simply ensure that the event is understaffed or staffed with less-experienced agents who rely on more direction from above. Then, the conspirators need only issue orders to stand down at critical times, and to hem and haw long enough to allow “the plan” to play out. 

Moreover, experience has shown that law enforcement officials are not ones to speak up against the powers that be. Federal agents in this case would be shielded from prosecution by a friendly Justice Department. Meanwhile, local police are largely bought and paid for by the Department of Homeland Security which funnels billions to state and municipal police departments. 

We should not expert much at all in the way of whistleblowing or critical thinking from any state law enforcement personnel or from any lower-ranking USSS agents. Recent years have made it abundantly clear that state and local police are far more concerned with keeping their jobs and pensions than with opposing even the most blatantly immoral or unconstitutional assaults on the people. 

After all, how many police officers resigned in protest during the covid lockdowns? During that period, police were tasked with closing churches, arresting churchgoers, and closing down private businesses for the “offense” or peacefully assembling or engaging in commerce. Police arrested mothers who visited playgrounds closed for fear of a virus. Police beat up ordinary people who didn’t wear masks. 

Through it all, we heard only a tiny number of police voices protesting these assaults on the Bill of Rights. It is apparent that most police officers were willing to carry out virtually any order from their government masters. 

So, it would be pure naivete to think that any local law enforcement officers would oppose any of the USSS’s questionable orders that might have come down on July 13. In other words, USSS officials were free to do whatever they wanted. 

Option 2: Law Enforcement Officers Were Incompetent 

The other option is that the USSS and local police really are just incompetent. Laziness, of course, is a type of incompetence, and it is entirely possible that the unguarded roofs, the lack of concern about the assassin’s rangefinder, and the general slowness of response were all motivated by mere laziness. Of course, it is also possible that law enforcement was not lazy so much as it was simply too ignorant to even know the correct way to control access to the president during the rally. 

The “incompetence” narrative rose to near-comical levels on Tuesday when USSS director Kimberly Cheatle claimed that the rooftop on which the shooter perched was left unguarded because the roof was too dangerous for agents. As Cheatle put it, “That building in particular has a sloped roof … so, there’s a safety factor that would be considered there that we wouldn’t want to put somebody up on a sloped roof. And so, the decision was made to secure the building, from inside.” (According to the New York Post, it was local police who were responsible for securing the building.)

Clearly, the building was not secured from “inside” or anywhere else, and it is laughable that the USSS would think this explanation about a dangerously sloped roof would deflect criticism of the agency. 

But, what if Cheatle is telling the truth? What if the decision to leave the roof unguarded was simply a byproduct of incompetence on the part of the USSS and local police? This would certainly jibe with the dogma of “officer safety” that is so prevalent among law enforcement agencies nowadays. After all, we saw this philosophy at work at the school shootings at Uvalde and Parkland. In both cases, police elected to run away and hide rather than confront a shooter who was slaughtering children. Police looked to their own safety first. 

It’s not beyond belief that USSS brass might decide that it would be overkill to put personnel on every roof, especially when it’s hot and uncomfortable and potentially dangerous up there. It wouldn’t be the first time law enforcement officials substituted safety and ease—for themselves—in place of public service. 

“Mistakes Were Made”

For obvious reasons, the USSS itself has decided that the “incompetence” narrative is preferable to the “complicity” narrative. We can expect law enforcement officials to die on the “incompetence” sword since to admit complicity would rock the foundations of the regime’s legitimacy. Thus, claims about the “slopey roof,” although humiliating, will be offered as evidence that the USSS and local police “did their best” but failed. In other words, we will hear that “mistakes were made,” but it won’t happen again. 

This is complicated by the fact that law enforcement officials can’t even claim that no one was seriously hurt in the assassination attempt. Spectator Corey Comperatore was killed, and two others were critically injured. Federal and Pennsylvania law enforcement officers are to blame for allowing that to happen. 

But don’t expect any heads to roll. Indeed, if this story follows the usual narrative that accompanies federal screw-ups, we can expect higher budgets for the agencies that fell down on the job. After 9/11, for example, the CIA and FBI, who utterly failed in their jobs that day, received more taxpayer money as a result. No one lost their jobs, and there was no accountability. With the possible exception of Cheatle herself, it’s extremely unlikely that anyone at the USSS or the Pennsylvania state police will face so much as an official reprimand. 

Image source: US Secret Service via Wikimedia. 

---

MESSAGE TO DEEP STATE MINIONS: Don’t Follow Your Orders, Come Out With Your Hands Up & Join The Resistance

---

Female suspect fires three rounds at point-blank range

Authorities are searching for a woman who shot a baby in a stroller in Philadelphia this week.

The shocking incident unfolded on Thursday in the City of Brotherly Love.

Surveillance footage released by the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) appears to show a woman engaged in a dispute with another person pushing a stroller on a sidewalk.

The suspect fires three rounds at point-blank range as another person flees the scene on foot, video shows.

“On July 18th, 2024, on the 4000 block of Meridian Street, a seven-month-old child was shot once in the leg by a suspect described as a heavy-set black female with long dreadlocks,” PPD explained in a press release.

It is unclear if the person pushing the stroller was struck during the shooting.

The suspect remains on the loose, according to the latest available updates.

PPD is asking anyone with helpful information to submit an anonymous tip.

InfoWars has been documenting the surge of crime across the United States, including carjackings, ‘street takeovers,’ smash-and-grab loot mobs, home invasions, and physical attacks on innocent victims.

---

Revival Pastor: Trump Must Lift Up Jesus Christ to Save the United States

---

Dan Lyman on X | Gab

---

Alex Jones was right!

Since the attempted assassination of Donald Trump Saturday, Alex Jones had been predicting the next crisis will be a cyber attack.

Don’t miss:

Lou Dobbs Fought for Freedom Against the Globalist Bankers

---

Uncertainty over Joe Biden’s decision to ‘romaine’ in 2024 race sparks new betting market.

With scores of Democrats urging Joe Biden to “pass the torch” and exit the 2024 race, a new betting market is asking bettors to predict whether he will outlast a head of lettuce.

Similar to a 2022 stunt guessing whether former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss would resign before a head of iceberg lettuce spoiled, prediction market platform Polymarket on Thursday launched a livestream with Biden’s photo sitting next to a head of lettuce and a countdown clock.

Will Biden outlast the lettuce?

10 days. The countdown starts now.https://t.co/8GecLvoO3m

— Polymarket (@Polymarket) July 18, 2024

“The shelf life of a head of lettuce is 10 days – Will Biden outlast the lettuce?” the Polymarket site states.

The guessing game comes as rumors swirl Biden, 81, is receiving pressure from all sides to withdraw his bid for the Democrat Party presidential nomination, with reports Friday claiming his family has already begun discussing a possible exit plan.

In Truss’ case, she resigned before the lettuce wilted.

The betting market will close on July 28, but as of writing the lettuce is winning.

---

---