Explore Freedom

Explore Freedom » The Phantom Called “Monopoly”

FFF Articles

The Phantom Called “Monopoly”


In their denunciation of capitalism the socialists use some frightful phantoms. The oldest and perhaps the most effective one is the notion that monopolistic concentration of business inheres permanently and inseparably in capitalism.

They depict in vivid colors the horrors of monopolistic capitalism and then conclude that a free enterprise economy obviously requires governmental restraint lest it deteriorate to a chaotic system of business monopolies and public oppression.

Recalling the era of “trusts” and “tycoons” around the turn of this century, these socialists valiantly defend the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 which aim at the suppression of business monopoly. And they will be shocked if anyone casts doubt on the wisdom of the antitrust legislation…. In an unhampered market economy a monopoly affords no cause for alarm. A company that has exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market is prevented from exploiting the situation by the following competitive factors: potential competition, competition of substitutes, and the elasticity of demand….

The failure to distinguish between the monopolistic tendencies of government and the propensity of private corporations to grow to optimum size probably underlies the American antitrust movement. Our Founding Fathers were fully aware of this difference. They were so hostile to monopoly power granted by government that Thomas Jefferson wanted to include an antimonopoly provision in the articles of the Constitution. ]But their hostility was aimed at monopolistic policies as they were conducted by the colonial powers of Europe before the age of capitalism. They condemned “mercantilism” which was an economic system similar to modern socialism. As Adam Smith had pointed out, monopoly was “the chief engine of mercantilism.”

It was entirely natural that the nineteenth century disciples of capitalism should continue to oppose monopolistic endeavors. The common law as it developed in the United States reflected their attitude. But during the 1880’s, the prevailing ideology began to change. Under the influence of new schools of thought that were hostile to various aspects of capitalism, the American public began to view with alarm the growth of industrial enterprise. Advancing technology, especially in the manufacturing and transportation fields, and the rapid accumulation of capital, made private enterprises grow by leaps and bounds. But such growth in most cases merely moved toward optimum size. Of course, in some cases a very successful entrepreneur may have overexpanded his organization, which sooner or later resulted in losses and failure. In other cases, government franchises, patents, tariffs, and other trade restrictions actually promoted the growth of monopolies…..

This is an excerpt of an essay by Dr. Sennholz which appeared in Volume 12 of Essays on Liberty, published in 1960 by FEE.

  • Categories
  • This post was written by:

    Dr. Sennholz is retiring as head of the economics department at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and is assuming the presidency of The Foundation for Economic Education.