Foundations of the Market-Price System by Milton Shapiro

Copyright ©1985 byUniversity Press of America, Inc.4720 Boston WayLanham,MD 207063 Henrietta StreetLondon WC2E 8LU EnglandAll rights reservedPrinted in the United States of AmericaISBN (Perfect): 0-8191-4543-2ISBN (Cloth): 0-8191-4542-4Copyright 1974 by Milton M. ShapiroOriginally published by California State Polytechnic University,Pomona, CaliforniaAll University Press of America books are produced on acid-freepaper which exceeds the minimum standards set by the NationalHistorical Publications and Records Commission.

TO MY PARENTSBaruch and Rivkah,who gave me lifeandTO MY FAMILYJeanne, Johanna and Arthur,who fulfill that life.iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFirst, intellectual debts. The greatest ofthem, and most gratefully acknowledged, are to thosethinkers who helped create, shape, and nourish theAustrian tradition in economics. Chief among these menare Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek—who neverlost sight of the bridges linking economics with theother sciences of human action—and Murray N. Rothbardand Israel, M. Kirzner, current regenerators of thetradition and innovators on their own. The Austrianshave taught us to view man as a whole person and not asmere "economic man" geared to a materialist calculus,nor as a figment of abstract mechanical constructs—thatis, man in his total reality instead of the foreshortenedreality viewed through the prism of mathematicalmodels. Thus they have treated economics as butone facet of the general science of human action.In this connection I must also mention the lateProfessor Clyde W. Phelps, who fortunately turned me onto the Austrians in the first place during the finalyears of my graduate studies, and Henry Hazlitt, whoseworks feature tributes to the Austrians. Also, like anoasis in the desert was the Foundation for EconomicEducation, Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y., whose monthlyThe Freeman has featured works by the Austrians and onthe free-market system, and whose inspired president,the late Leonard E. Read, made sure there was alwaysenough water to refresh the "remnants."Other intellectual debts are no less noteworthy.Important insights were provided by Armen A. Alchian andWilliam R. Allen in their pathbreaking texts, UniversityEconomics and Exchange and Production. Other ofthese debts are expressed in my references throughoutthese pages, while still other debts may regretfully gowithout specific acknowledgement owing to infirmities ofmemory.Gratitude of another sort is extended to thosewho took time out to review early drafts, particularlyProfessors Rothbard, Alchian, and Ludwig M. Lachmann.Needless to say, none of the above can be held responsiblefor any misinterpretation or misuse of their workon my part.

On a more practical level, this book would nothave been possible without creative and Sabbaticalleaves granted by the California State PolytechnicUniversity, Pomona, nor without fellowships and grantsfrom the Institute for Humane Studies, Menlo Park. Atthe Institute it was my good fortune to receive from theoutset the personal encouragement of the late Floyd A.Harper, as well as Kenneth S. Templeton, Jr., both ofthem dedicated spokesmen for liberty and property rightsin a humane society, as well as promoters of researchand writing on the free market.In a similar vein, I am most grateful to thedirectors of the University Press of America reprintprogram for their recognition of this book's merits andfor this opportunity to reach a much wider audience.Finally, but no less deserving of recognitionare Karen Meade, for her typing skills and editorialacumen, and Robert M. Marvos, for his bold graphics.vi

CONTENTSAcknowledgmentsContentsTables and FiguresTablesFiguresPrefaceIntroductions to ChaptersvviiixixixxixviiChapters:I. How Can People Get By? 1II. Scarcity—the Basic Economic Problem 9III. Division of Labor and the Origin of Money.. 31IV. Production, Income, and Economic Growth.... 59V. Scarcity and Individual Choice 81VI. The Demand Side of the Market 115VII. Price-Elasticity of Market Demand 145Appendix: The Coefficient of Elasticity 177VIII. How the Market Determines Prices 179Appendix: Will the Real Supply Stand Up?.. 229IX. Profits — and Other Incomes 235X. The Consumers' Sovereignty Problem 279Appendix: The Galbraith Effect.., 312XI. Competition: "Perfect" vs. Real 319For Further Reading 373Index 383vii

viii

TABLES AND FIGURESTablesI. Demand for Gasoline 129II. An Increase in Demand for Gasoline 133III. Compound Interest on One Dollar 247IV. Present Discounted Value of aFuture Dollar 248V. Present Discounted Value of aOne-Dollar Annuity 262VI. Marginal Revenue 344Figures1. Scarcity Implies Production 152. Relations Between Households and Firms 183. Production is the Source of Income 214. The Firm As Intermediary 225. Basic Elements of the Market-Price System.... 246. "Non-Income" Sources of Purchasing Power 267. Effect of a New Technique of Productionon Profit-Margin 708. Demand for Gasoline 1289. Different Degrees of Elasticity of Demand.... 13110. Shifts in the Demand Schedule 13411. Elasticity of Demand in the Caseof a Price Cut 14812. Elasticity of Demand in the Caseof a Price Increase 15313. Degrees of Elasticity Preferredby the Firm 15614. Price-Changes and Price-Elasticityof Demand 15915. Availability of Substitutes andElasticity of Demand 16116. Preference-Ranking and Elasticityof Demand 16717. Social Income-Structure andElasticity of Demand 17018. The Ex-Post Supply Schedule 18119. Demand, Supply, and Market-Price 18520. Surpluses, Shortages, and Selling Prices 18721. Supply Restriction and Shortages 18922. Surplus, Shortage, and QuantitiesSupplied 197IX

Figures(continued)23. Non-Profit Underpricing 21124. Shifts in Supply Schedules 21425. Increase in Demand While Supply is Fixed 21526. Decrease in Supply While Demand is Fixed 21727. Decrease in Demand While Supply is Fixed 21928. Increase in Supply While Demand is Fixed 22029. Long-Run Decline in Prices 22330. Long-Run Rise in Prices 22531. Market-Determination of Wage-Rate 27432. Relations Between Households and Firms 28133. Comparison of Perfect Competition andImperfect Competition 33334. Origin of Horizontal Demand Schedule 33535. Price-Taker's Horizontal Demand Schedule 33936. Total Costs and Marginal Costs 34137. Marginal Revenue Curves 34638. Profit Maximization 34839. Price-Taker as Quantity-Adjuster 35040. Innovative Cost-Cutting and ProfitDifferentials 35841. Oligopolists Produce More At Lower Price 369A. Ex-Ante Supply 231B. Ex-Ante Supply and Market Price 231

PREFACEThis book on introductory micro-economics wasforged as a by-product of some 20 years' teaching ofuniversity economics. Earlier editions appeared underthe title The Common Sense of Economics. From its inceptionin 1974 it has been used as a text in my classes.Nevertheless, it was also conceived to appeal tothe "common sense" of the general audience, as well asto the practical-minded business school student. Indeed,the original title, inspired by Philip Wicksteed's TheCommon Sense of Political Economy (1910, 1946), wasmeant to reflect the book's underlying methodology asmuch as to pay homage to that great writer.Last but not least: This book, being of convenientlength, can also serve as a suitable companion toother texts. Although it treats of the standard material,it does so in a truly alternative and complementaryfashion, and is only minimally duplicative. Furthermore,it is thoroughly devoid of mathematical impedimenta.This new edition incorporates extensive editorialchanges and the addition of appendixes to ChaptersVIII and X, a vastly expanded introduction and otherfront matter, an index, and a reading list. Thus, itwas also a fitting occasion for the change in title toone that is more descriptive of the book's substance.Although this is primarily a textbook in theprinciples of micro-economics, my desire is to give itrelevance to a wider audience. Thus, I have reached outbeyond the traditional confines of other texts toinclude non-technical elements which I believe are requiredfor two purposes: to elucidate the ultimatefoundations of the subject, and to create links orbridges between human action in the realm of economicsand human action ^Ln general, particularly in thedimension of subjective motivation and decision-making.In this connection it is pertinent to note thatan ironic strain is intermittently played in this book,starting in Chapter I, precisely because it is soXI

instructive. The irony involves playing off the primitiveRobinson Crusoe (the wilderness man of economics),who lives so grimly alone in the bosom of nature,against modern man who lives so much more richly at easein the advanced modern division of labor. Specifically,the irony is based on the following elements. On theone hand, with respect to the relevance of the basiceconomic principles of survival and prosperity there isno essential difference between the case of Crusoe andthat of modern man (see especially Chapter IV).However, when it comes to being directly aware of thebasic natural laws of existence, it is Crusoe who has itover modern man.The reason is that man living alone in nature'swilderness learns soon enough the lessons that natureimplies for him: the need to work and produce and liveby his wits; the need to assume the natural right to doall of these things as well as the right to keep andcherish the fruit of his labors; and, above all, theneed to assume the burdens of self-responsibility. Itis very much otherwise in the case of modern manensconced in polities concerned for his cradle-to-graveneeds. (On this see Chapter I.)In virtually every dimension of modern existence,the complexities and sophistication required tosustain and advance civilization have removed man so farfrom wilderness existence that the direct, clear dictatesof nature are obscured from his view. Thus, whilewe unquestionably live so much better than our primitiveancestors (see Chapter III), too often we don't reallyknow why! I'm reminded of the very apt line from thepoet Goethe:Elvi j'zdeA lebt 1 *, wlcht vltlzn u>Vt> bckannt.(We are all doing it; very few of us understand what we are doing.)Add to this the obfuscations, deliberate orinadvertent, of those messianic types who would deliverus from all our travails by imposing their illusions,myths and Utopian visions on the rest of us—and itfollows that the task of discerning and explaining theXll

true nature of economic existence becomes so much moredifficult, lI have also opted to avoid the tendency of textsto become encyclopedic, overloaded with topics andapplications at the expense of in-depth treatment offundamentals. Instead, the present work restrictsitself mainly to topics required to understand theworkings of the market-price mechanism; it also providesan in-depth treatment of these same topics, reachingdown to the irreducible levels of fundamentals.For the rest, for the purpose of greater illustrationand application of analysis to public issues andpolicies, I defer for the most part to the numeroususeful works devoted especially to this purpose. 2These works, including books of readings, provide amplesupplementary materials that illustrate at length howeconomic theory or principles manifest themselves inpractice and how economic analysis can be applied topractical problems.Before proceeding to the chapter-by-chapterintroductions,it is necessary to point out that economictracts—mainly because of materialist bias—usually omitthe very important moral dimension, a dimension that isnevertheless relevant to economic reality—to economicsin practice.3 First of all, economics as a socialscience is fundamentally concerned with exchange—"interpersonal transactions." Exchange is inherent inSee Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions (New York: BasicBooks, Inc., 1980) for an elaborate analysis of how—despite thecomplex structures and environments of the modern division oflabor—the free society and its market-price system generate,transmit, and apply "authentic" knowledge in the realms ofeconomics, law, and politics. For an earlier treatment, seeFriedrich A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1960).Excellent examples of this type of supplementary work areJohn C. Goodman and Edwin G. Dolan, Economics of Public Policy: TheMicro View (2nd ed., St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1982), andWalter E. Williams, America: A Minority Viewpoint (Stanford:Hoover Institution Press, 1982).A notable exception is the above-mentioned text by Goodmanand Dolan which analyzes public issues in terms of moral, politicaland economic criteria.xiii

every production and trade activity. Thus, the marketpricesystem may be regarded as comprising multitudinousexchange transactions. Since exchange also infusesevery interpersonal transaction in society at large, italso constitutes the basic coordinating mechanism ofthat most complex network of interrelationships called"society."Exchange transactions regarded as interpersonalactivity necessarily involve the elementary moral question;by what moral principle should exchange betweenparty A and party B be governed? 4 Here only two basicprinciples are relevant: either the principle of nonviolence(non-aggres s ion) or its opposite, violence(aggression). Violence and aggression can be identifiedsimply by such acts as theft, killing and fraud.From this perspective, the voluntary nature ofmarket exchange transactions precludes violence oraggression, otherwise free exchange or trade would presumablynot take place. Voluntary or non-violent mutualexchange respects the right of any party to a potentialexchange (say, party A) not to be aggressed against,that is, not to be mugged, slain, or defrauded simplybecause someone else (say, party B) covets what A possesses.Thus, it is not to be taken for granted thatfree trade and interpersonal exchange will automaticallyoccur without mutual respect for the moral precept ofnon-violence. Therefore, any sanction of violence andaggression in interpersonal relations would not onlypreclude real exchange possibilities but would give freerein to the law of the jungle and barbarism.5Thus, in this perspective, the study of thesocial economy and the market-price mechanism involvesthe moral dimension as well as the economic one. Forthe purpose of this book it suffices simply to callattention to the matter—to the fact that the omnipresentbut taken-for-granted act of voluntary exchangeconstitutes a moral premise for the free economy and thefree society.4 For a philosophical treatment of morality in interpersonalrelations, see John Hospers' Human Conduct (2nd ed., New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1982).For a detailed study of these and related issues, see MurrayN. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (Atlantic Highlands, N.J.:Humanities Press, 1982).xiv

Ultimately, all theoretical economic systemsboil down in principle to only two: the free-marketsociety and socialism. In that perspective, the presentwork on the free market-price system may also be regardedas a contribution, albeit introductory, to thestudy of comparative economic systems.6For a well-rounded "pluralist" approach to the capitalistsystem that includes analysis of its "moral-cultural" dimensions,as well as the political and economic, see Michael Novak, TheSpirit of Democratic Capitalism (New York: Simon and Schuster,1982).XV

xvi

INTRODUCTIONS TO CHAPTERSFollowing is an outline of the main features andperspectives of each chapter and what I believe aretheir respective special qualities.Chapter IThe primary purpose of this chapter is toprepare the reader for the concept of scarcity to beanalyzed in the next chapter. Scarcity is the fundamentalproblem to which economics is addressed. However,the concept of scarcity requires advance preparationsince it tends to strike the untutored as too abstractor ideological (e.g., a "bourgeois" rationalization).Scarcity is the basic reason that man mustengage in productive work, yet the institutions ofmodern complex society (e.g., the elaborate network oftransfers and welfare programs) are ironically able todisguise the underlying reality of scarcity.Incidentally, this chapter also introduces RobinsonCrusoe, that model of isolated man from whose bare andlonely existence in the bosom of nature we can learn somany of the fundamental concepts of economics. 1Also noteworthy is the fundamental categoricaldistinction between "economic means" and "politicalmeans," the analysis of which enables us to argue theprimacy of economic production as compared with theprinciple of governmental political power. 2An excellent example of the many fundamental concepts thatwe can learn in "Crusoe economics" are the first 62 pages in MurrayN. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State, 2 vols. (Princeton: D. VanNostrand Co., 1962).A noteworthy attempt to apply the distinction between"economic means" and "political means" to the analysis ofcontemporary domestic issues is by James D. Davidson, The Squeeze(New York: Summit Books, 1980).xvii

Chapter IIThis chapter is concerned not only withscarcity/ the fundamental and unique problem of interestto economics, but it also establishes a conceptualframework for most of the remainder of the book (asillustrated in Figure 5).Scarcity is analyzed primarily in terms of thewants-means connection (i.e., the ends-means connection)which comprises the twin aspects of the fundamentalcondition of human existence. In the first go-around wesee how scarcity implies the necessity of production, animplication that is drawn both for (a) the case ofRobinson Crusoe and other direct-use models of economy,and (b) the market mode of economy based on the socialdivision of labor (Chapters II - IV). In contrast tothe social or "macro" perspective of the latter is thefundamental individualist perspective (in Chapters V -VII) which draws out the implications of scarcity forindividual choice or decision-making.Economics remains the only social science preoccupiedwith scarcity and its implications. Nevertheless,the other social sciences can surely learn fromthe economists' preoccupations. The analysis ofdecision-making in Chapter V is but one example. Evenmore significant is the variety of bold contributionsbeing made by economists to the understanding ofdecision-making in traditionally non-economic areas,such as politics and social problems, under the headingof public-choice theory. 3Chapter IIIAlthough this chapter assumes a historicalapproach, its purpose is analytical: to explain someimportant things that are too often taken for granted.Thus it tries to fathom the implicit rationality of thehistorical evolution of specialization, the socialdivision of labor, and the invention of money. A socialscience like economics is necessarily concerned with thestudy of the fundamental elements that induce theA good example of this fruitful work isand Gordon Tullock, The New World of Economics111.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1981).Richard B. McKenzie(3rd ed., Homewood,xviii

interpersonal relations and transactions (i.e., exchange,trade) that underlie all market-place activity.Coincidentally, the analysis of money is unique since itis a topic usually treated only in macro-economic texts.Chapter IVOn the one hand this chapter is concerned withthe key concept of production and how it is immediatelyimplied as the only relevant human response tounsatisfied wants. Thus it necessarily embraces theanalysis of productivity, innovation, technologicalprogress, and capital accumulation.On the other hand, in the context of the socialdivision of labor, production is necessarily centered infirms, those social-economic units that specialize inplaying the role of intermediary between people asconsumers and people as resource-owners (i.e., workers,savers, investors). This is a role that necessarilycalls for entrepreneurship—decision-making in the faceof uncertain market conditions. In this respect thechapter lays groundwork for Chapter IX, on the profitmargin, and Chapter X, on consumers' sovereignty.It is this focus on the centrality of the firm—as producer and entrepreneurial intermediary—whichalone enables us to appreciate how the so-called"impersonal" or "automatic" forces of market supply anddemand operate not only to determine prices but also tocoordinate the whole range of market-oriented decisionsof households and firms. Chapters VI through X analyzein detail how profit-motivated firms provide the marketits inherent tendency to relative stability.A fruitful by-product of this analysis is therealization that,in the social division of labor, it isinvestment by firms that is the primary source of incomeearned by resource-owners. Contrary to prevailingorthodoxy, the primary generator of income in the moderneconomy is the investment by firms in production andemployment of resources—not the Keynesians' aggregatedemand which, after all, is an abstract, synopticconcept.Last but not least, this chapter introduces usto the nature of the "consumers' sovereignty" problem,xix

which receives its deserved full-length treatment inChapter X. 4Chapter VSuperficially this chapter brings together astring of standard economic concepts that are allrelevant to individual decision-making. On a more fundamentallevel, however, it seeks to connect those conceptsin a logical chain whose links are systematicallyderived from the underlying premise of scarcity. Itculminates in an elaborate treatment of both the maximizationpriniciple and the axiom of self-interest.Original in the treatment of the maximizationprinciple is the attempt to apply it to all cases,without exception, of decision-making. Treatment ofself-interest is likewise unconventional in its argumentthat maximization and self-interest are, without exception,the sole and fundamental principles of motivationin human action. These constructions should broaden ourappreciation of the unitary connection between so-calledeconomic principles and human action in general, byhelping to end the misconception that economics isnarrowly confined to that phantom called "economic man,"and by showing that "economizing" behavior is intimatelyrelated to universally maximizing behavior.In preparing this material the author found nolittle inspiration in the seminal but sadly neglectedworks of Ludwig von Mises and Philip H. Wicksteed. 5 Abrief passage from Wicksteed suffices to illustrate theperspective:It follows that the general principles whichregulate our conduct in business are identicalwith those which regulate our deliberations,our selections between alternatives,and our decisions in all other branches ofof life. And this is why we not only may,4 The author is indebted to Israel M. Kirzner, Market Theoryand the Price System (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1963) forinsights developed in this and the next chapter.Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (New Haven: Yale University1949); Philip H. wicksteed, The Common Sense of Political2 vols. (London: Routledge & Sons, 1946).XX

ut must, take our ordinary experiences asthe starting point for approaching economicproblems. We must regard industrial andcommercial life, not as a separate and detachedregion of activity, but as an organicpart of our whole personal and social life;and we shall find the clue to the conduct ofmen in their commercial relations, not in thefirst instance amongst those characteristicswherein our pursuit of industrial objectsdiffers from our own pursuit of pleasure orof learning, or our efforts for some politicaland social ideal, but rather amongstthose underlying principles of conduct andselection wherein they all resemble eachother... 6 (underlinings mine).Thus the analysis proceeds from the premise of acommon or unitary motivational principle in all humanaction—the "economic" as well as the "non-economic"—in which so-called economic action is regarded as aspecial case of human action in general, and whosemotivations are consistent with those of human action ingeneral.In this connection the concept of subjectivevalue is developed as the basic force that determinesthe degree of importance that we attach to our goals andpurposes, on the one hand, and to the means of achievingthem, on the other. Explored are two dimensions ofinfluence on subjective value: preference-scale rankingsand the supply of means (law of marginal utility);later, Chapter IX explores the third dimension of influence,people's time-preference. In general, subjectivevalue and its primary role in human action aresadly neglected topics in standard texts.Chapters VI - VIIIThis trio of chapters constitute the traditionalcore of technical analysis of the market—on how the"interplay" of demand and supply determines marketprices. The market is the central nexus of the socialdivision of labor; intertwined networks of marketsPhilip H.Vol. I, p. 3.Wicksteed, The Common Sense of Political Economy,xx i

comprise the market-price system; the latter in turnrepresents in principle the heart of so-called capitalismas well as the focus of this book. Although thethree chapters run to about 120 pages, they are surelyless than the subject deserves. However, compared withother introductory treatments, they are truly veryample.One of the reasons for the elaborate analysis inthis work is to counteract the tendency of texts totreat the market process of price determination somewhatmechanically, as though the market operates"automatically" and "impersonally"—a thoroughlyillegitimate assumption. Real markets consist of bloodand-fleshhuman beings, not artificial constructs like"economic man," and therefore behave neither automaticallynor predictably. Analysis must take this realisminto account, as this book attempts throughout.There is also the need to amply demonstrate thecentrality of the firm in the workings of the marketprocess. This centrality was initially asserted inChapters II and IV. Then in Chapters VI and VII, marketdemand is analyzed at sufficient length to comprehendall those relevant dimensions of demand (e.g., income,taste and preference, price elasticity) about which thefirm must become informed. Mainly through market researchand related studies, as well as through trial anderror, can firms gain the knowledge needed to reduce theprobability of error in its estimates and forecasts ofmarket demand. 7In Chapter VIII, which ostensibly shows how themarket determines prices, the analysis attempts todemonstrate that in reality it is not so much the"market" per se that establishes prices but rather it isthe firm which sets them at all times. It is the firmthat sets prices initially, and it is the firm thatlater adjusts prices (and quantities) in response to themarket feedback of surplus or shortage. Even moresignificant, it is the firm, in its efforts to maximizeprofits (or minimize losses), that makes the price andquantity adjustments required to avoid disequilibriaOn the centrality of the firm and entrepreneurship in themarket process see Israel M. Kirzner, Competition and Entrepreneurship(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973) and hisPerception, Opportunity, and Profit (Chicago: University ofChicago Press, 1979).xxii

(surpluses, shortages), and thereby creates the market'stendency toward stability of output and prices. Theimplication is clear: If the market process is shapedby a force that inheres toward stability, then thealleged "instability" and "anarchy" so glibly blamed onthe market must be located elsewhere, in non-marketsources.8More specifically, Chapters VI and VII, on thedemand side of the market, focus on two things: (a)those elements that determine the shape and location ofdemand, and (b) the ways in which the behavior of theseelements can be made known to the firm (especially viathe concept of elasticity of demand). It is preciselythe economist's task to isolate and describe thosedeterminants of market demand whose impacts arediscernable and knowable by the firm.The text also assists the reader in understandingthe partial-analysis method used by economists (e.g.the ceteris paribus proviso) as the necessary first stepin unraveling the complex manifestations of reality.Also, Chapter VI offers an alternative explanation ofwhy the demand curve slopes the way it does, and why thelaw of demand brooks of no exceptions, alleged orotherwise.Noteworthy also is the lengthy Chapter VII onthe elasticity of demand, which makes this significantconcept realistic and practical, and avoids the mathematical("percentage") approach so typical of othertexts. Thus it demonstrates that the law of demand(Chapter VI) is not enough, surely not for the firm;indeed, mere reliance on the law of demand can provedisastrous for the firm when it seeks to initiate aprice raise or price cut. Thus, there are cases where araise of price which, under the law of demand, wouldinduce a drop in purchases, may actually result inincreased dollar receipts for the firm! Conversely,there are cases where a cut in price which would induceQOn the market's inherent tendency toward avoidingdisequilibria and achieving stability, as well as the role ofgovernment interventions and war as major destabilizing factors,see Gerald Sirkin, "Business Cycles Aren't What They Used to Be—and Never Were," Lloyd's Bank Review (April 1972), pp. 20-34;Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State (Princeton: D. VanNostrand Co., 1962), pp. 661-890, and his America's Great Depression(3rd ed., Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, 1975).XXlll

increased purchases, may actually result in a drop inthe firm's dollar receipts! These perverse outcomes—perverse in the context of the law of demand—can onlybe understood by appeal to the concept of elasticity ofdemand. Throughout the chapter the treatment necessarilyrelies on the method of partial analysis notedabove.The exceptionally detailed treatment ofelasticity of demand is also prompted by the desire toanalyze the subject from the practical point of view ofthe firm, for whom the outcome of its decisions ismeasured in dollar terms. For this reason, the conceptof elasticity of demand is analyzed exclusively in termsof the TR (total receipts) dollar dimension rather thanin terms of the mathematical (percentage) approach ofother texts. The analysis also avoids the customarytreatment of elasticity in terms of whole demand curves(and their overall slopes); instead, it applies the morerealistic "marginal" or incremental approach.Chapter IXFormally this chapter develops material outlinedin Chapter IV and ostensibly seeks to justify the profitmargin.9 in the ensuing analysis the following conceptsplay a fruitful role: the fact that production takestime and the firm must wait to sell its product beforeit can earn any profit; the realization that timepreference (and the pure interest rate) become relevantas the basic component of the gross-profit margin; andthe fact that the firm "works back from price" (seeChapter IV) by discounting the future expected sellingprice. This not only makes the firm a discounter offuture values, but also means that "prices determinecosts" rather than costs determine prices.The analysis is then extended in order (a) toshow the broad relevance of "imputation" processes to,for example, capital values and share prices, and (b) toprovide a critique of both the Classical cost-ofproductiontheory of pricing and the Marxian labortheory of value. There is a further implication,9 This chapter owes much to insights provided by Rothbard,Man, Economy, and State, Chapters 6-8, and Raymond J. Chambers,Accounting, Evaluation and Economic Behavior (Englewood Cliffs:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966), passim.XXIV

however, not developed in this book: the standardnotion of the so-called normal rate cxf return oncapital, which is usually treated as a cost, should betreated instead as an earning—as part of the grossprofit margin.Chapter XThis chapter pays homage to the fact that we areall consumers—every last one of us—and shows why thisbasic fact is far from being a trivial one. When AdamSmith, in his Wealth of Nations, declared that"consumption is the sole and end purpose of production,"he unwittingly pronounced the genesis of the consumers'sovereignty problem. The emphasis is on the word"problem," initially introduced in Chapter IV and nowanalyzed in this chapter. From the political-economicviewpoint, consumers' sovereignty is arguably one of themost central issues facing the individual in the modernsocial division of labor.If and when it ever comes up, the consumers'sovereignty issue tends to be treated as an empiricalquestion: To what extent is the consumer actually"sovereign" in the market place? In contrast, thischapter focuses on the practical question: If we assumethat consumers should be sovereign, how can thissovereignty be optimally implemented?In the ensuing analysis the workings of laissezfaire,free competition, and property rights in themeans of production take on an integral unity ofpurpose, all in the service of consumers' sovereigntyand the free-market system. The analysis also serves toexplode the perennially fallacious dichotomy of propertyrights versus human rights; it is argued that propertyrights in the means of production are not only a basichuman right on its own merit but is, indeed, theprerequisite for other human rights.In this perspective socialism is seen to be anessentially restrictive principle of economic organizationand human rights, based as it is on the abolitionof property rights in the means of production, andtherefore destroys the basis of human rights in general.On the level of pure principle, it can be argued thatthose who believe socialism can in any way improve onfree-market capitalism in the area of human rights aretragically under the spell of a chimerical vision.xxv

Clearly, socialism in practice does lose a great deal inthe translation from vision to reality.A note about the Appendix to this chapter. Theargument that, on empirical grounds, the consumer is notat all sovereign in the market place was in recentdecades spearheaded by John Kenneth Galbraith. It washis theory of the "dependence effect" that stimulatedand nourished the widespread attack on advertising as a"waste," and on the "excesses" of "consumerism," if noton the very essence of market capitalism itself. TheAppendix shows why the "dependence effect" is basicallya fallacious—and insidious—concept.Chapter XIEvery chapter but this last one is integrallyrelated to the analytical framework outlined in ChapterII. This last chapter on the abstract model of "perfectcompetition" is the exception. Thematically thischapter is an odd-man-out as far as this book isconcerned, but is being included for two reasons.For one thing, the theory of perfect competitionis a centerpiece in practically every textbook, so itsomission might be too glaring. The decisive reason,however, is the smoldering need to subject this conceptto extensive critical scrutiny. This chapter arguesthat perfect competition theory is a terribly flawedarea of economics and without practical relevance toindustrial capitalism; yet it remains a hallowed pillarof the intellectual edifice. Although economists havepecked away much of this pillar, it is long past timefor a systematic dissection. Hence the chapter.10Key inspirations for this chapter, in addition to Rothbard'sMan, Economy, and State, were Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism,Socialism, and Democracy, Part II (3rd ed., New York: Harper andBrothers, 1950), and Friedrich A. Hayek, "The Meaning of Competition,"in his Individualism and Economic Order (London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1949), pp. 92-106.XXVl

CHAPTER IHOW CAN PEOPLE GET BY?Imagine, if you will, a community without agovernment—a stateless society—in which no group hasthe legitimate power to coerce other individuals orinterfere into peaceful, voluntary exchange. In otherwords, imagine a world without taxation, without conscription,without government regulation of prices,rents and wages, without government regulation of productionand trade, without government redistribution ofincome and wealth, and so on. In this imaginary worldlet us raise the basic question: "How can a person getby?" That is, how can a person acquire the materialgoods and services that he or she wants—the goods thatenable a person to survive and prosper?I. How Individuals Get ByThe simplest way to answer the question "How cana person get by?" is to imagine each of us is a RobinsonCrusoe, that is, an isolated person living and workingalone in the bosom of nature. For Crusoe it is obviousthat his ability to enjoy the world's goods—to consumeits fruits, vegetables, grains and other goods made fromits resources—depends primarily on his own productiveefforts. Clearly, Crusoe's fortunes depend on his ownefforts and ingenuity in exploiting the resources ofnature; he cannot depend on anyone else but himself—there is no one else from whom he could beg, borrow, orsteal in time of need. If he ever falls upon bad times,for reasons of poor health or bad weather, he would haveno one but himself to depend on.How Crusoe Gets ByInitially, of course, Crusoe could get by simplyby scavenging the resources of nature—gathering wildfruit and grain, hunting wild animals, catching fish.To increase his productivity as a scavenger, he wouldhave to create and use simple or crude hand-made toolsand weapons. After a while, having exhausted the resourcesof a given locale, he would have to move on tosearch for new fruitful locales. If he ever runs out of

exploitable locales or decides to give up his migrationsand settle down in a given locale, he would have tolearn how to cultivate artificially what nature producesnaturally.Thus, for Crusoe it is clear that as scavenger,hunter, or farmer, he can get by only through his ownwork or productive efforts. Now, how does this imaginaryCrusoe model apply to the real world—a world inwhich people live not as isolated individuals but asmembers of society in which multitudes of individualscooperate in production and trade in one way or another?How does a person get by in the context of society? Howwould Crusoe himself get by if, in his migrations, hestumbles upon a strange community? How would Crusoe'soptions be affected? Would he still have to rely purelyon his own labor? What alternatives would he have toworking and producing for himself the goods he wants?What if, for some reason, he couldn't work or didn'twant to work?Getting By In SocietyInitially, of course, Crusoe in society couldcontinue to work out of habit ingrained during hisexistence in isolation. However, in society he woulddiscover opportunities to specialize—to concentrate onthe production of a single product or service—ratherthan pursue his Jack-of-all-trades role of the past,when he himself had to produce the many different thingshe wanted. Now he finds he can concentrate on beingonly a farmer, a carpenter, builder, or fisherman, andlive as well as, if not better than, formerly in hisdays of isolation when he was a Jack-of-all-trades.(The advantages of living and working in the socialeconomy, based on specialization and the division oflabor, are detailed in Chapter III).In time, however, Crusoe would begin to discoverthat his new social existence as a member of societyaffords him new opportunities of getting by—opportunitiesthat were not available to him in his days ofisolation. For one thing, he would observe that somepeople, in times of personal distress or enhanced need,were able to get by through begging for handouts orcharity from others, or by receiving gifts orinheritances. Still others, he would notice, were ableto get by through borrowing money from money-lenders orbanks. And finally, he would also discover that some

people were getting by on theft—by forcibly taking fromothers. Most important of all, Crusoe would realizethat all these new opportunities to get by, throughbegging, borrowing, and stealing, were all the consequenceof the fact that, in society, a person is nolonger a "Crusoe," having to get by purely on his ownresources.Beg, Borrow or StealThis brings us back to the original question:"How can a person get by"? In the case of isolatedCrusoe it is clear that the only ultimate principle ofgetting by is the principle of work and production. Inisolation, Crusoe has no one else but himself to dependon to make the things he wants—whether he is in healthand strength or whether he is in distress and weakness.But _in society it is a very different matter: the individualcan at times resort to other ways of getting by,such as receiving gifts or handouts, borrowing money orother goods, or stealing from others. Obviously, noneof these recourses are available to Crusoe living inisolation. Such are the advantages of living in society:it becomes possible to depend on others in order to getby.Thus, at first glance, it seems that the answerto our original question—that a person must work andproduce in order to get by—no longer applies when aperson lives in society. But this would be a rashconclusion based on the fallacy of composition: thenotion that what is true for the individual would alsobe true for society as a whole.Fallacy of CompositionIt is true that, in society, some people canoccasionally resort to the principle of beg, borrow, orsteal in order to get by. But in no way can a societyas a whole—each and every one of us—resort to theprinciple of beg, borrow, or steal at all times, withoutanyone engaging in production. That is, it should beself-evident that, unless some people do the work thatyields useful goods and services, it is impossible foranyone else to do any begging, borrowing, or stealing!This truism can be easily spelled out. Someonemust have produced the goods and wealth that others

are able to receive as personal gifts, charity, ordonations. Even the sons or daughters who inherit afortune from rich parents—and therefore do not have towork the rest of their lives—are merely the benefactorsof wealth produced by their parents or ancestors.Similarly in the case of borrowing. Borrowing is possibleonly as long as there are lenders who themselvesmust have worked and saved to accumulate the funds theylend to borrowers. The only thing different here isthat the borrower will also have to work in order to payback his loan.Work, Production and ExchangeThe same reasoning applies to the principle ofgetting by on stealing. Clearly there is no future forthe thief or robber if there are no victims to stealfrom—that is, if there are no goods or wealth producedby others which he can covet and forcibly seize fromtheir productive and rightful owners. Indeed, in all ofthese cases—in receiving gifts, borrowing, and stealing—the great extent to which people have utilized theseresources is eloquent testimony to the great amount ofincome and wealth that others have produced and madeavailable for charity and lending (fortunately) as wellas for theft and robbery (unfortunately).Economics therefore concludes that the onlybasic principle by which a community or society can getby is the principle of productive work. The moreeconomically productive is a community, the more it isable to sustain those individuals who occasionallyresort to the principle of beg, borrow, or steal.Related to the principle of production, however,is the principle of free and voluntary exchange which ischaracteristically relevant to the social economy, incontrast to the isolated-man Crusoe economy. As we willsee in Chapters III and IV, production in the modernsocial economy involves a highly developed system ofspecialization and division of labor, on the one hand,and free trade and exchange, on the other hand. In thepresent context it is correct to say that, in the socialeconomy, free and voluntary exchange is as important away of getting by as is production. This principle ofgetting by on production and voluntary exchange has beendubbed by the German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer asthe economic means.

Digression on Theft and CounterfeitingBefore we proceed, let us clarify some questionsthat might have occurred to the reader. The aboveanalysis may give the impression that stealing itselfinvolves no "work." Strictly speaking, we should haveused only the word "production" and avoided the word"work," which we used loosely and interchangeably withthe word "production." In economics, production refersspecifically to the creation of useful goods andservices, whereas work is used in the more general senseof "activity." (See Chapter IV for more details onproduction.) By these definitions, the thief clearlyengages in work but in no sense is he an economicallyproductive agent—the creator of the goods he hasstolen.Nor is the person who gets by as a counterfeiterof money in any sense a productive agent. To be sure,there is no little work involved in counterfeiting UncleSam's crisp greenbacks, but in no way can such creationbe regarded the same as creating the bread, cloth, ormachinery that arise from "productive" activities. Furthermore,counterfeiting cannot serve as a universalprinciple of getting by: if all of us worked atcreating and passing out phoney money, and no one workedat producing the goods and services to be purchased withthis money, there would be nothing to buy with thephoney money and hence no point to counterfeiting in thefirst place.Indeed, what makes counterfeiting sensible andsuccessful is the ability to carry off the deceptioninvolved—to make producers and retailers unaware of thecounterfeit nature of the money received and thereforedeceive them into believing that all dollars in circulationare exactly alike in legitimacy. That is, ifsellers of goods and services knew in advance that moneywas counterfeit, they would refuse to accept it.II.How Does Government Get By?Let us now leave our imaginary statelesssociety—a world without government—and see what differencethe existence of government makes, at least asfar as economic production and exchange are concerned.Admittedly, a full-length detailed analysis of governmentand its role in the economy transcends the scope ofthis introductory book. Instead, we will confine our

analysis to essentials. Since these essentials arerelatively few and well-known, we can proceed to analyzethe role of government in the economy within the samefundamental framework that we used in the precedingdiscussion.Thus we can start with our basic simplequestion: How do governments get by? How do electedpoliticians and appointed government officials securethe "public" goods and services that they provide thecitizens? How do they obtain the resources required toprovide the public with education, defense, police,welfare, and other services? If we apply the sameframework of analysis that was applied above to Crusoeand other individuals, it is not difficult to come upwith pertinent answers.Legal Monopoly of CoercionFirst and foremost, governments throughout historyhave all had the same unique privilege: the legalmonopoly power to exercize physical force or coercionover the individual. Under this monopoly privilege ofcoercive powers, governments have been able to implementsystems of taxation, conscription, expropriation, andeminent domain as prime means of obtaining command overresources and wealth. Although under these monopolypowers governments also exercize controls over productionand trade (by means of quotas, licensing, andprohibitions) and redistribute income and wealth bytaxation and subsidies (transfer payments), it is primarilythe power to tax, conscript, and expropriate thathas enabled governments to get by.The legal power to coerce citizens in these waysis truly a monopoly privilege that has been arrogated byall governments and denied to the individual. Insociety, no private individual can legally acquire goodsor wealth from others except by voluntary exchange ofgoods produced by him or received by him as a gift or ina prior exchange transaction. That is, it would beillegal (criminal) for a person to directly seizeanother person's property by force, against his voluntaryconsent. Not so in the case of governments: theycan do legally what, for the individual, would beillegal (criminal). Specifically and to the point,governments can command resources for disposal by meansof such forcible actions as taxation, conscription, andexpropriation. And Franz Oppenheimer gave a name to

this special way of getting by: he called it thepolitical means, in contrast to the "economic means" offree production and exchange. For Oppenheimer, theeconomic means and the political means have been theonly basic principles of getting by in all of humanhistory. *Political Means vs. Economic MeansAll of this brings us to a crucial question: Isit possible for society to survive and prosper purely bythe governmental principle of political means? Clearly,the answer is, "No." Governments can get by only byforcibly appropriating the resources and productivityprovided by the social economy under the principle ofeconomic means. All the tax powers in the world wouldnot enable any government to exist if there were noprivate income and wealth to tax away—income and wealthearned through the economic means of production andexchange. The conclusion is obvious: as a principle ofgetting by, the economic means is prior, and thereforesuperior, to the principle of political means.A brief digression. The reader may have noticedan important omission in our catalog of political means.Governments today get by not only by taxation but alsoby deficit financing—by borrowing from the public andthe banks in order to finance expenditures in excess oftax revenues. Clearly such deficit financing has becomea hallmark of advanced countries throughout the world—abasic method of getting by for government. Nevertheless,government's ability to borrow from the public andbanks in order to finance deficits is vitally related toits power to tax. On the one hand, government canborrow from lenders only so long as it is able to paythem interest on the securities (debt) it sells them.On the other hand, government is able to pay interest onits debt simply by taxing the public to finance theseinterest payments. It follows, therefore, that government'sability to finance deficits is vitally dependenton its power to tax.Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York:1975) .Free Life Editions,

III. ConclusionThe purpose of this chapter has been primarilyintroductory. The basic conclusion is that man mustwork and produce in order to create the goods andservices that can satisfy his wants. In essence, however,there is nothing novel here; we knew this at thevery start. Nevertheless, the discussion has clearedaway some underbrush that enables us to get to theultimately basic question in economics: Why does manhave to work and produce in the first place? Why can'tman find the things he wants ready-made, without havingto produce them? The answer to this central question isthe subject of the next chapter on scarcity, the basiceconomic problem.

CHAPTER IISCARCITY—THE BASIC ECONOMIC PROBLEMAs far as economics is concerned, the Biblecould just as well have begun with the following words:"In the beginning there was scarcity. ..." And therestill is "scarcity"; its existence is a fundamentalpremise of economics, the belief that all of humanexistence and activity is characterized by this basiccondition of scarcity.I. The Meaning of ScarcityTo fully understand the concept of scarcity, letus first regard its opposite, the concept of absoluteabundance. Imagine a world in which nature provides themeans or goods capable of satisfying our every desire orwant in such plentiful supply that man would not have tosacrifice an iota of time and effort to obtain them—aworld in which man would not have to sacrifice anyleisure time and expend labor effort to produce thethings he wanted. Imagine that nature already has supplieddesired goods in unlimited supply (i.e., absoluteabundance), so that life could then be replete with pureleisure. As Li'1 Abner's girlfriend Daisy Mae once putit to him, when Dogpatch was faced with the prospect ofjust such a world of absolute abundance and pure leisure—a veritable Garden of Eden: "Then yo'll have plentyo'time fo' love!"l In stark contrast to the imaginaryworld of absolute abundance and pure leisure, our ownvery real earth is saddled with a condition economistsrefer to as "scarcity."The Meaning of "Scarcity" in EconomicsEconomists use the term "scarcity" to epitomizetwo fundamental conditions of human existence: while onthe one hand man is prone to "unlimited" wants, he isalso confounded by the fact that the resources or meansrequired to satisfy his wants are relatively "limited."1 A1 Capp, The Life and Times of THE SHMOO (New York: Simonand Schuster, 1948), p. 22.

The fact that mankind in general has "unlimited wants"implies that there is no conceivable limit to the level,quality, or variety of man's desires, wants, satisfactions,or "consumption goals." On the other hand,wanting man is opposed by the fact that the natural andhuman resources available to him for realizing his goals—primarily natural resources and labor power—arerelatively limited in amount or are inappropriate intheir given forms; that is, they are "scarce."To put it another way, from the individual'spoint of view: at any given moment a person has a wholearray of wants he would like to satisfy, but he isstymied by the fact that his personal means of satisfyingthese wants—his labor power or personal wealth—are inadequate to the task; that is, no person can getall he wants. It follows that, at each and everymoment, a person has to decide (a) what is the relativeimportance to him of each separately held want or consumptivegoal; (b) to what degree does he want torealize these different goals at any given moment; (c)how should he act to realize all these goals, given theconstraint that his means or capabilities are insufficient.Thus it is that at any given moment only some ofa person's goals (the more important ones) may be satisfiedin varying degrees, while other goals (the lessimportant ones) must be postponed. (These and relatedproblems are analyzed in detail in Chapter V.)Some Comments on "Wants" and "Consumption"The wants people seek to satisfy include anythingand everything one can think of, from the mostmaterialistic to the most spiritual or non-material,including pure leisure. Man truly does not live bybread alone. However, some of his wants can be satisfiedmore easily than others. The desire for leisure,for instance, can be almost instantaneously satisfied:one needs only to stop doing any work. Leisure is anyperiod of time in which a person is not working.Unfortunately, most of our wants are not soreadily satisfied as the desire for leisure. For example,food, clothing, shelter, and transportation arenot so readily available as leisure; if we want them, wehave to scrounge for means of obtaining them—usually byworking for the money with which to buy them. This istrue for most people, and therefore for the community ingeneral, even though there are some who are physically10

unable to work, or who simply prefer not to work fortemporary periods (e.g., the unemployed): for them,purchasing power is obtainable in the form of privatecharity or government handouts.In contrast to the concept of wants, "consumption"in economics signifies the actual or direct act ofsatisfying a want by means of a good or service. It cantake the familiar tangible forms of, say, eating food,wearing clothing, and driving a car, but it can alsotake such intangible forms as listening to music, enjoyinga lecture, reading a book, or simply singing in achorus. Thus, consumption is by no means confined tothe enjoyment of "material" or physical objects. Anyact in which a person experiences the satisfaction of awant or a goal can be regarded as an act of consumption.In this sense, therefore, the primarily vital functionof man is "consumption," since man must satisfy hiswants or goals in order to survive and prosper.On "Production" and the Use of MeansRealistically, practically all goal-satisfactionrequires an act of production, that is, the use of laborpower, materials, tools, machines, and working space andbuildings. About the only exception (besides leisure)is the desire for fresh air; however, fresh air mayitself not be readily available due to pollution.Furthermore, man not only has to produce the immediatethings he wants, but he must also produce the means orresources required to make these things.To be sure, the earth is endowed with a varietyof (albeit limited) amounts of natural resources or"land"—cultivatable land, forests, mineral deposits,powerful and navigable rivers, and water-bodies of fish.As a rule, however, man has to work them ("mix hislabor" with them, as John Locke put it) in order toobtain his clothing, shelter, etc. In this productionprocess, man may require tools, machines, and buildings,that is, means of production, which clearly do not growon trees but must themselves be produced, primarily bycombining his labor power with natural resources. Thelatter two, labor and "land," constitute the twoultimate or original means at man's disposal. Anythingelse that he needs to carry on the technical process ofproduction must be man-made as a means of furthering hisproduction goals. (The concept of production isexamined in detail in Chapter IV.)11

The Way Out:Abundance vs. AsceticismThroughout history man has tried to escape thespecter of scarcity by considering two extreme alternatives.One alternative is to dream of a Utopia orGarden of Eden, in which the curse of limited resourcesis simply wished away by the assumption that resourcesare somehow "plentiful," absolutely abundant. The otherway out involves an ascetic, belt-tightening solution toscarcity: this calls for restriction of people's wants,either by persuasion or physical coercion. In consequence,these extreme alternatives imply either (1) anabundance solution—a magical release of man from thereal-world constraints of limited means, by assumingthat means are somehow made abundant; or (2) an asceticsolution which involves a drastic reduction of man'sscale and variety of wants (i.e., "tighten the belt") inorder to "tailor the suit to fit the cloth," so tospeak.Abundance:Absolute vs. RelativeSo far, it is clear that the abundance solutionhas remained beyond man's practical reach, and may neverbe realized in the absolute sense. In the real world,about the most that can be expected is relative abundance—anincrease in the level of living or consumptionsignificantly above the poverty levels that had plaguedman until the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1850. To besure, relative abundance does not in itself abolish thebasic condition of scarcity; it can only reduce ormodify it.By a combination of efforts—intellectual aswell as physical—man can increase the availability ofresources, improve their quality, or increase the efficiencywith which they are used, and thereby increasethe supply of materials, machines, and buildings requiredto produce rising levels of consumption. Hisevident achievements over the past two hundred years,especially in Western economies, is eloquent testimonyto this. As a result, Western man has been able toenjoy the "best of both worlds," so to speak: an increasein material living standards, on the one hand,and an increase in leisure on the other, a unique combinationof achievements that has become the envy of therest of the world. (Detailed analysis of this processof production and economic growth is presented inChapter IV.)12

Concerning the opposite alternative, the asceticsolution, mankind does not on the whole seem to besympathetic to it. There are few signs that people willvoluntarily opt for reduced or stagnant levels ofmaterial wealth and/or leisure, that is, to go from"riches to rags." In totalitarian systems such as theSoviet Union and China, where patterns of production andconsumption are totally determined by coercive, centralizedgovernment, it is not the people but the partyrulers and planning bureaucrats who are opting for the"ascetic" solution: in their allocation of resources,these monopolistic states give overwhelming priority topolitical, military, and statist economic objectives atthe expense of higher consumption levels for the massesof people. As for the rest of the world, it remains tobe seen whether governmental policies affecting theworld's resources—e. g., petroleum, grains, strategicminerals—will lead to "abundant" or "ascetic"consequences.Emphasis on Resources and ProductionIt is important to stress that the scarcityproblem is relative, not absolute. Economics cannotassume that there are absolutely no means or resourcesat man's disposal, that is, that scarcity is "absolute."Rather, it assumes that such resources as are availableat any given moment are insufficient or inadequate, thatis, means are scarce relative to wants. As a consequence,man is constrained either (a) to tailor hiswants to fit the means at his disposal, or (b) toincrease the resources available to him by a variety ofdevices, or (c) to resort to a combination of these twoapproaches.In man's unavoidable wrestling with scarcity, itappears that he has preferred to amplify resources—toincrease the quantity, quality, and efficiency ofproductive means—rather than to restrict wants or consumption.This view is overwhelmingly supported by theexperience of the past two hundred years. On the onehand, there is the tremendous growth of productive capacityand standards of living in the West, as a consequenceof the great Industrial Revolution. On the otherhand, it is precisely in the economically "underdeveloped"countries of the world—where productivecapacity is small and masses of people live in povertyand misery—that the problem of scarcity is most acute.13

Implication of Scarcity:"Production"We now illustrate the preceding analysis bymeans of the diagram in Figure 1. Scarcity is seen hereas comprising the basic conditions of both (a) unlimitedwants and goals of all types, and (b) the constraint ofrelatively limited resources or means.It is precisely at this point that we see thefirst major implication of scarcity for mankind as awhole—the concept of production. Only by engaging inproductive activities can man expect to reduce or modifythe condition of scarcity. The concept of production,which will be analyzed in detail in Chapter IV, encompassesall human activities designed to provide thevery goods and services that can satisfy man'smultifarious wants.11 • Two Modes of ProductionIf we look back into history, two main modes ofproduction can be discerned. One is the relativelyprimitive direct-use or self-subsistence mode of production,in which production is undertaken by people fortheir own direct satisfaction. The other mode is themarket division of labor—based on production for themarket, specialization, exchange and money—under whichincreasing numbers of people on the five continents havebeen living. 2Direct-Use ProductionDirect-use modes of production can be foundmainly in the less industrialized, so-called Third Worldeconomies, while the market division of labor (hereafterreferred to simply as the market POL) is predominant inthe highly industrialized economies. ("Barter" economyis here regarded as a transitional mode between directuseproduction and the market DOL, and will be discussedin Chapter III.)I am indebted to Paul Craig Roberts and Matthew A. Stephenson,Marx's Theory of Exchange, Alienation and Crisis (Stanford,California: Hoover Institution Press, 1973) for the distinctionof direct-use versus market modes of production organization.14

^UNLIMITEDWANTSSCARCITYLIMITEDMEANSPRODUCTIONFIGURE 1:SCARCITY IMPLIES PRODUCTION.15

Direct-use production can take place in a widevariety of human contexts. At one extreme is the singleisolated person living all to himself, in separationfrom others and working only for his own directsatisfaction—the so-called Robinson Crusoe model familiarto economists. At the other extreme we find thetribe, consisting of numerous individuals and families,in which production, although organized on a socialbasis, is still directed towards the tribe's own desiresand satisfactions.In between these two extremes are the individualfamily unit and the small-scale communal group.Common to all of these direct-use forms of productionis the direct connection or correspondencebetween (a) what people want to consume and (b) thethings that get produced. For example, if people wantgrain or vegetables, they themselves—singly or cooperatively—proceedto produce the grains and vegetables fortheir own consumption. The individual's very survivaland prosperity depends directly on his own ability andwillingness to harness resources—labor power, land andwater, tools—and apply them in appropriate technicalcombinations capable of yielding the desired product.Those who are not able to work or produce—infants, thediseased, and the infirm—are necessarily taken care ofby their relatives. In Robinson Crusoe's case, he hasno one but himself to rely on.Furthermore, the goods and services produced fordirect-use are absorbed entirely by the producers themselves—noneof it is supposed to be allocated for salein the market place. Thus, the direct-use type ofeconomy is, by definition, characterized by (a) selfsubsistenceproduction and (b) absence of production forexchange in the market.Social Division of LaborIn contrast to the direct-use mode, the marketdivision of labor (DOL) is oriented toward a radicallydifferent purpose. Remember: under the direct-usemode, the same person or group is simultaneously responsiblefor both production and consumption. For example,if person A or tribe A wants to consume fish, he or theymust themselves undertake the catching ("production") ofthe fish. In this way, one and the same person or groupundertakes both functions of producing goods and16

consuming them. In other words, the household unit isthe one and only center of both production and consumptionactivities.Under the market DOL, however, the householdunit is no longer the center of both production andconsumption. Instead, production is relegated to andcentered within a new social-economic unit called thefirm. Although members of households continue to ownand provide the means of production (especially laborpower) which are required and employed by the firm, itis the firm—be it in the form of a factory, large-scalefarm, retail department store, or service agency—thatprovides the predominant share of goods and servicesproduced for ultimate consumption by members of households.(The nature and significance of the transitionfrom direct-use production to the market DOL areanalyzed in Chapter III.)In this connection, one other difference betweenproduction under the direct-use mode and in the marketDOL is noteworthy. It would be misleading to implythere is no specialization and division of_ labor underthe direct-use mode. Indeed there is, but on a relativelynarrow domestic basis: individuals may beassigned specific tasks or products within the family ortribe. But as a rule, the individual will have to be aJack-of-all-trades, capable of handling a variety oftasks. Even more important, however, individual householdunits are characteristically self-sufficient andnot dependent on production-for-exchange in the market.In contrast, under the market DOL, the orientationof domestic production toward the market—towardexchange with producers in other household units, nearand far—generated increasingly larger scale of productionand greater sophistication in technological change.These changes eventually gave birth to the factory-scaleoutput that became characteristic of the IndustrialRevolution. This breakthrough in large-scale industryinduced, in turn, the further expansion of markets fornew goods throughout the world.Firms Depend on HouseholdsThe radically new forms of social interdependenceand interrelationship that emerged in the marketDOL are outlined in Figure 2. Note, first of all, thatproduction has shifted from the context of the household17

ioL_18

to the firm; the firm is now virtually the center of allproductive activity. Nevertheless, the firm remainsdependent on the households in two crucial respects. Onthe one hand, the firm must look to households as theultimate market for the goods it produces, especiallyconsumers' goods (see heavy line called "consumers'goods"). This follows from the fact that householdsencompass everyone in the community, including singleindividuals or bachelors, and this makes everyone a"consumer." Obviously, unless firms succeed in sellingtheir product to consumers, they cannot remain in business.This raises the crucial question: How do householdsacquire the purchasing power (e.g., money) to buyup the firm's output?The answer to this crucial question brings us tothe second basic dependence relation. The firm mustdepend on householders to provide the required productiveresources (means of production). (See heavy linecalled "productive resources.") For one thing, the firmhas to hire householders to provide labor power. Thus,householders as workers will receive, in return fortheir labor services, payment in the form of wages andsalaries. Furthermore, firms may have to borrow moneyto finance their purchases of capital goods (tools,machines, land, materials, etc.), but the people owningsuch loanable funds (in the form of savings that aremade available to firms via savings institutions andstock and bond markets) are themselves members of households.(It should also be noted that commercial banksprovide "new money" to firms in the form of commercialloans and the creation of check deposits.) In returnfor their loans and investments, householders receiveinterest and dividend payments. Finally, firms may alsohave to rent or lease space (land, factory, office) butthe owners of these resources, too, are ultimately membersof households, and the payment they receive inreturn for the use of these resources is called rent.Firm as Generator of IncomeThus, by making their varied resources available tofirms, households in the modern DOL—although no longerthe center of production—are able to earn the purchasingpower needed to buy the goods produced by firms.That is, by cooperating with firms in the productionfunction, householders are able to earn a variety ofincome payments—wages and salaries, rents, interest,and profits—which in the aggregate are termed the19

national income. (See dashed line called "income payments"in Figure 2 and the "production-income" link inFigure 3). The income generated by firms thus becomesthe prime source of the purchasing power that enableshouseholders, as consumers, to buy up the firm's output.(See dashed line called "consumers' spending" in Figure2) .These vital relationships between households andfirms can be visualized alternatively, as in Figure 4(parts A and B), which focuses on the firm in the roleof intermediary. In part A of Figure 4, we see the firmas intermediary between household members as "consumers,"on the one hand, and household members as"owners of means of production," on the other hand. Inpart B, we see (a) how the firm depends on consumers'demand for its product and, in turn, (b) how this consumers'demand determines the firm's demand for laborand other productive resources, as filtered through thefirm's decision-making process.In passing we should note something about the"production-income" link: it is also relevant to selfemployedpeople such as farmers and professionals.Although these people depend primarily on their own (andnot on any employer's) ability to sell their products orservices, this should not disguise the fact thatthe self-employed are merely a special type of firmwhose "employees" are self-provided for the purposes ofproduction and marketing.Only Production is the Source of IncomeAlthough the production-income link is exploredin greater detail in Chapters IV and IX, it is useful tonote here the following two important aspects. First,economics maintains that the only source of earnedmoney-income is production. Use of the word "income"should refer solely to money-payments earned by peopleparticipating in production. This goes for the wagesand salaries received by sellers of labor services aswell as for the rent earned by people who rent or leasetheir property to others, the interest earned by peoplewho lend money, and the profits received by enterprisingowners of firms. The grand total of all such incomesis, as noted, the national income.20

LUOoZUJO..ccIIUJO2 1 "Ox00o§QO21

Q39004W ^~15"•FOFACTOPRODUCT5-Oo•nzi22

Second, because of the advanced stage of thedivision-of-labor in the modern economy, we find notonly widespread occupational specialization but also anapparent functional specialization with regard to consumptionversus production. For convenience, economicsoften refers to "consumers" as a group separate from"producers," the former belonging to households, thelatter comprising the production units called firms.This usage, however, causes a serious confusion. Inpractice, everyone is a "consumer," including the ownersand heads of firms; and every wage-earner or salariedemployee, who as a member of a household sells hisservices to firms, is himself as much a "producer" asany head of a firm. Nevertheless, in our present contextit is convenient to associate the functions ofconsumption with "consumers" and production with "firms"or "producers." This facilitates references to thecharacteristic dependence of householders on firms notonly for (a) the supply of goods they wish to consume,but also for (b) the income to be earned by theiroffering labor services or other resources.Production is the Source of "Supply"Now, there is another vital aspect to productionin the modern economy: production is not only thesource of income earned by factor-owners, but is alsothe source of physical supply of goods and services.This is the "supply" which firms offer for sale on themarket, and is, therefore, available for purchase by thevery same people who have earned income. This brings usto the "production-supply" link (see Figure 5) that iseconomically associated with the above production-incomelink.In connection with supply it is important to notethat the quantities supplied are always offered to themarket at a price. The firm sets a price that itexpects the market will approve and thereby compensateit for two reasons: (1) to recoup the income paymentsalready made to wage-earners and other factor-owners,and (2) to yield a margin of profit on each unit ofproduct. Only if market demand validates the firm'sexpectations as to quantities offered, prices asked, andexpected profit-rate will the firm be able to stay inproduction and generate income. Whether actual consumerdemand in the market will validate all of the firm'sexpectations as to sales and profits is, at any time,really a big "if." In a truly free market, sales23

n iCw m Om224

success is always an uncertainty; truly free marketsimply open and unrestricted competition and an absenceof governmental protection of profits (e.g., by tariffsor subsidies). (More on this in Chapters VI-XI.)Thus, even if a given firm enjoys success in itssales objectives at any time, this by no means assurescontinued profitable sales. No free market can guaranteesales so long as consumer demand is uncertain—solong as consumers can change their minds in unpredictablefashion. As soon as any firm experiences disappointingsales, it must decide whether and to whatextent it should lower its price, curtail its supply, ordo a combination of both.Income, Transfers, and DemandThis brings us to another important link in themarket economy: the "income-demand" link (Figure 5) inwhich market demand is presumed to derive entirely fromthe incomes earned in production. In practice, ofcourse, market demand, although mostly based on earnedincome, also includes non-income sources of purchasingpower. One such non-income source of money is governmentsubsidies, technically referred to as transferpayments, such as old-age benefits, unemployment andother relief, bonuses, etc. (See Figure 6.)Transfers typically go to people who, for onereason or another, are not working or whose incomes thegovernment wishes to supplement. On the other hand,transfer payments are financed by taxation of the incomeof the rest of the community. Since these governmentaltransfers do not derive from the recipient's own incomeearnings, it must be referred to as a non-income sourceof purchasing power. (It should be noted that in recentyears, total government transfer payments have exceeded$400 billion, far more than the relatively small amountsof private transfers that are voluntarily channeledthrough charity.)Inflation of the Money SupplyAnother non-income source of market demand—alsoshown in Figure 6—is the "new money" associated withloans made by the commercial banking system, with thesupport of the Federal Reserve Banks. This type ofpurchasing power is typically borrowed from the banking25

MONEY-INCOME111"TRANSFER PAYMENTS""NEW MONEY"from banking systemDEMAND•1111FIGURE 6:'NON-INCOME" SOURCES OF PURCHASING POWER(Transfers; New Money)26

system, which creates it literally "out of thin air."The puzzling expression "out of thin air" aptly reflectsthe fact that the new bank money—in the form of artificiallycreated check deposits—is not directly derivedor channelled from anyone else's income but is merelycreated by a bookkeeping entry by the banks. Firmsusually obtain "new money" in the form of commercialbank loans for production purposes, while the federalgovernment also obtains it to cover its budget deficits.In recent decades, the "new money" created bythe banking system has enabled the dollar-value of marketdemand to increase faster than the physical supplyof goods and services, thereby becoming the crucialbasis of price inflation. At this point it suffices tonote that new bank money is not only funnelled to firmsin the form of commercial loans but also to the federalgovernment, to finance part of its transfer payments; inthis way, the total of government handouts can exceedthe amounts financed by taxation. (Details on bankcreation of new money can be found in any textbook onmoney and banking.)'Demand" vs. "Wants'To avoid a possible confusion, note the distinctionbetween wants and demand. The layman tends to usethese terms interchangeably, but in economics they meanvery different things. "Wants," in their original andbasic sense, are truly limitless: there is no conceivablelimit to the quantity and variety of satisfactionshuman beings will want to enjoy. "Demand," on the otherhand, relates to the fact that in practice there is alimit to a person's ability to satisfy his wants. Thus,while one may "want" pie in the sky, scarcity requiresthat one's "demand" be tailored to one's purchasingpower. Such purchasing power typically depends on incomeearned, although it may also be supplemented byone's own accumulated savings, or by borrowing, or bysale of one's wealth assets, such as a car or house.Also note that demand is exercised not only by"consumers" but also by firms as producers. Peopleexercize demand not only for consumer goods, for theirown direct consumption, but also exert a demand forproductive resources (labor, etc.) to be used inproduction. The latter type of demand reflects the factthat some people—indeed, only a relative few—enterinto the production process as heads of firms and27

"entrepreneurs" rather than as employees, albeit ariskier way of,earning income. Thus, firms must relyprimarily on their own income (i.e., profits) in orderto finance their demand for factors of production.Typically, however, profits are not enough, and have tobe supplemented by borrowing from the banks and otherfinancial institutions.The Role of Market PricesWe are now ready for the final leg of our surveyof the basic social implications of scarcity: the centralrole of market prices both as (a) the resultant ofthe forces of supply and demand, and as (b) the fulcrumon which consumers and firms base their decisions to buyand sell. (See the extreme right-side of Figure 5.)From one perspective, market prices may be viewed as aresultant of supply (S) and demand(D) in the sense thatprices will change according to changes in S and D. Aswill be seen in Chapter VIII, prices would be expectedto increase whenever D increases, S decreases, or a combinationof both occurs. Conversely, prices would beexpected to decrease whenever D decreases, S increases,or a combination of both occurs.In this connection, a glance at Figure 5 revealsthat supply and demand are themselves resultants of morefundamental underlying forces. Thus, reading along thebottom line in Figure 5, we can see that market supplywill increase or decrease according to the levels ofproduction. Production itself will, in turn, varyaccording to the supply of means, the efficiency withwhich means are used, and the willingness of factorownersto participate in production for the market.(More on this in Chapter IV.) Similarly in the case ofmarket demand: D will be expected to vary according to(a) the level of income or other purchasing power, aswell as (b) the character of people's wants—theirtastes and preferences and the intensity of theirdesires. (More on this in Chapter VI.)On the other hand, market prices are the fulcrumof information on which buyers and sellers peg theirrespective buying and selling decisions. Higher pricestend to deter buyers from buying or reduce their rate ofpurchase, whereas they tend to induce producers andsellers to increase the rate of production and offergreater quantities. Lower prices tend to exert oppositeeffects: they induce buyers to increase their rate of28

purchase, but induce sellers and producers to reducetheir rate of supply. (More details on this in ChapterVIII.)Market Demand, the Ultimate TestThus there is a vital interdependence betweenthe underlying forces of supply and demand, on the onehand, and market prices on the other. Chapter VIII willexplore this interdependence in great detail. At thispoint it suffices to expand on a basic fact noted above:the marketplace constitutes the ultimate testing groundof the firm's sales and profit expectations. In themarketplace, it is the actual state of demand—not thehoped-for or anticipated demand—which ultimately determinesthe fate of the firm's profit expectations. (Moreon profits in Chapter IX.)Furthermore, only if firms earn profits willthey be willing to hire and purchase factors of productionand thereby continue to generate incomes such aswages and salaries, rent, and interest. Indeed, directlyor indirectly, the marketplace ultimately judges theincome fate of all participants in the production process.Whether one participates as a wage-earner, aprofessional, or a head of a firm, everyone is in thesame boat: all must await the final, albeit unpredictable,verdict of the market to see whether it ratifiesor vetoes respective income expectations.Market Demand and UncertaintyOn top of all this, not only is market demandthe ultimate arbiter of the firm's sales and profits,but it remains ever beclouded in uncertainty. For onething, consumers' tastes or preferences are subject toconstant, unpredictable change, and thereby affect thequantities purchased or the selling prices finallynegotiated. This in turn affects the profits actuallyrealized. Add to this the ever-present threat of competitionfrom rival firms at home and abroad. Nevertheless,despite these uncertainties, firms must somehowdecide how much to supply and what prices to ask. Onlythe final showdown between suppliers and demanders inthe marketplace determines whether firms will haveguessed right or wrong, and, therefore, whether theywill earn profits or incur losses.29

In the last resort, if a firm guesses wrong asto quantity and price, it will have to adjust to itsdisappointment. It could slash its prices in order tomove unsold goods. If it becomes pessimistic about thestate of demand—believing that its disappointing salesare not merely temporary—it could reduce its rate ofoutput. Over the long run, however, the firm cannotescape the market's ever-present uncertainty and theconsequent need to make adjustments in quantity produced,costs, and selling prices. Only the firm'sability fo forecast business conditions more successfully,or to make adjustments when its forecasts proveincorrect, can enable the firm to survive and prosper.Ill•ConclusionOne final perspective: the validity of thisanalysis of the basic implications of scarcity is reflectedby the polar concepts of scarcity and pricesdepicted in Figure 5. Given the underlying human conditionof scarcity, on the one hand, and the market-pricesystem (further analyzed in Chapters VIII-XI), on theother, our diagram indicates that prices and scarcityare ultimately interrelated and interdependent; pricesserve as the "reflector" of scarcity—they are expectedto rise when scarcity conditions worsen and fall whenscarcity conditions ease up.A significant segment of economics is concernednot only with demonstrating that market prices are ableto reflect scarcity conditions but, indeed, that themarket-price system is the only economic mechanismcapable of rendering this vital service. Chapter X willexplore in detail the nature of the market-price system,based on consumer's sovereignty, individual propertyrights, and voluntary exchange. 3This is not the place to analyze how a socialist society, incomparison to a free-market society, would try to solve the problemsof coordinating the activities of households and firms—problems that are inherent in every modern industrial economy, beit capitalist, socialist, or communist. For a perceptive andprovocative analysis of Marx's concept of socialism as a reincarnationof the direct-use mode under modern industrial conditions,see P. C. Roberts and M. S. Stephenson r Marx's Theory ofExchange, Alienation and Crisis (Stanford: Hoover InstitutionPress, 1973).30

CHAPTER IIIDIVISION OF LABOR AND THE ORIGIN OF MONEYLet us take a long look back into history andquote from what is probably the first astute analysis ofspecialization and division of labor (DOL). In his bookcalled Cyropaedia, written by the ancient Greek writerXenophon (430-355 B.C.)/ we find the following illuminatingpassage:For just as all other arts are developed tosuperior excellence in large cities, in thatsame way the food at the king's palace is alsoelaborately prepared with superior excellence.For in small towns the same workman makeschairs and doors and ploughs and tables, andoften this same artisan builds houses, andeven so he is thankful if he can only find(enough) employment to support him. And itis, of course, impossible for a man of manytrades to be proficient in all of them. Inlarge cities, on the other hand, inasmuch asmany people have demands to make upon eachbranch of industry, one trade alone, and veryoften even less than a whole trade, is enoughto support a man: one man, for instance,makes shoes for men, and another for women;and there are places even where one man earnsa living by only stitching shoes, another bycutting them out, another by sewing the upperstogether, while there is another who performsnone of these operations but only assemblesthe parts. It follows, therefore, as a matterof course, that he who devotes himself to avery specialized line of work is bound to doit in the best possible manner. Exactly thesame thing holds true in reference to thekitchen. . . (bracket and underlining mine). 1Quoted in Alexander Gray, The Development of EconomicDoctrine (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1933), p. 32.31

Divison of Labor Signifies ProductivityAs far as essentials go, there is little to add:Xenophon practically said it all. He put his finger ona fundamental fact: specialization, because it enablesindividual improvement in skill and aptitude, tends tobe the "best possible" (that is, the most productive)approach to the overall problem of production. But healso notes: the advantages of specialization accruemainly where there are sufficiently large markets (in"large cities"). These advantages are not to be foundin small markets ("small towns") where employment opportunitiesare barely sufficient for the Jack-of-alltrades(the "man of many trades") who simply cannot be"proficient in all of them." 2Twenty centuries after Xenophon, the classicaleconomist Adam Smith celebrated the phenomena ofspecialization and exchange in the DOL by devotingChapter I of his famous The Wealth of Nations (1776) tothis subject. And he did it for essentially the samereason given by Xenophon. Says Smith: "The greatestimprovement in the productive powers of labor, and thegreater part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment withwhich it is anywhere directed or applied, seem to havebeen the effects of the division of labor." But theillustration Smith used—the manufacture of pins—helpedcreate the misleading impression that the DOL wasstrictly a modern result of the Industrial Revolution(1750-1850) and factory production. In essence, however,the principle dates back to ancient times.How do economists explain the fact that, intime, man increasingly resorted to specialization andmarket exchange as the main principles underlying socialcooperation? By and large, the economic explanation hasbeen: the DOL tends to be more productive than thedirect-use mode of production. And since man presumablyprefers greater output and consumption to lesser (otherthings being equal), he will discover that specializationis more productive than being a Jack-of-all-trades.Probably the best single work on the history and nature ofthe market division of labor, which traces it back to earliestrecorded times, is Jane Jacobs' The Economy of Cities (New York:Vintage Books, 1970). Although Jacobs' main focus is on the cityas the vital center of civilization throughout history, she alsoanalyzes the impact of trade and specialization on the worlddivision of labor.32

Conversely, had the DOL been less productive than thedirect-use mode, man would surely have turned his backon it. Clearly, the power of the DOL to increaseproductivity must have attracted growing numbers ofpeople to embrace it. They must have perceived themutual nature of the beneficial link that formed between(a) the enhanced productivity made possible by the DOLand (b) the gains that accrued to those who participatedin it by specialization and exchange in the market.Montaigne Dogma Under AttackHowever, the relentless growth of the marketeconomy over the centuries is significant for more thanthe economic gains it promised. Eventually theexpansion of markets threatened to shatter one of themost widespread but pernicious notions. This notion,ancient in origin, has been dubbed the Montaigne dogma,after the 16th century French writer. In essence, itmaintains that exchange and trade in the market cannotbe mutually beneficial; one party gains only at theexpense of the other's loss. The Montaigne dogma hasbeen extended to the idea that self-interest causesirreconcilable conflict or antagonism between the interestsof different groups, classes and nations. 3However, by the 18th and 19th centuries, newwinds were blowing in Western Europe, especially inEngland and Holland. These winds blasted away at traditionwith revolutionary impact: trade and commerceexploded to open up uncharted worlds; feudal relationsin agriculture were transformed by increased marketorientation and commercialization; science and technologywere swept radically into commercial, agriculturaland industrial application; most of all, aschool of Liberal thinkers emerged who, like Bernard deMandeville, Adam Smith and Frederic Bastiat, emphasizedwith great confidence and persuasiveness the mutuallybeneficial side of market transactions and relations.Instead of the alleged conflict and antagonism imbeddedin the Montaigne dogma, Liberals stressed the mutualityof interests and harmony that resulted from voluntaryexchange in the market.On the Montaigne dogma see Ludwig von Mises, Human Action(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), Chapter XXIV.33

A note on the term "Liberal." As used in thepresent context, the term "Liberal" (with a capital "L")is sharply distinct from more recent usage of the term.The present-day "liberal" (with a small" 1") stands fora principle totally opposite to the original "classical"meaning: modern "liberal" usually means that governmentshould increase its intervention into man's economic andsocial affairs. In contrast, the classical "Liberal"stood for radical opposition to and break-up of theprevailing mercantilist system—which features strongstate initiatives in and paternalistic control of allhuman affairs—which he sought to replace with a systemof free, unhampered trade and production based on protectionof the individual's natural rights to life andproperty as the primary principle of social-politicalcooperation. As against this, the modern-day liberaltends to subordinate the individual's interests to thatof the State in the name of serving "society," the"public good," or "public interest."Self-interest as the Invisible HandAt the core of the Liberal outlook was thepremise that self-interest, not altruism or selfsacrifice,was man's primary motivation. (More on theconcept of self-interest in Chapter V.) When selfinterestis appropriately harnessed to a system of (a)production for the market and (b) exchange on a peaceful,voluntary basis, the result would redound not onlyto the benefit of the individual but also society as awhole. Irony of ironies: the Liberal took thetraditional animus against self-interest and stood it onits head. The true fount of economic productivity,mutual benefit, and general prosperity lay in selfishnessand gainseeking (not in purely altruistic servicefor "the good of others")—albeit only when practiced ina social-political context of peace and non-violence.In other words, so long as man is willing toachieve gain or profit by producing useful goods forothers, so long will it be feasible to harmonize his ownself-interest with that of the rest of society. Thus,under the peculiar auspices of the free-market economy,man's social interrelations would turn away fromantagonism and violence toward peace and harmony. Onlyin this light is it possible to appreciate the deservedlyfamous passage from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations onthe workings of the "invisible hand" of self-interest:34

(Man's) study of his own advantage naturally,or rather necessarily, leads him to preferthat employment which is most advantageous tothe society . . . and by directing that industryin such a manner as its produce may be ofgreatest value (to society) he intends onlyhis own gain, and he is in this, as in manyother cases, led by an invisible hand to promotean end which was no part of his intention. (i.e.) the public good. (Brackets andunderlinings mine.) 4The Liberal Social VisionTo Adam Smith and the Liberal writers whorhapsodized about the promise and achievement of thefree-market society, it appeared possible that man, forthe first time in history, would be able to base socialexistence on foundations of mutually increasingproductivity—achieved by specialization and division oflabor—rather than on the prevalent dogma which heldthat one man's gain can come only at the expense ofanother's loss. Such a principle of violence impliedgain by fraud, theft, plunder, killing or other forms ofdominion—with survival assured only to the "fittest."In place of violence and its one-sided benefits, classicalLiberalism offered the principle of peaceful social•cooperation based on the fruitful division of labor,because it uniquely enabled mutually beneficial relationsvia voluntary exchange. It made no differencewhether the exchange involved goods for money, or laborservices for money; so long as exchange was transactedatmutually agreeable terms or prices, both partieswould stand to benefit.In rejecting the "dog-eat-dog" way of life,classical Liberalism was also rejecting prevalentromantic and Utopian notions of a return to a magical,blissful "state of nature" wherein man would presumablybe happier than under the emerging IndustrialRevolution. To those who yearned for the bygone past,Liberals were saying in effect: life in a pure state ofnature would only oppress man with its scarcity of meansand its fixed personal horizons, and therefore drivepeople toward irreconcilable conflict rather than towardAdam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York;: Modern Libraryedition, 1937), p. 423.35

an expanding social division of labor and a perceptionof the mutual gains made possible thereby.What Makes the POL Feasible?So far, we have seen only that side of themarket DOL that made it increasingly desirable orattractive—the higher standards of living made possibleby specialization, mutual exchange, and increasedproductivity. However, there is the other, even moreimportant side that made the elaborate market DOL feasiblein the first place.It stands to reason that if everyone in theworld was equally endowed by nature—with equal personalcapabilities or talents and with equal access to theworld's natural riches—people would clearly have noneed to seek each other out for exchange or trade.Since all persons would be equally capable of takingcare of their wants or needs, person A would not need toexchange with person B, and vice versa. In reality, ofcourse, people are not equally endowed by nature. Atthe root of man's need to engage in interpersonalsocial-economic transactions, in all their forms, is theuniversal fact of man's natural condition of personalinequality characterized by differentiation or variationin personal capability and geographical surrounding.It is precisely these variegated aspects ofhuman existence that prompts each of us to seek eachother out for the twin purposes of: (a) obtaining fromeach other those desirable goods and services we do notproduce for ourselves, or alternatively (b) providingothers with the things they apparently lack and want.To put it another way: it is the universal fact ofindividual inadequacy in some respects ("comparativedisadvantage"), or, conversely, individual superiority("comparative advantage") in other respects. It is thispersonal disparity which explains why human beings aredriven, sooner or later, to seek each other out in thehope of discovering opportunities for mutually satisfyinginterpersonal transactions—transactions in whichpeople either (a) exchange goods and services, or (b)cooperate in joint efforts to produce goods and servicesfor the market.36

Human and Geographic VariationThus it is people's discovery and awareness ofhow they advantageously complement each other, inpersonal or material resources, which induces them tospecialize in doing what they are most suited for—to"put their best foot forward," so to speak—as the basisfor their participating in the social division of labor.In this connection, we must note that specialization inhuman resources has its counterpart in the specializationof geographic regions via the development oftheir respectively peculiar natural resources, be theyagricultural, mineral, or climatic.Human variation in personal and material assetsis reflected in the equally significant differentiationof people's subjective tastes and preferences. (More onthis in Chapter V.) Different individuals have differentpreference scales—they do not attach the same subjective(personal) value to the same objects of desire.For example, one need only observe an auctioneer atwork—trying to sell a set of old books, a rare landscapepainting, or set of royal silverware—to see howvery different are the values attached to the sameobject by different bidders.The Basis of Exchange and TradeIt is precisely these differences in personalvaluations which help explain why two parties, willingto engage in exchange (e.g., buy and sell), are actuallyattaching different (not identical) valuations to thesame object. Consider a case of barter trade in whichMr. A exchanges two units of his product X for Mr. B'sone unit of product Y. This clearly indicates that Aattaches a lower value to his two units of X than to theone unit of Y (or, conversely, he attaches a greatervalue to one unit of Y than two units of X).Furthermore, similar reasoning applies in the case oftrading money for goods ("indirect exchange"). Forexample, if Mr. C offers two dollars for Mr. D's desklamp, he is simply revealing that he values his twodollars less than Mr. D's lamp (or, conversely, heattaches a greater value to D's lamp than to his own twodollars). From the other side of the transactions itcan be said that, in the first case (barter trade), Mr.B values his one unit of Y less than two units of goodX; and in the second case, Mr. D values his lamp lessthan the two dollars offered for it. In both cases,37

trade would not be expected to occur if both partiesattached the same value to the objects of trade.In summary, it is the inherent variation ofhuman and geographic conditions, as well as thedifferentiation of individual tastes and valuations,that gives rise to spontaneous interpersonal exchange asthe natural medium of social relationship. Theuniversality of exchange activities, in turn, reflectsthe fact that individuals seek primarily to exchangeless preferred (or less satisfactory) states of affairsfor more preferred (or more satisfactory) ones. Thus,when people engage in exchange transactions on avoluntary basis, it is evident that both parties expectto benefit from the exchange. Otherwise, they would notagree to exchange. (More on the nature of exchange inChapter V.)The Emergence of MoneyWe now come to the crucial "lubricant" in themarket economy based on the division of labor—the elementof money. As desirable as the DOL may have been tothose who participated in it, it could not haveprogressed beyond barter exchange were it not for one ofman's great inventions: money. Out of the welter ofcommodities or goods that man produced and exchanged,there emerged repeatedly a special type of commodity—a"money" commodity—one that had acquired the widestdegree of exchangeability, convertibility ormarketability. It was this special "money" commoditythat induced people to eventually abandon pure barter,and for a paradoxical reason: the barter economy(direct exchange of goods for goods) proved to be morecumbersome than the "money" economy which eventuallyreplaced it, even though the latter involved an indirector roundabout exchange of goods-for-money-for-goods!Curiously, in the whole field of economics, thesubject of money is one of the least understood by thelayman. This lack of understanding is paradoxical:practically everyone knows that money is for spending,and has had first-hand experience at using it. Yet afundamental understanding of the nature of money beyondthe familiar aspect eludes the ken of all but thespecialist. How much does the average person know aboutthe "quantity theory"—the relation between money andprices? How much does he know about the "demand formoney" and its relation to the value (or purchasing38

power) of money? About the origins of money and itslater development from gold to modern fiat paper issuedby government?Commodity Nature of MoneyThe mystery of money may be due simply towidespread ignorance of its origins and development.For one thing, practically nothing is taught in schoolabout the history of money. For another, even textbookson money and banking are, with few exceptions, devoid ofsignificant historical treatment. 5 Yet it is impossibleto fully understand the nature and function of moneywithout knowledge of its origins as commodity money.The forms of money we use today do not tell usenough about money—about its antecedents, its truenature. From his daily experience with money, theaverage person today knows only that money consists of(1) currency issued by government in the form of coinsand paper bills, and (2) demand deposits, or checkingaccounts, which are the product of commercial banksunder control and regulation by government. But itwould be erroneous for him to infer from this that moneywas always like this, or that the government's monopolyof money has any necessary connection with the origin ornature of money. As a matter of fact, modern forms ofmoney are unique; and the historical origins of moneytell us more about its proper nature than the fact thattoday, throughout the world, money is a monopoly ofgovernment.Of greatest importance is the fact that money,in its earliest forms, was essentially a commodity likeall other commodities except, of course, in thosecrucial respects that differentiated it from all othercommodities. Gold and silver are probably the mostSome notable exceptions to the historical blackout on thehistory of money are: Elgin Groseclose, Money and Man (4th ed.,Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1976); Walter W. Haines,Money, Prices and Policy (2nd ed. f New York: McGraw-Hill BookCo., 1966), especially Chapters 2 through 5; Murray N. Rothbard,What Has Government Done to Our Money? (2nd ed., Santa Ana:Rampart College Publications, 1974) and The Mystery of Banking(New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1983).39

famous of the commodity moneys. But history reveals afascinating array of other commodities that served, atvarious times and in various places, as money: e.g.,fishhooks, nails, axes, copper and other metals, shells,beads, skins, cattle, grain, rice, salt, sugar, tea, andtobacco. Each of these commodities possessed theprimary characteristic of money: the ability to serveas a common medium of exchange or means of payment.Medium of ExchangeOut of the welter of commodities that tradersexchanged in the primitive world of barter, it was the"money" commodity alone which was selected to serve in aspecial new role—in addition to its traditional role asa consumers' good (e.g., grain, salt) or as a producers'good (e.g., fishhooks, nails); this was the role ofmedium of exchange (MOE hereafter). That is, traderswere willing to accept these special "money" commoditiesin direct payment for goods offered in exchange, eventhough these "money" goods were not necessarily desiredfor their usefulness as a consumers' good or producers'good.6Why were the "money" goods acceptable to tradersas a means of payment, even though they were not desiredfor their own usefulness? Because the trader could turnaround and offer them to other traders as a means ofpayment for other goods which they really desired fortheir usefulness. Thus, "money" goods were not onlyacceptable to traders but were also marketable (i.e.,exchangeable for other goods). The relevant questionnow is: What caused these special commodities to besingled out as the general money commodity or MOE?The Burdens of BarterTo answer this crucial question we must take abrief look at the world of barter trade—the directexchange of commodities for commodities. It isreasonable to conclude that in the early stages ofSee the classic article by R. A. Radford, "The EconomicOrganization of a P. 0. W. Camp," in Economica (November 1945), onhow cigarettes became the monetary commodity in a World War IIprisoner-of-war camp.40

Traders simply traded with each other only for thosegoods which they desired for their direct usefulness asa consumers' or producers' good—hence the name "directexchange." And yet we know that somehow and somewherethere emerged a special commodity which acquired anadditional role as MOE.Economists have concluded that barter tradesimply proved too costly a method of exchange—toocumbersome and frustrating—to serve the expandingdesires of people whose appetites were being whetted bygrowing population and variety of tastes. What madebarter so cumbersome and traders so willing to adoptalternative methods of exchange?Double Coincidence of WantsThe primary difficulty with barter exchange wasprobably the elusive double coincidence of wants—thedifficulty a given trader A would have in findinganother trader B who possessed precisely both of thefollowing attributes: (1) B wants precisely the goodsthat A has to offer, and (2) B possesses precisely thegoods that A wants. To grasp the essence of thisproblem, imagine the plight of a history teacher, say,in search of a dairyman, dry cleaner, or auto mechanicwho is prepared to exchange his goods and services forhistory lessons. Equally awkward, imagine an autoworker in Detroit who gets paid in the form of ChevroletChevettes—or in tires, wheels, bodies, and other carparts—and then has to search out suitable tradingpartners (e.g., supermarkets, doctors, restaurants,etc.) willing to accept his Chevettes or car parts aspayment for their goods and services. Or, how about thedifficulty the Chevrolet company would have in inducingworkers to accept wages in the form of cars or car partsin the first place.This brings us to a second major difficulty withbarter trade—the problem of divisibility of product.This problem of divisibility arises from the peculiartechnical-physical properties possessed by a "unit" ofproduct. For example, the divisibility of a unit ofwater (the gallon) is considerably greater than that ofa hammer. A unit of salt is very variable (divisible),ranging from an ounce to a pound; in any quantity saltwill still retain its specific usefulness. But the unitof an anvil or hammer is not divisible: it cannot bedivided into a fraction of itself without destroying its41

specific usefulness. Similarly, a unit of silver orgold (e.g., ounce) may be more easily divisible than aunit of diamonds (karat). Thus it would be easier topay someone in salt or gold than to pay him in hammersor anvils.Problem of PaymentThe combination of these two serious drawbacksof direct exchange generated a third handicap: Whatwould producers use as a means of paying off their hiredhands? To be sure, they could make payments in kind—the farmer paying his hired hands in food, clothing andlodging, or the craftsman doing likewise for hisapprentices. But what would the hired hand orapprentice, in turn, use to pay for the other things hemight want to buy? Surely, if the hired help dependedexclusively on the employer to provide all theirconsumption, this would restrict their mobility and thequantity and variety of goods they could consume. Theserestrictive working conditions would make employmentunattractive to potential workers. In turn, employerswould be limited in the quantities they could produceand market, and in the wealth they could invest in theirfarmlands or shops.In other words, a barter economy based on asystem of payments-in-kind would be feasible only ifemployers produced and marketed goods with the followingproperties: (a) employees are able to use these goodsfor their own direct consumption, and are thereforewilling to accept them in lieu of any other form ofpayment; and (b) these goods are readily exchangeable ormarketable for other goods which are available only inthe market place and are valued by employees more thanthe payments they had received in kind.Problems of Capital AccumulationPayments-in-kind also must have made it difficultto accumulate savings. Presumably workers couldnot save very much, if at all, since all of their income(in kind) came in the form of goods and services forcurrent consumption. The producer-employer might havebeen in a better position to save by putting some of hiscurrent output into inventories, but only.if these goodswere not perishable. If the variety of goods producedand saved by the producer was too narrow to provide for42

all of his own needs, the producer himself would need toexchange some of his supplies for more desirable goods.Finally, the producer would also have to speculatewhether the current exchange ratio or market pricecommanded by his product was more or less favorable thanthe future expected price. If the current market priceseemed more favorable than tomorrow's expected price, hewould be induced to exchange his product now rather thanwait for a lower price tomorrow. In any case, all suchspeculation about possible future changes in prices—which involves sophisticated guesswork about the future—is necessarily shrouded in uncertainty; no trader canknow in advance exactly what price his goods will fetchat some future date. For instance, an egg producer mayhave enjoyed a market exchange ratio of one dozen eggsfor one pound of sugar. Now, will this price remain thesame tomorrow, or will market price change? That is,will it drop to a half pound of sugar or will it rise totwo pounds of sugar?Problems of Price InformationThis brings us to still another difficulty underbarter trade: How could the trader locate that oneother trader who could offer him the best price (exchangeratio) for his goods? This involved, in essence,a search for information—information in the form ofexchange rates or prices. Very likely, the greater thequantity and variety of goods exchanged in a givenlocale, that is, the more developed the market, the lessreadily known was the desired price. But even if allmarket rates of exchange were readily available, barterterms of trade would create an overwhelming memoryproblem for the trader: for every additional productthat was exchangeable in the market place, the numberof exchange ratios (prices) would multiply at an acceleratedrate.For example, imagine a grain producer is seekingto exchange grain for oil and wool. His search for thehighest price for his grain—or, conversely, the lowestprice for oil and wool—would involve a relativelysimple comparison of only three ratios: grain for oil,grain for wool, and oil for wool. This last priceratio, apparently irrelevant (since it does not directlyinvolve grain), must also enter into the trader's calculationsif he is to be able to calculate the all-aroundbest return for his grain. (For example, if the price43

of wool was relatively favorable compared to oil, hemight be induced to buy more wool than he needs, inorder to end up getting his oil at a lower price, thanif- he traded his grain directly for oil. Such threecornerexchanges are called arbitrage.)Problems of Economic CalculationBut, now, imagine our farmer wants to exchangegrain for six other commodities instead of only two.Now there are seven products that are potentiallyexchangeable with each other; however, the number ofexchange ratios that would have to enter into hiscalculations would not be seven, but twenty-one! Again,if he wants to trade for twelve other commodities, thenhe would have to stuff his memory with seventy-eightprices I (The mathematical formula for determining thenumber of possible pairs of exchange ratios, given nnumber of items, is n(n-l)/2. In the last example,n would be 13.)Truly, barter must have been an extremelycumbersome and inefficient—if not totally frustrating—undertaking. Lack of information on prices andquantities of specific goods and on general conditionsof demand and supply, plus ignorance of specificpotential offers and bids by other traders, must havegreatly limited the efficiency and profitability ofexchange.Thus, very fateful and directly related to theproblem of price information was the virtualimpossibility of conducting economic calculation inorder to determine which transactions would maximize netgains or minimize net losses for the trader.Direct vs. Indirect ExchangeAt this point, it is useful to note anapparently trivial fact, but one that is neverthelesscrucial to the analysis ahead. Obviously, barterexchange was by nature a direct or one-step transaction.The goods the trader desired for his own ultimate usewere acquired directly and simultaneously with theexchange of his own goods; that is, it took but a singletransaction to acquire the ultimately desired goods.For example, our grain trader, seeking both oil andwool, traded directly by exchanging (a) grain for oil44

and (b) grain for wool. Consider now an astounding turnof events: imagine that our grain trader decides not towait until he finds his "coincident" oil trader and wooltrader but seeks to make an interim exchange of hisgrain for another valuable commodity, say, salt.Now, why would our grain farmer first trade forsalt when what he really wants is oil and wool?Offhand, this roundabout or indirect approach seems tobe an inefficient way of acquiring the ultimatelydesired oil and wool. Actually, this indirect method ofexchange—which involved a two-step exchange (first,grain for salt, then salt for oil and wool)—representeda momentous stage in man's invention of money.Money Enables Indirect ExchangeReason suggests that our farmer saw fit toexchange indirectly for his oil and wool, by firstacquiring and holding salt, because he was confidentthat salt would be acceptable as a means of payment tooil and wool producers just as it would be to producersof wood, leather, sugar, candles, and a host of othercommodities, any of which he might have wanted to acquire.In other words, salt had become a generallyacceptable commodity which people acquired not only forits usefulness as a consumers' good but also for itsusefulness as a medium of exchange.Thus it is reasonable to conclude that so longas traders were willing to accept salt as anintermediary product—not to be consumed but to bepassed along to other traders in exchange for the goodsthey ultimately desired—the demand for salt acquired anadditional dimension: a demand for it as anintermediary medium of exchange (that is, money) on topof the traditional demand for salt as a consumers' good.Historically, as indicated above, a wideassortment of commodities have taken turns serving asthe most exchangeable (marketable) commodity and,therefore, as the general MOE (money). Out of thismotley collection it was gold and silver that eventuallyemerged as the most desirable money commodities.The Qualities of MoneyWhat specific qualities enabled these very45

marketable commodities to be singled out for the extrarole of general MOE? Above all, these commodities wererelatively scarce goods in great demand—either fordirect consumption (food, clothing, adornment, ornament,religious purposes), or as tools or other means ofproduction. Beyond their scarcity value, however, themoney commodities possessed other special qualities thatenhanced their marketability. For one thing, they weregenerally more durable than other commodities. Thusthey could be held in stock and accumulated in the formof "cash balances," so to speak, until their ownerpreferred to exchange them—either to acquire othergoods, say, or to profit from a more favorable exchangerate in the market.These commodities were also physically divisibleinto fractional units without losing their essentialvalue. Salt, for instance, could be exchanged in ouncesor pounds and still retain its physical usefulness.Divisibility provided these goods the flexibilityrequired to conduct exchange transactions involvingdifferent quantities and different exchange ratios.Furthermore, the money commodities were usuallyvery transportable, even over long distances. This madethem convenient, not only for transactions small andlarge, but also near and far.Finally, the money commodity was not easilycounterfeited. On the one hand, its quantity would bedifficult to duplicate or replace except by increasedproduction. On the other hand, it possessedcognizability; traders and merchants could readilydetermine whether it was the real thing or debased(diluted with baser materials, as in the case ofmetallic money) and whether it possessed the statedweight (as in the case of metal bars).Metallic Money DominantOf all the money commodities, it was the metalswhich were best endowed with monetary characteristicsand therefore emerged as the dominant money commodity—first in the form of useful objects or simple bars, thenlater as coins. The metals most often used were iron,copper, bronze, gold, and silver—starting somewherearound 1000 B. C. Metallic coins made from a naturalalloy of gold and silver called Electrum can be tracedback to Lydia in Asia Minor, in 700 B. C.46

Metal coins were the first moneys to have theirexchange value marked on their face. Hitherto, metallicmoney bore no mark or stamp for its exchange value,retaining its currency only by virtue of its shape orweight. Thus, recipients of money had to judge itsvalue by sight or by weight, or by measuring its purityin an assaying process.The Merchant as CoinerThose who customarily handled a great deal ofmoney, such as the merchants, were usually involved in alot of weighing and assaying. Thus it was the merchantwho created the first metal coins. By stamping hisidentifying mark as well as the face value, he sought tospare himself the chore of reassaying coins every timethey passed through his hands. Wherever the merchantwas trusted by others, his coins became acceptable atface value. Thus, historically, it was the merchant whoinvented and developed coinage—primarily to serve hisown affairs and convenience, but incidentally for thebenefit of the rest of the community.This fact is of greatest moment. It means that,contrary to hearsay or tradition, it was not governmentthat gave birth to money, but the market place, inresponse to the demand for a general MOE. As one writerhas put it:Money does not depend on government; . . .[it]does not need legal sanction to perform itsfunction ... it is a natural outgrowth ofthe needs of the community. Nor did the governmentinvent coinage; it was the child ofprivate enterprise. ... In money's youngerdays there was never any question of legalstatus. What was accepted as money dependedentirely upon the desire of the community.Money was simply a commodity with certaincharacteristics that enhanced its generalacceptability. Its value was determined inprecisely the same way as that of any othercommodity. 7Haines, Money, Prices and Policy, pp. 32, 34.47

Governments Take OverNevertheless, beginning already with the citiesand temples of ancient Greece, a variety of governmentsand states have since managed to expropriate and monopolizethe coinage of money. Although private coinagewas, as a consequence, suppressed, it neverthelessmanaged to re-emerge periodically well into the 19thCentury (e.g., during the California gold rush). By andlarge, however, government coinage during the pasttwo thousand years has been characterized as a "dismalrecital of broken faith." 8For instance, governments very early accusedprivate minters of coins of tending to debase andcounterfeit their own coins, and used this claim as anexcuse to nationalize the coinage. Thus, suppression ofcoinage by the market was ostensibly for the purpose ofproviding a more "uniform" and "honest" system. Yet,once governments monopolized the coinage, they themselves,despite all their well-publicized pretensions,resorted to the very debasement which they had condemnedin the market—and on a massive scale to boot, sincemoney was now totally in the hands of government.Government Debasement of MoneyBy a variety of well-known devices, governmentstended to reduce the metallic content of coins belowtheir nominal (face) value, and appropriated forthemselves the value of the metal thus purloined. AsHaines puts it, government debasement of coins became"the normal state of affairs" mainly because governmentssought to spend more than their tax revenues. Comparedto the nuisance of levying new taxes, it seemedpreferable to reduce the silver content of coins,substitute cheaper materials, and thereby produce morecoins from a given amount of silver. On which Hainesproperly comments: "How easy, how common, and what afraud!"This is not the place to belabor this perennialtendency of government to debase the money supply,including modern government fiat paper money andHaines, Money, Prices and Policy, p. 12.48

Market Production of Moneycommercial bank checkbook money. 9 Incidentally, theease with which governments can "debase" modern papermoney and demand (checking) deposits is explainable bythe fact that, on the one hand, debasement is technicallymuch easier to accomplish than in the case of coins,while on the other hand it is not so visible to thepublic eye. Nevertheless, the effect of debasement inmodern money is the same as in coins: depreciation ofmoney's purchasing power and rising price levels.Thus far, we have merely outlined the reason forthe emergence of money on the free market as a replacementfor barter trade. To explain why commodity-moneywas not only desirable but practical, let us examine itsworkings in greater detail. History reveals that themoney commodity originated and was exchanged in the sameway as any useful, scarce commodity in the market. Inthe first instance, the money commodity originated andwas offered to the market much like any other commodityuseful for consumption (e.g., salt) or as a means ofproduction (e.g., fishhooks). In the case of gold orsilver, the original producer was the miner who investedhis resources in locating, producing and transportinghis valuable commodity to market. There it becameavailable for non-monetary as well as monetary uses.Whether or not it was worthwhile for anyone toundertake the production of a money commodity (insteadof a non-money commodity) was based primarily on whether(a) the production of a money commodity, or (b) theproduction of other (non-money) commodities would makeit easier for the producer to realize a given level ofwealth or standard of living.Once the original producer of the money commoditytraded away some of his supply in exchange forother goods, it became possible for merchants or othersto acquire the commodity-money: they acquired it simplyby "purchasing" it—by exchanging their own commoditiesor services for the gold or other money commodity.They, in turn, could "sell" the newly acquired money forother goods or services that they had originally desiredQGroseclose, in op. cit., devotes his entire book to thiscentral theme.49

and for whose acquisition money had served asintermediary.Thus, production of useful goods and serviceswas the primary method of originating and acquiringmoney. The non-productive methods of acquiring moneywere through (a) borrowing, gift, and inheritance, or(b) force, theft, debasement, and counterfeiting.A SpeculationAt this point it is noteworthy to speculate:only the free market—not the designs or plans of kingsor other rulers—could have generated and crystallizedthe commodity-money system. As we have already noted,the characteristic qualities required by a commodity tobe crowned as "money" were scarcity, durability, divisibility,portability, and cognizability. Furthermore,commodities varied greatly in their possession of theserequisites and, therefore, varied greatly in theirmarketability and suitability for serving as MOE.Clearly then, a more or less evolutionary processof trial and error must have transpired until suchtime as one or a few commodities emerged as the mostmarketable, thereby assuming the role of general MOE.Thus, it was the accumulated wisdom gained by tradersfrom long experience in the market place, and not thedecision of rulers or governing bodies, that spawnedmoney proper.Money as Cash BalancesAssociated with the autonomous emergence of nhemoney-commodity as general MOE was the use of this moneyas cash balances. First of all, acceptance of a generalMOE implied that while, on the one hand, all other commoditiesretained their usefulness "just being themselves,"so to speak, the monetary commodity, on theother hand, not only retained it original usefulness butwas now also being demanded for its monetary use as amedium of exchange. That is, those commodities whichbecame useful as money (in addition to their nonmonetaryusefulness) enjoyed an extra demand relative tothe demand for other commodities. Money thus becamethat unique commodity which characteristically was nolonger desired mainly for itself—as a directly usefulconsumers' or producers' good. Rather, it was desired50

primarily as a general MOE—as a means of acquiringthose other goods which were directly useful for consumptionor production. That is, money was desiredprimarily for its exchangeabi1ity, marketability, orconvertibility into other goods.But this was only one aspect of the cash-balancerole of money—the marketability of the money commoditywhich made people willing to accept it as a generalmeans of payment in the first place. That is, peoplebegan to accept money because they were confident itcould be passed along to others when they wanted toexchange it for other goods. Now we must explain whypeople were also willing to hold this money for varyinglengths of time as a "cash balance." Clearly, untilpeople actually spend their money, they must willy-nillyhold it in the form of a cash balance—as a "temporaryabode of purchasing power," so to speak. This is astrue for commodity-money, such as silver and gold, as itis for modern money.Money as Purchasing PowerWhy are people willing to hold money as a cashbalance? The answer seems to be obvious: because theyprefer not to spend all their money as soon as they getit. They may wish to postpone some expenditures to somemore opportune time. But this is not the whole of it:the money commodity must also possess purchasing power(exchange value) in order to induce people to accept itin the first place. Possession of this purchasing poweris the sine qua non (necessary condition) for the use ofmoney—not only as MOE, but also as cash balances.Indeed, it is money's purchasing power thatmakes money so unique among all the world's goods:whereas all other goods are subjectively valued mainlyfor their physical usefulness in consumption orproduction—and not for their market (exchange) value—the money commodity, in its role as "money," becomesvalued primarily for its exchange value (purchasingpower). Without this command of general purchasingpower in the market, money would not appeal to people asan asset worthy of holding as a cash balance, regardlessof its physical utility for consumption or production.Thus, it is precisely the exchange value orpurchasing power of money which induces people to holdit as a cash balance in waiting, so to speak, until such51

time as they prefer to spend it. The holding of moneyas cash balances fulfills what is known as the store ofvalue function of money.The Question of Stable Money ValueCan money really serve as a true store ofexchange value, maintaining constant or "stable"purchasing power in terms of other commodities? Indeed,can any commodity (even gold) serve as a fixed store ofvalue? These questions cannot be fully discussed here.It suffices to note that the purchasing power functionof money is derived solely from (made possible by) theprimary function of money as the general MOE; that is,only because money serves as the general MOE can it alsoserve as a store of value or wealth.It should also be noted that money alone is notqualified to serve as a convenient store of wealth.Numerous commodities other than gold and silver havealso served as stores of value, the most familiar beingjewelry, diamonds, rare paintings and antiques. Indeed,it would be fair to say that such non-monetary commoditiesoften fared better as a store of value thangovernment-issued moneys subject to chronic debasement.Why governments systematically alloyed and debased theirmoneys is the subject of political and economic historyand, hence, beyond the scope of this book. (See thereferences in footnote 5.)Vital Role of Cash BalancesTo go one step further, it should be stressedthat the use of money as a general MOE is inconceivablewithout its ability to serve also as a cash balance. Atany given moment, the total money supply is necessarilybeing held by people, in varying amounts, in the form ofcash balances. Even when some people are spending theircash balances, this money is merely being transferredfrom A's cash balance to B's. For example, after thebuyer spends his money, it then becomes the seller'sturn to hold this money. Indeed, the act of "spending"may be defined as a "transfer of cash balances" from Ato B in exchange for other goods. (Similarly, once thesaver lends his money, it becomes the debtor's turn tohold it.) Thus it is that at any given moment the totalmoney supply is necessarily reposing in someone's cashbalances.52

Were this not the case, the monetary systemwould simply collapse. Imagine, if you will, the extremecase in which everyone spends his money a_s soon ashe gets it. Such an immediate and perpetual flow ofspending would result in people never holding any cashbalances. This getting rid of money by spending itwould, in turn, cause prices to skyrocket and reducemoney's purchasing power. This rapid depreciation ofmoney would, in turn, induce sellers to reject money asa means of payment; instead, sellers would ask forpayment in non-monetary goods and services—which meansa reversion to barter!The conclusion is inescapable: in order tomaintain the monetary system of indirect exchange, it isessential that people hold money in the form of cashbalances rather than spend it immediately. Historically,extreme cases of instantaneous spending of moneyhave occurred only in exceptional periods of hyperinflation.More usually, however, people hold theirmoney in cash hoards for various lengths of time. Thisis why, at any given moment, the entire money supply canbe found dispersed throughout the population in the formof cash balances.Cash Balances as SavingsAlso noteworthy is the fact that the holding ofcash balances can be viewed as an act of saving. Thenext chapter will explore the crucial role that savingplays in economic growth; here we merely note thatsavings, in the form of cash balances, are more liquid(cashable) than other financial assets. That is,whereas cash balances already consist of money andtherefore do not need to be converted ("cashed") intomoney, the other types of savings must first be convertedinto money before they can be used for spending.Furthermore, whereas the dollar value of a cashbalance is always equivalent to the nominal or facevalue of the money comprising it—for example, onehundred-dollarbills will always have a market value of$100—the same cannot be said of, say, a share of stockor a bond. In the latter case, the market value of theasset is subject to fluctuation—due to changes in demandand supply conditions in the financial markets—andwill, therefore, tend to diverge from the face valuestamped on the asset. Thus, susceptibility of face53

value to a drop in market value makes non-money types ofpaper assets less "liquid" than money.In this connection we should note that a curiousdebate has emerged among modern economists on the basicquestion: "What, after all, is modern money"? Howshould "money" be defined? What forms of money shouldit include? The debate is curious because in the pastthere was no ambiguity of definition: money existed inits "full-bodied" commodity form, and its purchasingpower was therefore intimately tied to its market valueas a commodity. Thus, in their original commodityforms, cash balances obviously consisted of physicalquantities of the given money commodity—say, ounces ofgold and silver. In the modern world, too, cash balancesconsist of the money that people happen to use.Thus, today, the chief physical forms of cash balancesare (a) government-issued currency (i.e., coins andpaper bills) and (b) bank-issued demand deposits, orcheck money, which together comprise the "money supply."In modern times, however, most governments havesevered all connection between money and its commodityheritage. In place of commodity-money, they have substitutedtoken forms of money in which the face(nominal) value of the money far exceeds the exchangevalue of its commodity substance. Compare, for instance,the face value of a ten-dollar paper bill withthe anemic value of its paper substance, or compare the25C face value of a quarter with the fractional value ofits "sandwich" contents.How this drastic transformation of money tookplace—especially in the last few centuries—has beenanalyzed by the works in reference 5. Here it is enoughto note that, in the radical change from commodity-moneyto (a) government-sponsored paper or token money and (b)government-chartered commercial-banking money, money hasbecome "abstract." In this process of becoming more andmore abstract we can locate the root of the contemporarydifficulty of defining the nature of modern money.Money As Unit of AccountThis brings us to another derivative use ofmoney, also derived from its primary role as the generalMOE; this is the unit of account function. In thisrole, a unit of money, such as a "dollar," is used asthe element for expressing prices. That is, prices of54

goods and services can be quoted in terms of the U.S.dollar, British pound, French franc, Italian lira,Japanese yen, or German mark. In this respect, too,money went through radical transformation which makes itdifficult for a modern person, untutored in the historyof money, to know the origin of this aspect of money.For example, under commodity-money, when a particularcommodity emerged as the general MOE, prices ofall other commodities would be expressed or quoted interms of the physical units of that commodity, mainly inunits of weight. In the case of silver or gold money,for example, the unit of weight was the ounce, grain, orgram. Weight units of a given metallic money wereconvertible into each other at a fixed ratio—forexample, an ounce was equivalent to a fixed number ofgrams—enabling the "size" of any particular money unitto vary with the size of the transaction.This historically-based weight nature of themoney unit is probably one of the most important, yetlittle appreciated, facts about money. Monetary unitssuch as the British pound, the French livre, the Germanmark, the Italian lira, the shekel, the talent—even the"dollar"—all originated as names for definite units ofweight of metallic money, usually silver, but oftenlinked (or convertible) to unit weights of gold, varyingin exchange ratio according to the market values of themetals. As Haines has put it:So closely related is the development of moneyto the development of weight standards that anumber of currencies are named after theiroriginal weight. 10Modern Money Is AbstractIn contrast, today's monetary unit—for example,the dollar—has become essentially abstract, consistingmerely of a piece of paper on which is printed a facevalue that has no connection with the market value ofthe paper, and no longer represents a weight of gold orsilver. Nevertheless, this should not obscure the factthat the dollar as well as other major currencies wereonce related to monetary standards based on weight unitsof gold and silver.Haines, op. cit., p. 31.55

Furthermore, as important as the unit-of-accountfunction is for the quotation of prices, it too (likethe store-of-value or cash-balance function) is essentiallyderivative—that is, derived from the primaryfunction of money as the general MOE. It is importantto stress this point, as will be explained in the followingparagraphs. By way of review and emphasis then,it should be noted that traditional economic analysis ofthe functions of money lists the three functions describedabove: (1) medium of exchange, (2) store ofvalue, and (3) unit of account. Not always, however,have economists agreed in this analysis. The presentwork regards the medium-of-exchange function as beingmoney's primary function. However, the other twoderivative functions are necessarily associated with theprimary MOE function—the use of money as a store ofvalue (cash balances) and as a unit of account. Asimportant as the latter two must be, they are logicallysecondary to the MOE function, since they both presupposethe existence of money as the general MOE.Primacy of MOE Role of MoneyI stress the logical priority of the MOE functionbecause of the modern tendency to slight it or denyit. Indeed, some writers go so far as to place theunit-of-account function above that of the MOE function!The implication is that it matters not what money consistsof so long as government, with its monopoly privilege,prescribes a given unit of account as the only onesanctioned by the state.The "dollar" is a good example of how a moneyunitwas gradually transformed over the centuries from aweight-unit of silver to an abstract unit—a dollar signprinted on a piece of paper. Briefly, the word "dollar"is traceable to the 16th century silver coin issuedprivately by Count Schlick of Joachimsthal (Joachim'sValley) in Bohemia. This coin deservedly gained reknownfor its fineness of content and uniformity of stamp; itwas at first called a "Joachim thaler," then latersimply "thaler," from which descended the word "dollar."Today, the dollar is not convertible into anythingelse but another paper dollar—except, of course,if one spends it and exchanges it for other goods.Thus, one can no longer exchange a dollar for a givenweight-unit of silver; in this sense the unit of money56

has become "abstract": It has become purely symbolic.The dollar, as a money unit, retains its acceptabilityand usefulness not because it represents the weight of avaluable commodity, but because it is the only game intown, so to speak: it is the only money permitted bylaw, hence called legal tender—and, being created bygovernment decree, it is called fiat money. Today onlygovernment has the power to create such abstract, zerocostdollar units and to outlaw the use of competitiveforms of money, such as gold.ConclusionHistory demonstrates amply that a monetary systembased on gold or silver would not require the legalsanction of government in order to perform its essentialfunctions. True, it is widely believed that governmentalone has the responsibility and right to control themonetary system, and that the market cannot be trustedin this regard. Nevertheless, in the spontaneous evolutionof commodity-money, the question of governmentmonopoly and legal sanction of money was totally irrelevant.The substance and form of money were determinedspontaneously in the market place: money emerged fromthose commodities that possessed the best combination ofdesirable characteristics and gave it the greatestacceptability and exchangeability. Furthermore, theexchange value of the money commodity was determined thesame way as any other commodity, according to the law ofsupply and demand. The money commodity was unique onlyin that the demand for it contained an extra component:on top of the customary demand for the commodity forproduction and consumption, there was the extra demandfor it as a general MOE.Furthermore, monetary history discloses that themarket not only invented coinage but also created appropriateforms of paper money—for example, warehousereceipts and bank notes—as a means of making the use ofcommodity-money more convenient. Just as coins weremore convenient than metallic bars, so was paper moreconvenient than coins. But there was this crucial difference:Whereas metal bullion and coins were moneyproper, the new paper money was not so; rather, it wasessentially a money substitute used for transferring57

ownership claims to money from buyer to seller and fromdebtor to creditor. HThus, in face of these historical perspectivesand the modern government monopoly of the money supply—a monopoly that restricts the market's role in determiningalternative forms of money—it seems reasonableto conclude as follows: modern forms of money tend tocomprise a species of pseudo-money rather than moneyproper, such as silver or gold.Rothbard, What Has Government Done to Our Money?, is exceptionalfor his analysis of free-market money compared withgovernment-controlled money.58

CHAPTER IVPRODUCTION, INCOME AND ECONOMIC GROWTHConsumption is the act of satisfying a humanwant. As such, therefore, it is the most prevalenthuman action. Equally significant, however, is the factthat in the natural scheme of things consumption is theultimate purpose of production. Human energies become"productive" to the extent that they are to be directedtowards producing those things that are directly andindirectly useful to consumers. Only leisure and airare directly obtainable without any effort. Virtuallyeverything else we want must be produced with the aid ofscarce means; indeed, the latter become valuable preciselybecause they can serve productive purposes.Elements of the Production ProblemWhat is the essence of production? Again, it isinstructive to look at Robinson Crusoe in order to getthe answer. A study of Crusoe also helps us betterunderstand the complexities of the modern economy. Themodern economy differs from Crusoe's not in itsessential functions but only in (a) its great degree ofspecialization, division of labor, and interdependence;(b) its scientific and technological levels of production;(c) the quality and variety of goods it produces;and (d) its social-political institutions andorganizations.For Crusoe, a number of things are prettyobvious. Whatever he wants—other than leisure andfresh air—he must produce; he must expend time andlabor effort to provide those goods which can still hishunger, quench his thirst, and protect his body. Furthermore,as an isolated man, it is necessary that hehimself engage in production if he is to survive. Onlyin the context of a society—be it a family, tribe, ornation—does it become possible for an individual toconsume without himself producing what he wants toconsume.For most purposes of production, however, Crusoefinds that his time and labor are not sufficient. Healso needs two other things: producers' goods (i.e.,59

capital goods) and technology. Producers' or capitalgoods refer to those means, other than his own time andlabor, that he works up into such forms as (a) inventoriesof materials, food, clothing, and other forms ofwealth useful in further production as well as fordirect consumption; and (b) tools and implements usefulin production, such as knives, axes, fish nets, andtraps. On top of this he must also develop a technology(that is, "techniques of production" or "know-how")—abody of technical principles which guide him in coordinatingand applying his resources to his productiongoals.Crusoe Economy vs. Modern EconomyThus, already in Crusoe's starkly simple, primitiveeconomy, it is clear that man is impelled by hiswants and by the "stinginess" of nature to devise toolsand methods that will enable existence. In these respects,isolated man's predicament is essentially nodifferent from that of people in the modern industrialeconomy. However, the modern production process involvesa crucial difference: a characteristic specializationand division of labor.As was noted in Chapter II, Robinson Crusoe isboth producer and consumer. He therefore does not haveto face the problem peculiar to the modern firm whichproduces for mass markets—of having to determine whatand how much to produce for millions of other people.Crusoe the "producer" knows exactly what Crusoe the"consumer" wants. His only real problem is whether hepossesses sufficient mental and physical resources toaccomplish his production goals. In contrast, themodern firm faces the problem of uncertainty of marketdemand—what to produce (i.e., type of product, sizes,designs, quality), how much to produce (i.e., of eachvariety of product, at which season of the year, inwhich locality), and at what price. Uncertainty ofmarket demand makes for uncertainty about the firm'sprofit-rate—the margin of difference between the firm'scosts of production and the final selling price of itsproduct.Production as Utility-CreationFinally, for both Crusoe and the modern firm,the results of production have no use-value unless the60

goods produced are capable of satisfying people's wants.Textbooks usually refer to this necessary quality ofusefulness with the word utility, and not "use-value."In practice, the term "use-value" is less confusing than"utility." For instance, in Chapter V the word "utility"is part of the term "marginal utility" which connotessubjective value or a personally-felt degree ofimportance attached to a unit of a good (say, a loaf ofbread). In that context, the term "utility" has asubjective connotation that contrasts with the objectivephysical connotation in the present context. However,since the term "utility" is more customary than the moreappropriate "use-value," we will use it for convenience.Types of Utility-Creation;Form-, Place-, and Time-UtilityProbably the most familiar type of utilitycreated by production is form-utility. Form-utility iscreated whenever natural or processed materials are"transformed," that is, are processed or converted froma less directly useful form into a more directly usefulform. Examples of form-utility creation are easy tofind: when grain is converted into flour; when treesare cut into timber to make lumber, pulp, and newsprint;when metallic ores are processed into iron and steel;when plants and animals are processed into oils, fats,meat, and leather—and when each of these materials isfabricated into a product used by manufacturer or household.Each case involves a process of conversion thatyields form-utility.Man has no alternative but to create formutility:generally he does not find ready at hand themeans that are directly useful to his purpose, neitheras a consumer—even if he bakes his own bread or tailorshis own clothes—nor as a producer.Place-UtilityAnother important group of productive activitiescenters around the creation of place-utility. Thisinvolves the transportation of goods and services fromplaces where they are less preferred, therefore lessvalued, to places where they are more preferred and morevalued. There would be no need to create place-utilityif sources of supply were abundantly located at theright places—indeed, right at the foot of every61

consumer and producer, immediately available at theirevery beck and call. In the absence of such a paradise,people must depend upon various transportation services—rail, ship, road, and air—in order to save time andeffort.Place-utility can be created by the movement ofpeople as well as goods—people who desire to be in morepreferred locations. For example, people may want tovisit friends and relatives, make business trips, andmigrate overseas in search of a new homeland. Ineffect, transportation of things and people serves as away of "moving" geographic areas.Time-UtilityLast, but not least, is the creation of timeutility.Time utility can be provided in two ways. Oneway is by means of loans. A loan enables a person toobtain goods and services earlier rather than later, andenables him to consume more than if he had to wait untilafter he had worked and saved the needed money. Otherthings being the same, people prefer to have theirsatisfactions come sooner rather than later. (More onthis time-preference in Chapter IX.) Second, timeutilityis provided by storage and warehousing services.In this case goods are stored until a later time when itis more desirable to use them or sell them on themarket. Processing activities like freezing or preservingfruits and vegetables also create time-utility.For example, production of frozen orange juice serves asa storage of oranges; similarly, the preserving orfreezing of meats. In the above two ways, creation oftime-utility is valuable because it can make goodsavailable at a more desirable time in preference to aless desirable time.Utility Creation EnablesIncreased ConsumptionCuriously, time-utility can also be provided bythe same productive activities that yield form- andplace-utility. For instance, form-utility created bythe transformation of trees into a daily newspaper alsoenables time-utility in communications; jet-planetransportation provides time-utility as well as placeutility.We can now see why all types of producers'goods in essence provide time-utility. From the62

simplest tool to the largest electric generator, fromthe simplest shelter to the largest warehouse, from thesmallest shop to the largest assembly plant—all ofthese producers 1 goods not only increase the productivecapacity of the economy but also increase consumptionpossibilities per unit of time.Having said all this, utility is not enough.True, it is essential that goods possess utility inorder for people to value them at all—but it is not asufficient condition. Unless the utility possessed bygoods has a subjective importance for people, peoplewill not be willing to pay for them. Unless people wantto use butter, for example, people will not buy it.Furthermore, it is the value that people attach toconsumers' goods that becomes the source of valueattached to the producers' goods (i.e., labor, capital,etc.) capable of producing those consumers' goods.Thus, the value of an auto factory is derived from theautomobiles it can produce for sale on the market.In other words, it is not production per ^e—themere physical creation of utility—that is the source ofvalue of consumers' goods. Rather, it is the consumers'subjective value attached to consumers' goods, and theprices they are willing to pay for them, which not onlyimpart market value to consumers' goods but also enticefirms to undertake production and, in turn, to hirelabor and other factors of production. (More on this inChapter IX.)Technology, or Various Waysof Skinning the CatImplicit at almost every step in the creation ofutility is the intangible role of technology and technologicalprogress. "Technology" may be defined simply asa body of technical knowledge or information on how toproduce anything. The "anything" can be a physicalproduct, a labor service, or a professional performance.Thus, there is a technology not only for making mousetrapsand automobiles but also for "producing" acarpenter, a chef, a barber, a doctor, an engineer, ora teacher.Notice the use of the words "knowledge" and"information." This signifies that the essence oftechnology is an idea or concept, which may be expressedin a variety of ways—from a technical manual to a63

cooking recipe. Technology is thus not to be confusedwith the physical form in which an idea may be embodied/such as a combustion engine or a rum cake. Thus,technology may be transmitted in a variety of ways—fromword-of-mouth, schooling, and espionage—all the way tothe final product which enables it to achieve practicalutility.Adam and Eve, being the first on earth, unfortunatelyhad no technology to inherit. For us moderns,however, the vast accumulated body of technologyinherited from the past is, for the most part, availablefree or at relatively low cost. Contrast this withRobinson Crusoe's plight in his lonely existence. Technologically,at least, he was more fortunate than Adamand Eve: he was able to bring with him—in mind or inmanual—some rudimentary technological ideas on how tosurvive in primitive environs. If he had not alreadyknown how to fetch and prepare his food, clothing, andshelter, his days would have been numbered, indeed.Even if he had landed on the island totally emptyhanded,so long as the natural environment was hospitablehe would need only a few basic ideas on how to makean axe, a bow-and-arrow, a hut, and so on. He couldthen implement his ideas by working to produce thethings required for survival. Otherwise, in dreadfulignorance, Crusoe would have to originate his own technologyby trial-and-error, abandoning less efficienttechniques for more efficient ones, and always perilouslyat the mercy of his own inadequate resources.Technology Is Not EnoughThese comments on the nature of technology are,strictly speaking, not of the essence of economics.Technology per se is primarily related to pure andapplied science and engineering. Economics as such isnot concerned with the creative mainsprings of specifictechnological ideas; rather, it is more concerned withhow technology becomes physically embodied and implemented,and how its progress and diffusion are accomplishedover the long run. Concerning these twoaspects, economics can assert the following: thedevelopment and progress of technology necessarilyinvolve economic processes of saving and investment,that is, capital accumulation. To these very crucialconcepts we must now turn.64

If our man Crusoe wants to produce a fish net inorder to increase his fish catch and consumption, hewill have to become a "capitalist." This may soundstrange, since we usually associate capitalists withmodern industrial economy, and not primitive economy.How can a primitive like Crusoe be a capitalist? Let usput ourselves in Crusoe's situation. Assuming we knowhow to make a net and nature provides all the requiredmaterials, we now face the primary economic task ofcapital accumulation.The Role of Capital AccumulationIn order to build our fish net, what do we requirebesides technological know-how and some materialsplucked from nature? One possibility would be overtimework to fetch and weave our materials. This overtimework involves a sacrifice of leisure—a precious consumer'sgood—a sacrifice made especially difficult bythe hard day's work already put in. Another alternativeis to tighten our belts by consuming fewer berries andother foods. This would enable us to allocate the timesaved from fetching fewer berries, etc., to the makingof the net. This, too, like the overtime loss ofleisure, involves a sacrifice of current consumption.There is a third possibility: we can workovertime or tighten our belts (or do a combination ofboth) in order to store up berries and other consumeritems in sufficiently large quantities. This wouldenable us to devote all of our working time exclusivelyto net-making, without having to worry about our usualfood-gathering chores. But this, too, calls for sacrificeof current consumption. And the same is true ofthe fourth alternative, which involves a combination ofthe other three.Whichever course we resort to, there is noescaping the hard economic fact: production of the fishnet requires an act of sacrifice—the forgoing of currentconsumption. The sacrifice of current consumptionenables us to save some labor time which can then bedevoted to (invested in) the fabrication of the net.The Crux of Capital AccumulationThis economic necessity to save and investconfronts us whenever we have to build anything, be it a65

shelter, a ladder, a wagon, or a weapon. Further, solong as we believe that any of these things would enableus to live better tomorrow, we will be willing to saveand invest. On the other hand, if we did not wish tolive better tomorrow, we could simply postpone or avoidthe saving-investment decision, and settle back into ourcustomary style of living.This is the crux of capital accumulation andeconomic growth; higher consumption levels in thefuture rest essentially upon the sacrifice of someconsumption; the saved resources are then invested inmaking the producers' goods (machines, etc.) that enableus to produce more consumers' goods. Only if we expectthe improvement in future consumption to be worth morethan the sacrifice of present consumption will weundertake saving and investment, that is, become"capitalist."Capital Accumulation—Crusoevs. the Modern EconomyThus, the example of a primitive Crusoe enablesus to understand the essence of capital accumulation:the sacrifice of present consumption (saving) and theallocation of saved resources to capital goods projects(investment) that enable increased future consumption.Indeed, there is no essential difference between Crusoeand the modern economy when it comes to the savingprocess. In both cases the source of saving is thesacrifice of present consumption.For Crusoe, the sacrifice of consumption (saving)takes obvious forms: overtime work, tightening thebelt, or storing up food. For us moderns, the sacrificeof consumption takes on institutionalized, more complexforms involving an elaborate system of financialinstitutions. Households can save by withholding fromcurrent income (from wages and salaries, rent, interest,and dividends) a portion that is "invested" in financialassets of all sorts (in check deposits, savingsaccounts, stocks and bonds, etc.). Firms can save byapportioning their undistributed profits anddepreciation (i.e., "cash flow") from their currentsales receipts, for the purpose of acquiring new plantand equipment and inventories. Cash flow funds are"saved" in the sense that the firm could just as wellhave "eaten them up," dispensing fatter salaries to66

executives and fatter dividends to stockholders andowners who could then spend these funds on consumption.Similarities in Investment ProcessesNor is there any essential difference betweenCrusoe and the modern economy when it comes to the typeof investments to which their savings can be allocated.First, both can invest in inventories of materials andother goods that will be useful for consumption—directly useful, when consumers' goods are being stored,or indirectly useful, when the stored goods are raw orsemi-processed materials. Second, both can invest inthe making of tools and equipment (i.e., "durable producers'equipment") which, combined with labor, help manamplify his productive capacity far beyond anything thathe could develop by the use of his labor alone. Third,both can invest by creating structures that are usefulfor dwelling and working space (i.e., "construction,residential and non-residential"). For each of thesethree investment purposes, the modern community no lessthan Crusoe must sacrifice (save) time and otherresources, and reallocate them from the production ofconsumers' goods toward the production of producers'goods (invest).Furthermore, even when it comes to the repairand replacement of their capital goods—when these goodsbecome depleted, broken, worn out, or obsolete—bothCrusoe and the modern economy face the same economicnecessity to save and invest. In both cases the time,effort, and other resources required for the maintenanceof capital goods against the ravages of time andproductive use—commonly referred to as depreciation or"capital consumption"—can be supplied only by thesacrifice of current consumption.Capital Accumulation and Living StandardsFinally, there is no essential differencebetween Crusoe and the modern economy in the significantincreases in consumption that can be achieved throughcapital accumulation. Indeed, it is precisely thispossibility of achieving great increases in consumption—or of forestalling threatened declines in consumption—that is the prime inducement for investment in capitalgoods. This investment can be done directly—as by aCrusoe, a peasant family, or a modern manufacturing67

firm. Investment can also be done indirectly, as whenindividuals invest in new stocks and bonds issued byfirms, and thereby provide the firms with funds toacquire new plants and equipment. In both cases, thebasic inducement is the same: individual preference forboth increased consumers' goods and increased leisure inthe future. Only investment in capital goods has enabledthe combined increase in consumers' goods andleisure enjoyed by increasing numbers of people duringthe past 200 years of industrial capitalism in theWestern world.Capital Accumulation andTechnological ProgressNor is this all. Saving and investment are thesine qua non of technological progress itself. Let ussee why. Technological "progress" simply reflects thechanges in technology resulting from the introductionand diffusion of new technology. Technological changesoccur in two different dimensions: via (a) the creationof new types of producers' goods, such as new andimproved machines substituting for physical or mentallabor, synthetics substituting for natural materials,assembly-line methods, and computers; and (b) the creationof new types of consumers' goods, such as phonographrecords, radio, movies, television, automobiles,jet air travel, and motels. In both of these dimensions,it is not possible to introduce the new technology—whether it be by the lone inventor or by the corporateresearch team—unless there is saving and investment,that is, unless time, effort, and resources (otherwiseavailable for current consumption) are reallocatedtoward creation of the new technology.Technology and Production CostsSpecifically, producers will invest in new,improved producers' goods when they believe this willreduce the average cost (cost per unit) of output.Other things being equal, a cut in the cost per unit ofoutput represents per se an increase in profit rate perunit of output. Furthermore, a cut in production costenables a reduction in the price per unit of output(e.g., the price of each loaf of bread, each car, eachtelevision set) without squeezing the profit margin.Since both of these possibilities can give the firm acompetitive edge over rival firms that are not able to68

duplicate such cost savings, they constitute a stronginducement for the firm to search for cost-cuttingtechnology.Let us digress briefly to visualize the impactof a new technique of production on the profit rate ofthe firm. The profit rate will be analyzed in greaterdetail in Chapter IX; here it suffices to note that theprofit rate represents the price spread or margin betweenthe selling price and the per-unit cost of aproduct (as shown by the "profit margin" in Figure 7)."Outlays for factors of production" in Figure 7 includewages and salaries, rent, depreciation, and expenses forpurchased services, materials, and supplies. The"profit margin" in the first stage A represents theprofit rate which the firm earns currently. This profitrate is not a money-expense or cost in the same sense aswages or other outlays for factors of production.Rather, it is a margin of earnings—the inducementrequired by the firm to undertake a time-consuming andrisky production process whose payoff is only in thefuture. The "profit margin" in stage B, however, is theexpected increase in profit expected from the new costcuttingtechnique.Some Further ExplanationsA further word of explanation about Figure 7 isnecessary. The decline in "outlays for factors" representsa percentage or relative change, not an absoluteone. It therefore does not signify a drop in the totalamount of money wages, etc., paid out. Also, thenumerical values shown are expressed only in terms ofunit (average) costs and prices; they imply nothingabout changes in the total volume (number of units)produced, nor the total number of workers employed.Also, note that the selling price of the productis assumed to remain unchanged. In practice, reductionof the unit cost and the associated increase in profitrate would enable the firm to subsequently reduce theprice to consumers, to grant an increase in wage rates,or a combination of both.69

5%(100%) PRICE (100%)PROFITMARGINPROFITMARGIN10%95% {FACTORSOFPRODUCTIONFACTORSOFPRODUCTION) 90%(A)(B)BEFOREINTRODUCTIONOF NEWTECHNIQUEANTICIPATEDRESULT OFNEW TECHNIQUEFIGURE 7:EFFECT OF A NEW TECHNIQUE OF PRODUCTION ONPROFIT-MARGIN PER UNIT OF OUTPUT.70

Technology's Unique FunctionFinally, the introduction of new technology hasalways had another important function: the accomplishmentof things not otherwise possible. Examples includethe innovation of optical devices, nylon, nuclearenergy, computerized operations, space propulsion, aswell as consumers' goods such as cars, television sets,and polaroid cameras. Here the inducement to apply newtechnology by firms is the potential new demand for thenew product or technique and the potential new source ofprofits.In both types of technological progress—thatwhich enables reductions in unit costs and prices, aswell as that which induces new demand for new products—the profit potential may be sufficiently large to inducefirms to undertake major investment programs—to originate,develop, and implement the new ideas on a largescale,commercial basis—despite the great uncertaintyand risk usually attached to such new ventures."Innovation," the Culminationof TechnologyThe great economist, Joseph A. Schumpeter, gavea special name to the culminating phase of technologicalprogress—the phase characterized by large-scale applicationof new ideas and inventions on a commercial,mass-market basis. He called it innovation. Innovationis not to be confused with (a) the exploration for andstatement of new ideas, as exemplified by pure scienceor research, or (b) inventions and applied science, inwhich a new idea is physically embodied in a "model" or"pilot project," on a sample basis. We get innovationprimarily through large-scale investment by firms inorder to embody ideas or inventions in new and improvedconsumers' products on a scale sufficiently great toenable masses of people to raise their levels ofconsumption.Thus, it is the lure of profits from innovationthat motivates firms to invest large sums in productresearch and development as well as market research.DuPont, for example, many years ago spent more than$20 million to bring nylon to the pilot-plant stage.The several billions annually spent by large firmson product "R and D" prompted the economist, SumnerSlichter, to coin the phrase "industry of discovery" to71

describe corporate preoccupation with developing a backlogof potential new products. Firms search for newproducts to replace old ones when sales of the latterlevel off or decline, and thereby enable the firm tosurvive or grow over the long run.Innovation Is No Guarantor of ProfitsInnovation, with all its potential for profits,nevertheless does not in itself guarantee profits. Inthe market place there simply are no such guarantees.First, there is the unpredictability or uncertainty ofmarket demand. Uncertainty of demand is caused by continuouschange in consumers' tastes and preferences, inmarket prices, and the character of competition fromrival firms at home and abroad. On top of this is thespecific uncertainty due to the untested nature of theinnovation itself: a new consumer product to whichmasses of consumers have not yet become accustomed, or anew production tool or method that has not yet beenproved out under factory conditions.In other words, as long as the market environmentis haunted by constant flux in key dimensions—inthe quantity demanded of product, in the prices at whichthe product sells, in the technological longevity ofequipment, and in the character of competition—so longwill profit expectations be subject to uncertainty andrisk.The Entrepreneurial FunctionIt is this pervasive, continuing uncertaintythat prompted some writers to give the name entrepreneurshipto the function performed by stockholdingowners of firms. Admittedly, everyone else involved inproduction—employees as well as top management—isperforce in the same boat as the owners themselves withrespect to market uncertainty; the firm's success orfailure affects employees as much as it does the firm'sowners. Nevertheless, it is the owners alone whospecialize in the entrepreneurial function of contendingwith uncertainty and risk. It is their capital assetsthat are being laid on the line—that are willy-nillysubjected to increase or decrease, according to theuncertain twists of the market and competition.72

So long as the firm faces uncertainty in themarket, so long will it be driven to speculate about thefuture market demand and prices—and so long will itremain in doubt whether sales will bring profits orlosses. Indeed, the peculiar characteristic ofproduction in the market economy is the entrepreneurialfunction thrust upon the firm.The Entrepreneur As IntermediaryThere is another sense in which the firm isentrepreneur—a sense alluded to in Chapter II. Therewe described the transition from the direct-use mode ofproduction to market-oriented production. As aconsequence of the division of labor between householdsand firms, the firm emerged as an intermediary between(a) household members as consumers and (b) householdmembers as owners of means of production (see Figure 4,part A, in Chapter II). How is entrepreneurshipmanifested in this intermediary role of the firm? Inthe following way: On the one hand, the firm findsitself facing a consumers' demand that is in constantflux and tinged with uncertainty. On the other hand, inorder to earn a profit, the firm faces the task ofobtaining resources (labor, etc.) at prices low enoughto leave a profit margin between (a) the expectedselling price to consumers, and (b) the unit cost ofproduction.Why do these tasks involve entrepreneurship? Onthe one hand, in spite of the uncertainty of consumers'demand, the firm must nevertheless decide upon adefinite price at which it expects to eventually sellits product, in the hope that when the product finallyreaches the market the planned price will provesatisfactory to both consumer and firm. On the otherhand, there is no guarantee that the firm will be ableto discover resources at prices low enough to keep unitcosts low enough to assure that the planned price spread(profit margin) between selling price and average costswill actually materialize.Derived Demand for Factorsof ProductionWhat makes the firm, as intermediary and entrepreneur,so crucial in the market economy? It is thefact that householders—as owners of labor power and73

other resources—depend on the firm for employment andincome (wages, salaries, etc.). It is the firm's demandfor factors of production which determines employmentopportunities for resource owners, and hence theirincomes as well.Yet, this demand for resources owned by householders,in turn, depends on the firm's estimate ofmarket demand for consumers' goods. Thus it devolves onthe firm, as intermediary between consumer and factorowners,to convert its estimate of consumers' demandinto a planned production program and a demand forfactors of production. For this reason, the firm'sdemand for factors has been aptly described as a deriveddemand—derived from the expected consumers' demand forthe firm's product (see Figure 4, part B). Thus, thegreater the anticipated consumers' demand for itsproduct, the greater the firm's demand for labor andother factors ; and vice versa in the case of a reduceddemand for its product.Firms As Generators of IncomeIt should be evident by now that the primarysource of income for households is simply firms investingin the employment of workers, materials, and equipmentfor the purpose of production. This should beself-evident, but often it is not. Even among economists,there is still a lingering notion that it isconsumers' spending—not investment by firms—that isthe source of people's income. Thus, it is claimed thatconsumers' spending is logically prior to investment byfirms since consumers' dollars provide firms the wherewithal1 to make income payments to wage-earners andothers. As one writer has put it: "... [R]esourceowners get their incomes from what consumers spend; butconsumers' income doesn't come from what resource ownersspend." !But this merely begs the question. First ofall, where do consumers get the money they spend in thefirst place? Clearly, consumers' purchasing power canoriginate only in the income earned by working for firmsas wage-earning and salaried employees, or by otherwise'''John E. Maher, What Is Economics? (New York: John Wiley &Sons, 1969), p. 102.74

participating in production as suppliers of services,materials, equipment, etc.Second, how are we to understand the fact thatwhen consumers enter the market with their purchasingpower, the goods they want to buy are already on thestore shelves waiting for them!? What does this imply?It means that the production of consumers 1 goods byfirms had already occurred prior to the consumers 1 actof spending—and, as stated above, this flow of productionhad also generated an accompanying flow of income,the very same income that consumers only later spend inthe market.Where Do Consumers Get Their Money?Thus we must ask: How is it possible forconsumers' spending to be a source of income for workerswho had already been paid by the firm for producing thegoods only subsequently purchased by the consumer?Indeed, all the money in the world would avail theconsumer naught if there were no goods produced inadvance and waiting on the store shelves. (Indeed, anabundance of money in consumers' hands, in the absenceof goods on the market, would simply drive prices skyhighin an inflationary binge.) To be sure, when consumersspend their money, they enable firms to stay inbusiness and provide continued employment for wageearnersand others.All of this recalls an amusing paradox once toldby comic Nipsy Russell which, to the best of myrecollection, ran as follows: "There's one thing that'sreally got me puzzled about the car I've just gotten,"said Nipsy. "In Malaya there are people making therubber for the auto tires; in England they have peopleweaving fabric for the car seats; in Ohio they're makingthe window glass; in Pittsburgh they're rolling thesteel for the car frames and bodies; in Detroit theyhave thousands of people busy assembling all these partsinto a car—but what I still can't figure out is how allthese people all around the world can be making a livingturning out a car that I can't even afford to pay for."For Nipsy, all of this constitutes a paradox. For us,however, it is a neat parable for the economic lessondrawn in these pages: people earn income by participatingin production, which logically occurs prior toconsumption and which economically is the primary sourceof purchasing power.75

The Production-Income RegressionAs a clincher, let us pursue this apparentchicken-or-the-egg problem by doing some chain-reasoningbackwards in time and envision a past world devoid ofthe modern division of labor—a world based, instead, onthe direct-use mode of production. As we saw in ChapterII, this pre-industrial world consisted strictly ofhouseholds—peasant families, clans, tribes, and villages—whichincorporated in their midst the productionfunction as well as factor-ownership and consumption.In this former context, production as a matter of courseis for the direct use of the households themselves, andnot for sale in the market. To be sure, some productwould occasionally be diverted from direct consumptiontoward exchange with other tribes or villages on abarter basis; these transactions, however, would bemarginal or of secondary importance. In such a preindustrialeconomy it was obvious that the only waypeople can acquire goods for their own consumption is byprior production. This brings us to the crux of thematter.Production Is Prior to ConsumptionThe crux is this: The proposition that, in themodern economy, the firm is the primary generator ofincome is merely a roundabout way of saying that productionis prior to consumption. Ironically, in thecontext of the complex, modern division of labor, thiselementary fact may not be as readily discernible asin the simple, direct-use system of production. Nevertheless,in the modern economy, it is precisely becauseproduction is prior to income that it is also priorto consumption. In other words, the only differencebetween the pre-industrial direct-use system of productionand the modern division of labor based onproduction for market sale is this: In the former case,producers acquire consumers' goods directly as a resultof their own productive efforts for themselves, whereasin the latter case, producers such as wage-earners,etc., acquire goods only indirectly, via the moneyincome earned and used as purchasing power in the market.Otherwise, in both cases, it should be clear thatproduction is prior to consumption.Furthermore, the thing that imparts effectivepurchasing power to the consumers• spending money isprecisely the prior availability of consumers' goods on76

store shelves in sufficient supply. Otherwise, as notedabove, if the supply of goods is very low, an abundanceof money in consumers' hands would merely cause pricesto skyrocket in an inflationary spurt.Production Requires InvestmentHere's another way of looking at all of this.What would happen if the entire productive capitalstructure of firms would suddenly disappear and everyconsumer, therefore, had to return to Crusoehood tobecome his own producer? How much would consumers nowbe able to consume under these altered circumstances—even if they were loaded to the gills with money? Howlong could they avoid the economic necessity to save andinvest their own time and labor in order to build therudiments of a productive capital structure, much thesame as Crusoe? It doesn't take much thought to realizethat money and consumption do not in themselves produceanything.True, consumption remains the ultimate purposeof production, and it is therefore the ultimate goal ofcapital investment by producers—be they Crusoe ormodern firms. Indeed, it is this ultimate purpose ofconsumption that furnishes the basic incentive to expendtime, energy, and resources in production. Nevertheless,the fact remains that without prior investment incapital goods and other resources, there would be nocapital structure capable of producing consumers' goods;neither would there be the income streams generated byfirms in the modern economy.In this connection it is important to stressthat investment outlays by the firm include not onlyoutlays for capital goods—such as machines, factories,inventories—but encompass all of the firm's expenditureson production, including wages and salaries, rent,advertising, trucking, and marketing. Without question,this makes investment expenditures by firms the primarytype of spending in the modern economy, and clearlyprior to consumers' spending. The fact that only a fewundertake the entrepreneurial role of the firm, and thatmost people prefer not to do so—nor to revert toCrusoe-like self-subsistence as an alternative—leads toonly one conclusion: Most people find it preferable to"leave the driving" (that is, production) to the firm,and to enjoy thereby the greater productivity that is77

made possible by the modern industrial economy based onspecialization and large-scale production.The "Consumers' Sovereignty" ProblemNone of the above denies the fact that householdspending on consumers' goods does play a crucial role inthe modern economy. It is the householder as consumerwho plays the fateful role of ratifier or validator ofthe firm's sales goals and profit expectations. Indeed,in the modern division of labor the consumer necessarilyplays this ultimately fateful role vis-a-vis the firm.The firm cannot escape the fact that only if it caterssuccessfully to the consumer—by providing desirableproducts at acceptable prices—can it hope to berewarded by the consumer, earn profits, and avoidlosses. Only by satisfying the consumer can the firmsucceed in recouping its costs and earn its expectedprofit margin. (This fateful role of the consumer, asthe ultimate ratifier of the firm's sales and profitexpectations, is also intimately related to theconsumers' sovereignty problem which is discussed indetail in Chapter X.)More precisely, one of the key problems facingthe firm is determination of the price at which theconsumer is willing to buy. The firm cannot escape thefact that the price of consumers' goods is ultimatelydetermined by consumers—by their preference-scales andmarginal-utility valuations (as will be shown in ChaptersV, VI - VIII). It is this market price whichsignals to the firm whether and how much it will be ableto produce. That is, only if the market price payableby consumers is expected to be sufficiently high—promising a margin of profit above the cost of factorsof production—will firms be induced to invest inproduction."Working Back from Price"Thus, it is very much to the point to describethe firm as having to work back from price. As alreadyexplained, only through validation by consumers—bytheir willingness to pay the price that firms expect, inorder to recoup costs and earn a profit—can the firmssurvive and prosper. Contrary to what people usuallythink, it is not costs that determine the selling priceset by the firm; rather, it is the prevailing or78

expected market price that determines the costs that thefirm will find it profitable to incur.More precisely, the firm "works back from price"in the following sense. It is primarily guided by itsestimate of the market demand for its product, includingthe selling price at which it believes it can dispose ofits output. Then it considers the profit margin itwould like to earn on each unit of product (as shown inFigure 7). By deducting the profit margin from theexpected selling price, the firm derives the limit tothe factor outlays or costs that it can profitably incurin producing each unit of product. In this wholecalculation process, entrepreneurial estimation of theprofitable expected selling price is obviously ofultimate importance.Discounting of Future PricesFirst of all, only after the firm makes its mostreasonable estimation of the future selling price, anddiscounts this price to allow for interest and risk, canit calculate the margin allowable for its factor outlays.Given this estimated limit or budget for factorcosts, the firm must then calculate whether the prevailingmarket prices of factors of production (e.g., wages,rent) are low enough to permit the firm to obtain therequired factors. (Chapter IX will discuss this relationshipbetween selling price, profit margin, andfactor costs in considerable detail.)Second, and more basic, is the formidable taskfaced by the firm in determining the appropriate sellingprice in the first place. It is well known that sellingprices are intimately related to consumers' demand inthe market place: if the price is raised, less will bepurchased; if the price is dropped, more will bepurchased. So the relevant question becomes: Whichprice of all the possible prices that can be set by thefirm will be the most profitable one to set? The market,of course, in no way reveals this precious informationto the firm directly or unambiguously. Yet, inpractice, the firm must face up to the task of discoveringthis price, albeit by a process of trial and error,aided possibly by market research.79

ConclusionThe market, through the operation of demand andsupply forces, is precisely the mechanism which can anddoes reveal to the firm, sooner or later, which price isthe most profitable, and which quantity to produce atthat price. The process by which the market-pricesystem helps to guide the firm in making its price andquantity decisions is the subject of Chapters VI - VIII.First, Chapters VI and VII examine the demand side ofthe market, followed by an analysis of how the market,through the interplay of its demand and supply forces,determines the prevailing price (Chapter VIII). Sincethe market place, as the ultimate determinant of profitsor losses, is the crucial environment for the firm, ananalysis of the interplay between demand, supply, andprice becomes the heart of our task. But before wetackle these topics, let us prepare some essentialbackground (in Chapter V) on the nature of human wants,subjective valuation, and motivations underlying humanaction.80

CHAPTER VSCARCITY AND INDIVIDUAL CHOICEPreceding chapters have been preoccupied withonly one set of implications of scarcity—the need forman and society to engage in production for the provisionof goods capable of satisfying wants. The relevantcontexts were the direct-use and market modes of production,extending from Robinson Crusoe at one extreme tothe complex social division of labor at the otherextreme.In this chapter a parallel analysis unfolds:the implications of scarcity for individual choicemaking.In particular, the analysis explores in detailwhat it implies when we say that man's wants remainunlimited in the face of relative scarcity of means.This analysis will unravel a chain of propositions that,on the one hand, relate directly to the implications ofscarcity while, on the other hand, they provide an arrayof new concepts required for the development of laterchapters.J -Wants, Preferences, and Marginal UtilityWhat more can economics say about the nature ofwants, one of the two basic aspects of scarcity? (RecallChapter II.) What is the significance of the roleof wants, not only in economic analysis but in the studyof human action in general? Can the economic analysisof human wants provide insights into human motivation ingeneral? What are the implications of our basic propositionthat human wants are "unlimited"? Answers tothese and related questions in this chapter will involvea chain of implications and propositions of primeimportance.Implications of Unlimited WantsLet us start with the basic proposition: Wantsare unlimited. Or, as Alchian and Allen have put it:Every person seeks a "multitude of goods." Why is thisso? For one thing, the concept of wants embraces everyimaginable object, purpose or goal that man can strive81

for—commercial or non-commercial, tangible or intangible,material or spiritual, aesthetic or vulgar.Economics encompasses "non-economic" man as well as"economic" man. Thus its analysis of wants must yieldpropositions that are consistent with propositions madeabout human action in general. That is, economics mustassume a common or unitary basis to human purpose andmotivation in every dimension of man's choice andaction.Thus, in contrast to the textbook focus on economicman on the assumption that his desire for economicgain or wealth sets him apart from non-economic man, orwhole man, here it is assumed that man's "economic" and"non-economic" motivations are both prompted by the sameprinciple. Man seeks friendship and love for the samebasic reason that he strives for higher wages or greaterprofits; he seeks prestige, status, or fame for the samemotive that he strives to accumulate wealth or fortune;he seeks to help others—as preacher, physician orhealer—for the same reason that he develops new productsfor the market. Since there is no limit to thevariety of what man can aspire to, nor to the quantityof things that would be desired by increasing numbers ofpeople, the conclusion is inescapable: man's wants mustbe presumed to be "unlimited."All Wants Are CompetitiveThis brings us to our first important implication:given the condition of scarcity, the existence ofunlimited wants makes all wants competitive with eachother. At any given moment, a person has a multitude ofwants; however, since he faces a scarcity of means, heis not able to realize all his wants at any given moment.As a consequence, every human action necessarilyinvolves two aspects: (1) selection or choice of agiven course of action on the one hand, and (2) sacrifice,foregoing, or postponement of other, alternativecourses of action on the other. The first is referredto as the act of choice or preference; the second isreferred to as the opportunity cost or sacrifice, whichis a necessary concomitant of every human action. Inthis sense, every choice truly involves a "cost."Thus, so long as man does not have the means tosatisfy all his wants at the same time, any given wantor goal must vie or "compete" with all other wants or82

goals in order to catch a person's attention. Whichbrings us to an important additional dimension of scarcitynot discussed in Chapter II. Even in a world ofabsolute abundance of physical means, such as the Gardenof Eden, all wants would remain competitive. Why? Forone thing, there is the scarcity of time: for humanbeings there are only twenty-four hours in a day, evenin the Garden of Eden, and since every action takestime, there cannot be enough time to accomplish all ofone's goals in a given time period. So, even with anabundance of other means at one's disposal, only somewants can be favored at any one time; other wants willhave to stand aside for later attention.On closer examination, however, it is not reallythe scarcity of time per sg that is the reason why wantsare competitive. The true basic reason is not theobjective scarcity of means, including time, but man'sown personal inadequacy or infirmity: man himself issimply not capable of satisfying more than a few wantssimultaneously. Even if man somehow possessed endlessphysical means and was somehow able to live forever, hewould still be frustrated by the fact that he is personallyincapable of satisfying more than a handful ofwants at a time. Given this subjective incapacity, manwould always be faced with the task of deciding whichgoals to prefer and act upon, and which goals to sacrificeand forgo.Substituting More for LessGiven the competitiveness of wants, economistshave described human action as involving a process ofsubstitution: in order to satisfy more of some wants oracquire more of some goods, man has to sacrifice otherwants or other goods. That is, acquisition of more of Ainvolves giving up some, or all, of B, C, D. . . . Inthis example, more of A is referred to as the "morepreferredpackage, while less of B, C, D . . . is referredto as the "less-preferred" package.Following on this, human choice or action can bedescribed as a process in which man exchanges lesspreferredpositions for more-preferred positions.Furthermore, the choice of A over B, C, D. . . signifiesnot only an act of "preference" but also an act ofexchange, i.e., an exchange of the less-preferred B, C,D. . . for the more-preferred A. As one writer has putit, all action is an attempt to exchange a less83

satisfactory state of affairs for a more satisfactoryone." i Or, another way of putting the same thing:every human action is undertaken with the expectation orbelief that it will place the person in a preferredstate.Subjective Values andthe Preference-ScaleThis brings us to the next important implication.If the multitude of wants must compete with eachother for one's attention because they cannot be simultaneouslyfulfilled, then it implies that wants stand onsome kind of ladder, referred to as the preference-scaleor scale of subjective values. At any given moment,one's personal preference-scale ordinally ranks thedegree of urgency or importance attached to each want,with some wants assigned to a higher rank and others toa lower rank of the subjective preference-scale. Moreprecisely: since in every human action we opt to do agiven thing in preference to other things, it is clearthat we do not rank or value our wants equally—theimportance or urgency we attach to individual wants isnot of equal value. Those particular wants which wedecide to act upon are thus revealed to have greaterurgency or value for us than those which we reject orpostpone at the time of action. At another occasion, ofcourse, the tables may be turned: other wants, previouslyneglected or postponed, emerge to occupy ourattention, while previously attended wants are shuntedaside.This implies that the personal preference-scalehas another very important attribute: the subjectiveranking of wants or goals according to their respectiveimportance is not rigidly fixed and unchanging but is,indeed, ever changing. For example, as revealed by hisdaily behavior, man does not act as though food werealways uppermost on his mind. Similarly, the act ofattending a movie reveals that, in that case, the movieis more important than, say eating dinner at a restaurant.Indeed, throughout any given day we perform ahost of tasks more important than eating food.Murray N. Fothbard, Man, Economy, and State/ Vol. I (Princeton:D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962), p. 16.84

The specific action we undertake at any givenmoment reveals the specific want we regard as highestranked or the most important at the time. Since aperson's preference-scale is subjective, personal, andtherefore hidden from direct view, so to speak, it canbe revealed to us only through specific actions andthrough patterns of action over time. Preference-scaleshave no objective existence; they become apparent onlythrough people's actual behavior. To anyone who observeshow people act out their daily lives, it is clearthat a sort of musical-chairs game is being played bytheir numerous wants or goals, as each want or goaltakes its turn occupying the highest-order rank.Are There Such Things As "Needs"?At this point, some readers may be unnerved bythe implication that there is no fixed, absolute "hierarchy"of wants. This assertion conflicts with thecustomary belief that some wants are absolutely moreimportant than others, and are therefore called needs ornecessities. For instance, people regard food, clothing,and shelter as "needs" or "necessities," implyingthat since these items are required for life and wellbeing,the desire for them is therefore always moreimportant than other wants. In contrast, of course, theterm "wants," as used above, has a neutral, formal, orgeneral connotation in that it does not imply thatparticular wants are always more important than others.Indeed, as argued above, economics must assumethat wants are a subjective dimension, and that thesubjective value attached to each want is constantlychanging, thereby preventing preference-scales frombecoming a rigidly fixed "hierarchy" of wants whose topmostmembers constantly consist of "necessities" such asfood, clothing, and shelter. Furthermore, for differentindividuals or in different cultures and living styles,a given goal such as food, clothing, or material possessionsmay be held in extremely different regard.Are There Any "Absolute" Wants?More to the point is the question: What does itreally mean to say that a specific want can have absoluteimportance such that it is always regarded as a"need"? What is an "absolutely" important want? Forexample, life would readily be regarded as such an85

absolute want, and food, clothing and shelter alsoderive their great importance from their life-sustainingroles. Yet, we daily observe countless instances inwhich people behave as though life itself is not regardedas an "absolute necessity."Examples abound all around us: young men enlistin the army to defend their country in war; young menaccept military draft during a shooting war, and go tothe fighting front instead of evading the draft; parentsof drafted youth tacitly accept the possibility thattheir sons may not return alive from combat; politicalleaders of nation-states shout all manner of slogans tojustify slaughter on the battlefield; men join thepolice force knowing full well they may become sittingducks for wild cop-haters; people commit suicide; otherspractice euthanasia and promote "right to die" movements;people drive recklessly on the freeway; peoplecontinue to smoke tobacco despite the danger of cancer;and, finally, as the poet put it, "Greater love hath noman than to lay down his life for a friend."Each of these instances is familiar testimony tothe fact that motives and values other than life per seare often held in even greater esteem than life. Thesevalues include patriotism, "national interest," "savingthe world for democracy," "public service," escape froman unbearable life (!), the heightening of immediatepleasure at the expense of long-term health, and thecherishing of friendship.None of this, of course, denies the fact thatmost, if not all of us, clearly prize life above allelse and behave accordingly. But the fact remains thatit is not life per se that people value uppermost somuch as the quality of life, however that "quality" maybe interpreted: very often people seek an enhancedquality of life at the expense of known risk or hazardto their health or life per se.Another View of "Needs" or "Necessities"Thus, we are on firmer ground if we use thewords "needs" or "necessities" in a less extreme sense,not to connote absolute wants—wants that we cannot livewithout, such as eating—but simply to connote wantsthat are very highly valued. But the same can be saidfor every want: every want is "very highly valued" or86

"very urgent" when we are in the act of satisfying it.A person values food more highly at the time of eatingthan when it is merely on the supermarket shelf; when weare not eating, other wants are being attended to,revealing that they are for the moment more importantthan eating.Often the words "needs" and "necessities" arebandied about by politicians or social reformers whowish to endow their pet legislation or program withsupreme value. What better way to get votes for one'spet project—be it a freeway, a military weapon, orhospital—than to call it a "need," implying that is hassupreme urgency, without which "progress" is not possibleor the "national interest" cannot be served? Buthere, too, as in the case of food and eating, the word"needs" merely reflects the subjective valuation of thepolitician or reformer: they use the term merely toinduce the public to believe that their project is onethat it "cannot do without."To summarize: man has an endless variety ofsubjective wants. Because these wants are competitivewith each other, only the more-valued ones are attendedto at any given time, while the less-valued ones are putaside. This implies that the preference-scale on whichman ranks his various wants—from the most urgent to theleast urgent—is constantly subject to change, as eachcurrently-satisfied want assumes the top-most rank,while the remaining wants fall to lower rank. The words"needs" and "necessities" do not connote the existenceof absolutely superior wants, but merely highly valuedwants. All of this brings us to the next big step inour analysis of wants.Subjective Values Affected by Available SupplySo far, we have been looking at the purelysubjective side of human wants. Thus we have regardedman as a sentient, feeling being who not only wants anendless variety of goods, but regards each want with adifferent sense of urgency or subjective value frommoment to moment. Although the concept of wants involvesan essentially subjective dimension, the subjectivevalue attached to any given good depends notonly on one's subjective preference-scale, but also onthe available supply of means which are capable ofsatisfying the given want.87

A quick example: In theory, the value attachedto water, per se, would be extremely high because of itsvital role as a means of life. In practice, however,the value we attach to a given quantity of water issignificantly influenced also by the supply of wateravailable; thus, the greater the number of gallonsavailable, the lower the subjective value attached toany single gallon, and vice versa. Indeed, in general,the subjective value we attach to a unit of any desirablegood or means (e.g., a gallon of water) is intimatelyand inversely related to the amount of goods ormeans available for satisfying the given want (i.e.,drinking). (More on this in a moment.)The Famous "Paradox of Values'In the first half of the nineteenth century,this objective influence of supply on subjective valueshad been generally neglected by the classical economists(Adam Smith, et. ajL) , which prevented them from understandingthe famous Paradox of Values. The paradoxarises as follows: If you compare the respective pricesof, say, water and diamonds in the market place, why isit that the price of a unit of water is but a fractionof the price of a diamond, even though water is ever somuch more valuable for life than diamonds? Why, indeed,when life would be impossible without water, whereas wecould get along without diamonds?Implicit in the paradox is the traditional butmisleading notion that the price of a good should beproportionate to some objective property of the good,such as its technical usefulness. For Adam Smith, propounderof the paradox, there was "nothing more useful"than water, whereas diamonds had "little or no" usefulness;therefore, he thought, the price of water shouldbe very much higher than the price of diamonds. Nowonder he was puzzled by the fact that market priceswere exactly the reverse of what he expected.Explaining the "Paradox"Clearly, the fact that water is available inever so much greater supply than diamonds does have abearing on the "paradoxically" low price of a gallon ofwater compared with the high price of a karat of diamonds.Add to this the fact that, for drinking purposes,nature provides important substitutes, such as88

milk and fruit and vegetable juices. Indeed, relativelyabundantsupplies of water enable us to use water notonly for vital drinking and cooking, but also for lessvital car-washing, swimming pools, and decorativefountains.If supply conditions were exactly the opposite,and water was as rare as diamonds, then surely itsmarket price would greatly exceed that of diamonds.Imagine the predicament of an explorer in the desert whohas run out of water, having to bargain for some waterfrom a passing caravan of Bedouins. He would surelyoffer them all the valuables he had (even diamonds) forenough water to get him to his destination.The Fallacy of All-or-NothingFurthermore, the paradox of values suffers fromthe fallacious assumption that the choices daily facingus are made on an al1-or-nothing basis—that is, wateror diamonds, food or movies, clothing or books,itc, rather than some amounts of each. 0f~~ course,if such were the case, no doubt we would alwayschoose food instead of movies, or clothing insteadof books. Actually, the choices we typically makeare not of the all-or-nothing kind, but are morealong the lines of "some-of-this and some-of-that, or "abit-of-everything."Thus, the subjective values we attach to thegoods we desire are not directed toward the whole classor genre of the goods (e.g., food or liquids as awhole), but rather toward single units of them (e.g.,pounds, gallons). Similarly, the prices we pay in themarket place are not for food as a whole, but merely forsingle units of given foods (e.g., a loaf of bread).Furthermore, we not only buy food in varying amounts,but we also buy a host of other non-food items invarying amounts, according to our individual preferences,on the one hand, and the prices of the respectivegoods, on the other.SummaryTo conclude this section: We can now see moreclearly that, in practice, the entities we value mostdirectly are the goods or means (e.g., water) capable ofsatisfying our wants (e.g., thirst), and not the wants89

themselves which ultimately inspire the desire for goodsor means. True, the personal or subjective want (e.g.,thirst) is the fountainhead of the subjective value thatwe attach to the goods or means (e.g., water) capable ofsatisfying it. But in practice, only goods or meanshave the capacity of satisfying a want; therefore, it isthe goods, rather than the ultimate want itself, whichbecome the direct object of our subjective valuations.Nevertheless, the value we attach to a good ormeans (e.g., water) indirectly reflects both (a) thesubjective value attached to the uses or purposes servedby the good, as ranked on our preference-scale, and (b)the relative abundance or scarcity of the supply of thegood itself, as well as the availability of close substitutes.It is this latter aspect which now brings usto the Law of Marginal Utility, one of the most fundamentalprinciples in economics.The Law of Marginal UtilityThe classic statement of the Law of MarginalUtility is by Boehm-Bawerk in the form of a parableabout a small farmer who had planted enough seeds toharvest five sacks of grain. Boehm used this parable toillustrate the following principle: for any given good,there is an inverse (opposite) relationship between (a)the quantity (number of units) that we possess of thegiven good and (b) the subjective value or importanceattached to any single unit of that good (called the"marginal utility"), provided other things (subjectivepreferences, personal income, etc.) remain the same. Inother words, the Law of Marginal Utility is a statementabout the inverse relationship between (a) the totalamount possessed of a given good, on the one hand, and(b) the value attached to a single unit of the totalstock of that good.In a moment, this principle will be illustratedby means of Boehm's parable, but first we should add thetwo corollaries that follow from the Law of MU. Thefirst is the Law of Diminishing MU, which runs as follows:The greater the quantity possessed of any givengood, the lower is the subjective value attached to aunit of the given good (the MU), other things being thesame. The second is the Law of Increasing MU: Thesmaller the quantity possessed, the higher the subjectivevalue attached to a unit of the given good (the90

MU), other things being the same. The best way to seethis is through Boehm's parable.2Parable of Five Sacks of GrainIn Boehm's parable of the farmer and his fivesacks of grain, one form of wealth possessed by thefarmer is grain, which he allocates as follows: foodfor himself, feed for his poultry, brandy-making, andfood for his parrot. These uses are listed in order ofdescending importance on the farmer's preference-scale,with food in the prime position, followed by poultry,brandy, and parrot. This subjective ranking of thevarious uses of grain is revealed in the way the farmerallocates his grain when his crop is harvested.For instance, if his harvest yielded only one ortwo sacks, the farmer would use the grain only for food.However, if his crop amounted to three sacks, he wouldallocate the third sack to feeding his poultry. Similarly,if he enjoyed a crop of four sacks, he could thenalso make some brandy. Best of all, if he harvested theexpected five sacks, he could then indulge in feedinghis pet parrot.Thus, the value attached to a sack of grainreflected the value attached to the particular wantbeing served by the grain. It follows then that thegreater the size of the farmer's crop—and the more hecan indulge his lower-ranked wants—the lower the valuehe attaches to a single sack of grain. Conversely, thesmaller the size of his crop, the greater the value thathe attaches to each remaining sack, since only the moreimportant wants can then be satisfied. In other words,Boehm's farmer esteems each of his wants, not with anequal intensity, but with a variable intensity; for thisreason, the subjective value he attaches to a singlesack of grain is variable—not fixed or constant—varyingaccording to the number of sacks harvested.Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, Vol. II:Positive Theory of Capital (South Holland, Illinois: LibertarianPress, 1959), pp. 143-150.91

The Significance of Boehm's ParableAnother way to understand Boehm's parable is asfollows: imagine the farmer harvested a full crop offive sacks, but, on the way home from the fields, helost one sack (which got torn, say, and its contentsscattered on the road). Clearly, given the farmer'spreference-scale, and given only four sacks instead offive, he will sacrifice the feeding of his parrot (theleast-important of his several wants). Similarly, if hehad lost two sacks instead of only one, we would expecthim to abandon not only his parrot but also his brandymaking,which is his next lowest preference. In theextreme case, if he harvested a very meagre crop of onlyone sack, he would clearly allocate it to his highestvaluedpurpose—provision of food for himself.Thus, in general, the smaller his crop and thesmaller his wealth of grain, the greater the value heattaches to a sack of grain (i.e., the law of increasingMU). Alternatively, the larger the crop he harvests,the lower would be the value attached to a sack of grain(i.e., the law of diminishing MU), and the more he couldindulge in his lower-ranked wants. Another way of puttingthis: he would be most sensitive to the loss of asingle sack when his stock is only one or two sacks,whereas when his stock is larger (four or five sacks),the sense of loss of a single sack is "diminished."Illustrations of the Lawof Marginal UtilityThus, the law of MU helps us answer the verybasic question: What is the subjective-value or degreeof importance attached to a unit of anything? Thegeneral answer is simply: It depends on how much youhave of the thing. To use a simple example: The valueI attach to a cigarette depends on how many I have in mypack; if I have a freshly opened full pack, any onecigarette would have a lower value than if I had only avery few left.The principle is illustrated in another commonsituation: the airplane passenger who has packed 60pounds of luggage for his trip, only to discover thatthe airline limit (without charge) is 40 pounds. He hasto discard 20 pounds of stuff—but which items will itbe? According to the law of MU, each "pound" has alower MU for the passenger when he has a 60-pound limit92

than if he has only a 40-pound limit; thus, whateveritem he discards, we can presume it is of lower-rankeduse, whereas the remaining 40 pounds comprise items ofhigher-ranked use.One final example: Imagine the government imposesgasoline rationing, limiting purchases to only tengallons a week. If, formerly, people were using gasolinean average of fifteen gallons a week, it is clearthat, with five gallons less than before, drivers willhave to cut back on their driving. But which trips willthey sacrifice? According to the law of MU, whichevertrips are sacrificed, they must be presumed to be tripsof lower importance, while the allowed ten gallons willbe used only for the more valued trips.A couple of interesting historical notes on theorigins of the law of MU come to mind. The principlehas been traced back to Aristotle, the philosopher ofancient Greece. And the great poet Shakespeare certainlyalluded to it, albeit unwittingly, when he pennedthese lines in Much Ado About Nothing;For it so falls out,That what we have we prize not to the worth,Whiles we enjoy it, but being lack'd and lost,Why, then we rack the value; then we findThe virtue that possession would not show us,Whiles it was ours.3"Marginal Utility" vs. "Total Utility"Sometimes, upon first meeting the law of diminishingMU, the reader gets confused between what is herecalled "marginal utility" and another term, "total utility."We have used MU to stand for the subjective-valueattached to a single unit of a stock of goods. On theother hand, TU stands for the "total usefulness" of thestock of goods, and depends on the physical/technicalcapacity of the goods to render services or satisfywants. Compared with the subjective nature of MU, theconcept of TU embraces the purely objective, physicaldimension of technical usefulness embodied in givengoods. In the case of Boehm's farmer, a larger stock ofQuoted by Henry Hazlitt, in his The Foundations of Morality(Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964), p. 323.93

grain would, on the one hand, cause MU to diminish, but,on the other hand, would enable TU to increase.To illustrate the difference between MU and TU:if Boehm's farmer harvested five sacks, he could satisfyall of his wants for grain and thereby enjoy a greaterTU than if he had harvested only two or three sacks;nevertheless, the MU attached to any one sack would beless ("diminished"), as reflected by the fact thatparrot-feeding is of a lower rank than food or poultryraising.Yet this by no means contradicts the factthat, given the choice (and other things remaining thesame), man would prefer more to less—a greater TU to asmaller TU; that is, he would prefer five sacks of grainto only one or two. On the other hand, Boehm's parableillustrates the principle that, whatever the quantity ofhis resources, man prefers to allocate them to highervaluedpurposes rather than to lower-valued ones.ConclusionWe have explored several major ramifications ofthe concept of wants under conditions of scarcity.In the process, we analyzed two key dimensions ofsubjective-value: (1) the existence of ordinalpreference-scales, and (2) the law of marginal utility.Awareness of these two aspects make it possible tounderstand the degree of importance that we attach toanything. (Time-preference, which is a third dimensionof influence on subjective valuation, is discussed atlength in Chapter IX.)To culminate our understanding of wants, twotasks remain: (1) an analysis of the general principleof motivation underlying all human action (in the remainingsections of this chapter), and (2) an analysisof the relationship of wants to their market form, theconcept of demand (Chapters VI and VII).II.The Maximizing PrincipleWe are now prepared to explore a fundamentalproposition hereafter referred to as the maximizingprinciple. This principle follows logically from thepreceding analysis of the nature of human wants, subjectivevaluation and preference-scale ranking, and constitutesthe fundamental principle of motivation in humanaction. This principle acknowledges explicitly that94

human action comprises, yet bridges, the two time phasesof all human action—the "beforehand" (ex-ante) phaseon the one hand, and the "afterward" (ex-post) phase onthe other. Exploration of these essentially differenttime dimensions, as well as their interconnections, willnot only deepen our understanding of the nature ofchoice and decision-making, and human adjustment to theworld around us, but will also be particularly relevantto later chapters.The maximizing principle may be stated simply asfollows: Every human action is undertaken with theexpectation or belief that it will leave a person betteroff than otherwise. First, a few comments about theunderlined words. "Every" literally means EVERY, andinvolves the annoying or distressful situations of dailylife—Hamlet's "thousand slings and arrows of outrageousfortune"—as well as the more pleasant and enjoyableones. Expectation indicates the ex-ante, beforehand, oranticipatory nature of human choice and action; choicesand actions are always made in the present phase,whereas their actual final outcome or result comes onlyin the future phase. Expected future outcomes andresults of human decisions are therefore more or lessunknowable in the present; they can only constituteexpectations, anticipations, or speculations.Lastly, the phrase "than otherwise" refers tothe fact that human choices and actions are made underunavoidable limitations or constraints. These limitationsare imposed, on the one hand, by (a) one's personalresources, capabilities, etc., (e.g., budget,skills, energy, values, beliefs, knowledge) which arenaturally relatively scarce, and by (b) one's environment(physical, legal) on the other hand. Together theyserve to define the array of possible alternatives thatconfront the human actor and from which he has to choosethe preferred alternative. To put it in more familiarterms: under given circumstances, we always do the bestwe can with what we have—and what Nature and the Lawallow.Categories of Human SituationsEvery human action is prompted or induced by oneof three possible categories of situation. The firstcategory can be referred to as the plus or "net gain"situation, in which a person's goal is to becomeabsolutely better off than he is, that is, to reach a95

higher status or level of well-being _in general, be itby some tangible or intangible standard. This includessuch goals as a higher income level, professionalachievement and recognition, or the raising of a family.Indeed, any kind of action whose purpose is to enablethe person to become "better than he was," so to speak—for example, trying a new cooking recipe—would fallinto this "plus" category.The second category is the type we face virtuallyseveral times a day, since it includes such things aseating, drinking, sleep, sex, and clothing. Here theperson is typically acting to adjust to some discomfort,uneasiness, or longing. The source of the "uneasiness"may be either internal to his body or mind—as in thecase of hunger or depression—or external, as in thecase of a weather change. But the purpose of action ismerely to restore the customary level of well-being.This case is referred to here as the equilibrium type ofsituation, since the goal is merely to recapture acustomary plateau and not to reach a "plus" level.The third and final category of situation mayalso be encountered several times a day: the purelyunfavorable event—the disappointment, the frustration,the "bad news" (again, Hamlet's "thousand slings andarrows of outrageous fortune" that life is prone to).These are purely minus or "net loss" situations whichleave us worse off than before, no matter what we doabout them. As a consequence, a person is merely tryingto "make the best of a bad situation,"—or is choosingthe "lesser of two evils." Examples include: businessfirms that face losses and seek ways of minimizing them;the youth who faces the military draft and wonderswhether military combat or draft evasion is the lessersacrifice; the taxpayer who, facing a higher tax bill,has to decide on how to cut back on his consumerexpenditures.Some Examples of Maximizing BehaviorAltogether, these three classes of situationencompass every conceivable case. Yet in each and everysituation, whichever way a person decides to act, thechoice is presumed to be the one which he expects willleave him feeling better off than otherwise.For example, consider a plus situation as follows:a young accountant is offered a new job with96

another firm at a $5,000 raise in pay. What are hisalternatives? Plainly, only two. He can accept the newjob, in which case it would indicate his belief that thechange would move him up the professional ladder, andthus leave him "better off than otherwise." On theother hand, he could turn it down because, say, hebelieved the new working conditions would not be satisfactory,making the new job, despite the higher pay,appear worse overall than his present job. Nevertheless,he would still be maximizing if he decided to staywith his old job, since it implies a belief that thiswould leave him better off than otherwise.At the other extreme—in the minus category—imagine a 19-year old getting a military draft notice.What are his alternatives? Suppose he considers onlythe following three: he could comply and become asoldier, he could evade the draft and run off to Canadaor Sweden, or he could apply for a C. 0. status. Noneof these choices appeals to him because he believes eachwould leave him absolutely worse off than before. Yet,given his situation, he must select one of them. Whichone will it be? The maximizing principle says thatwhichever choice he makes, it will be the one which hebelieves will be the "least of the evils," so to speak;that is, the one he hopes will leave him the "leastworse off"—which logically will leave him better offthan otherwise. As the balladeer, Tom Rush, once putit, "We're all making the best of a bad situation."In the intermediate equilibrium category, considerthe usual case of increasing hunger pangs whicharouse one's appetite for the next meal. What are thealternatives? On the one hand, one could eat rightaway; on the other hand, one could postpone eating untilit became more important to eat than to do anythingelse. Either way, a person will be maximizing since hehas chosen to do that which he expects will make himfeel "better off than otherwise."Generalizing the Maximizing PrincipleWe are now in a position to see why it would notsuffice to state the maximizing principle, as some havedone, as follows: "A person always chooses that courseof action which he believes will put him in a preferredposition." The reason this statement would be unsatisfactoryis that the word "preferred," by itself, islimited; it prevents the statement from being suffi-97

ciently general to qualify as a general "law" or "principle"of human action.For example, in a "net loss" situation (e.g.,military draft), no possible decision could lead a personinto a "preferred" position in the sense that itleaves him better off than formerly. If a drafteedecides to flee to Canada, for instance, this could beregarded as a "preferred" situation only compared to theavailable alternatives—not compared to his formersituation. Thus, it is necessary to qualify the phrase"preferred position" as follows: "...a preferred positioncompared to the available alternatives." This iswhy our basic statement ends with the phrase "thanotherwise."Similarly, the earlier proposition that humanaction comprises exchanges of "less-preferred positionsfor more-preferred positions" can now be generalized bythe addition of the qualifying phrase, "from among theavailable alternatives;" that is, given the options opento him, a person always chooses to act on the morepreferredgoal and rejects the less-preferred ones.Thus, even if a person accepts military service underthe draft, this choice is revealed as being the "morepreferred"one compared to any of the alternatives.Possible Mismatch BetweenEx-Ante and Ex-PostWe must now make it clear that the maximizationprinciple is relevant to the ex-ante phase of humanaction, not the ex-post phase. The ex-post could verylikely reveal that a person's "best laid plans" did notturn out as intended. In the ex-ante there is no way ofknowing in advance whether one's expectations willmaterialize. It is only in the ex-post that it becomespossible to discover whether ex-ante expectations,anticipations, hopes or gambles will be realized, orwhether they are to be disappointed.Ideally, of course, each of us prefers that hisdecisions enjoy a certainty of outcome—a kind of guaranteethat ex-ante hopes would always be realized in theex-post. In practice, however, this certainty of correspondencebetween ex-ante expectations and ex-postoutcomes is clearly unrealistic. That is, the ex-postmay very well bring disappointment and regret instead of98

successful realization and satisfaction. Indeed, theex-post result may be such that, had we been able toknow it in advance, we would have made some other choiceinstead of the choice actually made. Thus, we use theterm "regret" to indicate one's ex-post awareness thathe had not made the best ex-ante choice.Imperfect Knowledge andEx-Post RegretThis brings us to the crucial question: Whatprevents us from knowing, ex-ante, whether or not—or towhat degree—our maximizing choices will be disappointed,ex-post, and cause regret? To this we offer thefollowing general answer: The possible mismatch betweenex-ante expectations and ex-post outcomes is causedbasically by incomplete information or degrees of ignorance("imperfect knowledge"), a condition that potentiallycharacterizes all situations and decisions. Indeed,the natural human condition of imperfect knowledgeprevents the matching of the ex-ante plan and ex-postachievement in a host of ways.In the market place, for instance, we are allfamiliar with the case of the regretful consumer whodiscovers, only after his purchase, that he could havebought the thing at a lower price elsewhere, or that hecould have acquired a better quality product for theprice he paid. In both types of regret, if the relevantinformation about price and quality had been availablein advance—say, in the form of newspaper ads or TVcommercials—then a more careful reading of this informationcould have avoided the regretted choices.Suppose, however, that the consumer did do hishomework and checked all the available ads. Even thiswould not preclude the possibility that he missed someattractive bargains simply because they were not advertisedat all. In this case, the consumer could only byaccident discover these bargains while shopping and,regretfully, after he had already made his purchase atthe higher price.Another familiar case is that of the firm whichtypically has to decide how much to produce and at whatprice. This decision requires some fore-knowledge ofconsumers' demand (more on this in Chapters VI - VIII).Yet, there is no way that anyone can know consumers'demand with sufficient precision. The reason is that99

consumers' tastes and preferences are constantly changing;so is their purchasing power. This creates a basicuncertainty for any firm having to forecast demand.True, a firm may engage in market research in order toincrease its knowledge of market demand, but it cannever really know it with certainty since there islikely a remaining residue of unknown data. Thus, thedaily operations of firms provide a hotbed source ofpossible regret in human decision-making.Changes in Taste, ForgetfulnessSometimes the source of regret can be attributedto an ex-post change in one's taste or preference. Forexample, there is the college student who first majorsin one subject—say, engineering—only to discover alatent love for economics such that he is regretful ofhis initial preference for engineering. Or take thecase of the young couple that decide to divorce afterseveral years of a marriage they now both regret. Inboth cases there is a change of mind—be it due toincreased knowledge, or awareness of one's self, or ofthe other person's self, or simply due to increasedpersonal maturity.At times, regret may be caused by what appearsto be a change of taste but is actually a case of forgetfulness.That is, a mere oversight may explain why aperson undertakes action A instead of B: if he hadremembered B, he would have acted on it rather than A;having forgotten about B, he had reason to regret theomission once he was again reminded of it.Fraud, Self-DeceptionRegret may also occur in interpersonal transactionsdue to fraud or deception committed by one ofthe parties. For example, if someone paid $8,000 forwhat the car dealer described as a "great car!" butwhich actually turned out to be a "lemon," he is avictim of a fraudulent transaction that he surely regrets:had he known better, he would not have purchasedthe defective car. Similarly, if the car-buyer usescounterfeit money to pay for the car, the dealer willhave reason to regret accepting the bogus money. Inneither case could the fraud or deception transpire ifthe victim were informed to begin with of the deceptiontaking place.100

In this connection, we should include the casewhere regret is attributable to the lack of informationinduced by self-deception. Here the relevant cause isnot an objective lack of means for obtaining the requiredinformation, but rather a subjective tendency torely on uninformed guesses—hunches, omens, or flips ofthe coin. Why would a person intentionally disdainreasonably obtained information in favor of a flight offancy? It might be due to a belief that the necessaryinformation is unknowable, and therefore a flip of thecoin might be the easiest way to reach a decision. Inother cases, however, where the necessary informationmight be ascertainable, the disdain of a search for thisinformation in favor of deciding on the basis of unexamineddata implies an act of self-deception.Information is a Scarce MeansAt this point it is relevant to stress thatwhether a particular bit of information is knowable ornot, or whether a given transaction is economic or noneconomic,the information required for reaching nonregretfuldecisions is, indeed, a scarce means: itcannot be acquired except by the expenditure of time,effort, or wealth. This is why, in the initialelucidation of the maximizing principle, information isincluded among the limitations or constraints affectingevery decision. Furthermore, since every human decisionis effective only to the extent that it is based oninformation that can avoid or minimize regret in the expost,since information is truly a scarce "means," andsince economics is concerned with the implications ofmeans-end relations, we can now realize that the analysisof information and regret provides still anotherlink between so-called "economic" behavior and humanaction in general.From Autistic to Bilateral ExchangeBefore closing this section, it should be addedthat the maximizing principle, being applicable to alltypes of individual action, applies to interpersonaltransactions as well. It is but a small step fromarguing that (a) the individual always maximizes in theex-ante by exchanging one state of affairs for another,to realizing that (b) if two people exchange with eachother, whether personally or in the market place, eachof them is seeking to maximize. In the former case, the101

maximizing is autistic or purely personal, involvingonly one person as the maximizer. In the latter case,maximizing is bilateral, involving two parties, both ofwhom seek to maximize through voluntary exchange witheach other. It is this bilateral maximizing that is atthe core of all interpersonal or social transactions,whether in the commerce or trade of the market place orin purely personal (non-economic) decisions.We are all familiar with market exchange—forexample, the type analyzed in Chapter III—in which twoparties engage either in barter exchange (goods forgoods or services) or in monetary exchange (money forgoods or services). In all such transactions, exchangeoccurs because each trader believes he will be betteroff by exchanging than otherwise. But the same is alsotrue for all so-called non-economic or social transactionsbetween two people. Even though no moneychanges hands, the interpersonal transaction between twopeople is no less an exchange transaction than is themarket transaction.Whether the interpersonal relation involves mereconversation and pleasantries, recreation, friendship,sex, entertainment, or marriage, in every case there isa presumed voluntary mutual exchange of personal assets(tangible or intangible) in which each party expects tobe made better off than otherwise. Indeed, every timetwo people, A and B, transact with each other, they aremutually "using each other" as a means of becomingbetter off than otherwise—that is, better off thanbeing with persons C, D, E, etc., or better off thanbeing alone. Thus it follows that all interpersonaltransactions, whether "economic" or "non-economic," arein the nature of exchange transactions in which bothparties exchange personal assets for mutual benefit inthe effort to maximize.III.Methodological IndividualismBy now we should be aware that the analysis thusfar has been primarily in terms of individual wants,goals, and motivation. Practically no reference hasbeen made to corresponding dimensions of "society,""government," or other social or political entities.The omission is unavoidably due to the epistemologicalnature of the subject—the fact that it is impossible totalk about "society" or "government" in the same way aswe can about individuals. That is, it is possible to102

analyze individual action in terms of a unitary humanentity and motivation—a single mind, body, and personalitycapable of formulating goals and purposes thatreflect and are consistent with the person's own natureand will. However, the same cannot be said of socialentities—societies, nations, states—which by theirvery nature comprise numerous separate and differentindividuals possessed of separate and different mindsand goals.Individual is Prior to "Society"The matter was succinctly put by Ludwig vonMises: "For the purpose of [human] science we muststart from the action of the individual because this isthe only thing of which we can have direct cognition.The idea of a society that could operate or manifestitself apart from the action of individuals is absurd.Everything social must in some way be recognizable inthe action of the individual.... Every form of societyis operative in the actions of individuals aiming atdefinite ends...." 4 (insertion and underlinings mine).In a similar vein, Alchian and Allen assert:"The unit of analysis is the individual. The actions ofgroups, organizations, communities, nations, andsocieties can best be understood by focusing attentionon the incentives and actions of members. When we speakof the goals and actions of the United States, we arereally referring to the goals and actions of the individualsin the United States. A business, a union, or afamily may be formed to further some common interest ofthe constituents, but group actions are still the resultsof decisions of individuals"5 (underlinings inoriginal).Finally, take the following from the textbook byP. T. Heyne on the subject of political decisions concerningthe choice of government projects: "...keep inmind that entities like states or cities never reallywant anything. Wants and goals are always attachedultimately to individuals. When someone says, 'The4Ludwig von Mises, Epistemological Problems of Economics(Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1960), p. 43.Armen A. Alchian and William R. Allen, University Economics(3rd ed., Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publ. Co., 1972), p. 19.103

people want..., 1 what does he mean? That all the peoplewant it? A majority? Those who count? It is usuallya good rule...to ask: Who wants...?"6 (underlinings inoriginal).In summary, the implications of methodologicalindividualism are clear: the only irreducible unit ofhuman action is the individual actor, even when he actsas a member of a group. The "group" is merely an entitythat is itself reducible to the individual members whocomprise it. A group such as a committee or legislativebody cannot act as a "group" except in the purely technicalor legal sense, as a unit empowered to reach agroup decision. It is individuals who ultimately makethe decisions of groups; the group is merely a meansthrough which individuals act, albeit in a cooperativefashion, to achieve goals ultimately serving its individualmembers.Another way of seeing this: it is only theindividual who, acting through a group as one of itsmembers, is in the position of judging whether thegroup's decision is a "maximizing" one for him. Thus,no group can claim that its decisions are representativeof the group's members; only the individual member candetermine the "representativeness" of the group's decisionfor him.Some Cases in PointA few more examples should clinch the point.Suppose a "nation" goes to war. It is clearly illegitimateto claim that entry into war—say, on the basis ofCongressional decision—reflects the consent of everyindividual citizen in the nation. Similarly, it wouldbe illegitimate for a political leader to claim that agiven war is in the "national interest," since thereexists no such unitary, homogeneous entity: one person's"national interest" could mean going to war, whilefor another person it could mean pacifism or isolationism.So long as individuals differ in their attitudetoward war—or any other specific issue, for that matter—there is simply no way that a group can logicallyclaim to be "representative" of all its individualmembers.Paul T. Heyne, The Economic Way of Thinking (Chicago:Science Research Assocociates, 1973), p. 7.104

In this connection, it should be noted that theprinciple of majority rule itself is vulnerable to criticismby methodological individualists. Groups typicallydecide by the principle of majority rule. The veryconcept itself concedes the existence of minority viewsand therefore implies that a majority decision cannotrepresent minority viewpoints. Therefore, no group orgroup leader can truthfully talk in the name of "all thepeople," be it in a democracy or a totalitarian state.IV.The Primacy of Self-interestWith the aid of the maximizing principle andmethodological individualism, economics logically moveson to another basic proposition about human motivation:the primary purpose of human action is to serve the"self," or the self-interest of the individual; humanaction is therefore always fundamentally "selfish." Asa corollary: human action that is apparently motivatedby unselfish service to others (so-called "altruism" or"self-sacrifice")—that is, allegedly not egoism—is atthe root also motivated by self-interest. That is, whatappears to be unselfish or altruistic behavior is merelya particular manifestation of basically selfishbehavior, albeit in the form of a gift or service toothers.Self-interest vs. Altruism:a Fallacious DichotomyIt has been customary to regard self-interestand altruism as basically opposite or mutually exclusiveprinciples of motivation. The implication is that analtruistic act on behalf of others (e.g., a gift ofgoods or services) could not possibly be motivated byself-interest. Conversely, it is customary to assumethat a person acting "selfishly"—for example, by accumulatingprofits and wealth—could not thereby renderservice or benefit to others.First of all, regarded purely as a practicalmatter, the alleged dichotomy of self-interest and altruismsimply is non-existent. The successful doctor orsurgeon, for example, whose practice necessarilyinvolves ministering to others, is usually being handsomelyrewarded for his services; his "altruistic" servicesdo not preclude his desire to be well paid for105

them. Conversely, the person who undertakes a career asa doctor or surgeon in order to become wealthy simplycould not succeed at this goal without "altruistic"ministering to his patients. It is similarly misleadingto imply that farmers, auto mechanics, teachers, lawyersand others are incapable of rendering services to otherssimply because their remunerative work is motivated byself-interest.What makes altruism at the root a self-interestedact is the fact that, while the altruistic actprovides a benefit to its recipient, it is also a sourceof selfish satisfaction to its performer. Any "altruistic"act that is a direct source of joy, contentment,or self-satisfaction to its performer is essentially aself-interested act. The principle of pure altruismcannot logically imply that, in practice, an altruisticact cannot be tinged with self-satisfaction—that itsperformer is necessarily deprived of any joy from "doinggood" for others! This logical predicament was clearlyvisible to Mandeville, author of Fable of the Bees asearly as 1705. More recently, Mark Twain elaborated onthis theme in his sadly neglected essay, What Is Man?(1906). 7Self-interest is PervasiveFor example, for Mark Twain the only impulsethat moves a person in all his actions is the impulse to"content his own spirit;" man's prime need is to securehis own self-approval. "... Both the noblest impulsesand the basest" emanate from but one source, as definedby Twain's own "law" of motivation: "From his cradle tohis grave a man never does a single thing which has anyFIRST AND FOREMOST object but one—to secure peace ofmind, spiritual comfort, for HIMSELF." Thus, when a socalled"unselfish" man does a thing that is apparentlyonly for another person's good, at his own expense, suchan apparently "unselfish" act, as Twain put it, "must dohim good, FIRST; otherwise he will not do it." Whatthen becomes of "self-sacrifice"? It turns out to bemerely another way of acting by which man can "contenthis own spirit." (Underlinings and emphasis by Twain.)7 Mark Twain, What Is Man?, Vol. 12: The Complete Works ofMark Twain (New York: Harper & Brothers, American Artists Edition,no date), pp. 1-24.106

Patriotism and CharityFor Mark Twain, examples of self-contenting"self-sacrifice" are not hard to find. Let us note twosuch cases. For instance, patriotism—"that noblepassion, love of country;" as patriots, men will give upthe peace of home and work and march into battle, danger,and death. Why? Why would anyone who was supposedlyseeking "spiritual contentment" and "peace ofmind" leave his pleasant home and his family in tearsand march into battle?For Twain, the solution to this paradox isstraightforward: a man joins the army and goes intobattle, even though he loves peace and dreads pain,because "there is something that he loves more than heloves peace—the approval of his neighbors and thepublic. And perhaps there is something which he dreadsmore than he dreads pain—the disapproval of his neighborsand the public." (Underlinings by Twain.)Twain's second case involves the act of charity.On a stormy, snowy, bitter-cold midnight, a man is aboutto board the horse-drawn car to return home and avoidtrudging home through the dreadful storm. At this verymoment he is approached by a gray, ragged old woman ("atouching picture of misery") who extends her palm andbegs for respite from hunger and disease. Without amoment's hesitation he reaches into his pocket, butfinds only a single quarter—just enough for his carfare! Again, without hesitation, "he gives it to herand trudges home through the storm." How did he feelplodding his way home? Twain says he was in a "state ofjoy ...his heart sang ...unconscious of the storm."How come? Why such a state of joy and singing heart?Why not, says Twain. Just look at the bargainthat the man got for his twenty-five cents—and hisstormy walk homel For one thing, he could not bear thepain of seeing the poor old woman suffer; "his consciencewould torture him all the way home.... If he didn'trelieve the old woman, he would not get any sleep."Thus, for a mere quarter-piece, he was able to (a) freehimself from "a sharp pain in his heart," (b) escape the"tortures of a waiting conscience," and (c) buy himselfa full night's sleep "...all for twenty-five cents!...profit on top of profit! ...first, to content his ownspirit; secondly, to relieve her sufferings." (Underliningsby Twain.)107

Self-interest as a Formal,General ConceptEssentially, Twain is telling us not to be misledby mere appearances if we want to understand thefoundation of human action. Take the case of charity.To give away cash voluntarily is essentially no lessselfish than to hoard it, since the pleasures derivedtherefrom can exceed the "self-sacrifice" involved;otherwise the cash would not be given away.Take the case of danger. Facing danger is notpurely self-sacrificial, nor is its avoidance the heightof self-interest. As every car driver knows, driving onhazardous freeways is not a purely negative situationthat one avoids under any and all circumstances. If onedrives the freeway every day to work, it must be becausethe monetary and psychic rewards of the job more thanoffset the driving hazards.Take the case of pain. "Pain" is not always theantithesis of "pleasure." For example, the experienceof pain, whether physical or psychic, may often permit amore pleasurable outcome than the avoidance of pain.Thus, the pain of surgery can be more than offset by thepleasures of a repaired condition. In the case of"neurotic" persons, patterns of behavior that may strikethe "normal" onlooker as self-defeating and painful—because they only lead to "failure"—are not necessarilypainful to the neurotic: he may regard his neuroticpatterns of behavior as being less painful than beingforced to abandon them before he is willing to do so.In other words, the concept of self-interest ishere formulated as a general or formal axiom embracingand explaining all human action under the unitary principleof "maximization." Thus it can be asserted thatall human action seeks to achieve net gain—benefits orsatisfactions exceeding costs or sacrifices—or, atleast, to achieve minimum loss or least-painful outcomes.As a general axiom, therefore, self-interest isno longer associated only with pure gain or profit; noris altruism any longer to be regarded as pure selfsacrificeand the opposite of self-interest.Altruism as a Source of JoyThe primacy of self-interest as the only underlyingpurpose of human action becomes even more evident108

when we realize that pure altruism is both impossibleand absurd. Up to now, our argument has been: altruismis not in conflict with the principle of self-interest;indeed, the altruistic act is merely a peculiar form ofessentially self-interested behavior. Now it is to beargued that pure altruism is simply an irrelevant conceptto start with—logically untenable, impossible toimplement, and therefore absurd.Consider above all the following. If pure altruismis supposed to be the polar opposite of selfinterest,it must imply an act of pure self-sacrificethat precludes any form of reward. That is, the purealtruist is precluded from receiving either payment inmoney or in kind, or even payment in the intangibleform of joy or satisfaction. The latter would clearlyconstitute a benefit or gain no less self-serving than amonetary reward. The only way that the admitted joyreceived from giving or rendering service to others canbe made consistent with pure self-sacrifice is to redefinesuch sacrifice as a kind of joyless joy, or,indeed, a form of pure pain! But this is patentlyabsurd. On the other hand, if we deign to define altruismas an enjoyable act, per se, and not as joylesspure self-sacrifice, the ghost is up: altruism can nolonger serve as a concept antithetical to and inconsistentwith personal gain, satisfaction, and selfinterest.The Split:Altruists vs. BeneficiariesTo reinforce the argument, let us further grantthe premise that altruistic self-sacrifice can be purelyjoyless, totally painful to its practitioners. It canthen be argued that an "altruistic" society would necessarilygenerate a conflict of interest between the altruisticA's and the beneficiary B's. If the virtue ofaltruism lies precisely in the effective ministering toother peoples' wants, we must then conclude that theuseful services provided by the A's 1 actually satisfythe B's' wants. If so, we end up with a society whereinthe B's' self-interest is being served at the A's'expense; that is, A's altruistic behavior and selfdenialmerely enable B's selfish enjoyment of A'sgratuities: one man's altruism is the vital source ofanother man's selfish joy.Ironically, therefore, altruism by A's necessarilyserves to foster self-interest in others (B's)109

ather than suppress it. But this means there can be nototally altruistic society! To get a society in whichno one's self-interest is catered to, the B's, too,would have to be precluded from enjoying selfish contentmentfrom the A's ministrations! Only thus couldthere be an altruistic society totally antithetical toself-interest. Once again, we reach absurdity—asociety in which the gratuitous benefits provided by theA's must in no way give selfish joy to the beneficiaryB's!Some Additional AbsurditiesRelated to this absurdity is still another. Notonly must the A's be purely self-sacrificing toward theB's—precluded from receiving payment from the B's—butthe B's, too, must be precluded from rewarding the A's,even if they were willing to do so out of sheer gratitude!Note the paradox: despite their gratitude for theA's' goodness to them, the B's are by definition precludedfrom rewarding the A's in any way, for to do sowould redound to the A's 1 benefit, thereby fostering thelatter's self-interest!A final note on the light side. The splittingof society into the A's and B's necessarily follows fromthe fact that for every pure altruist there must be apure beneficiary, and vice versa. Since people logicallycannot simultaneously be both pure altruist and purebeneficiary, society must be split up into two distinctcamps, the A's versus the B's. This recalls the storyin which Edgar Bergen, the ventriloquist, told his workingdummy Charlie McCarthy: "Now, remember, Charlie,we're put on this earth to give help to others." Towhich Charlie queried: "Then what on earth are theothers put here for?"Moral Questions Raised by AltruismThe fact that the altruistic "society" isactually split into two societies—into the A's and theB's—raises some basic moral questions. What happens ifsome of the A's refuse to bestow further gratuities onthe B's, giving as their reason the desire to take careof themselves first? Is it now immoral for these A's,in their own self-interest, to take care of themselvesand leave the B's to be taken care of by themselves or110

y other A's? Do the B's have any right to force theA's to sacrifice themselves in behalf of the B's?Furthermore, would selfishness in the A's bemorally acceptable if they decided to share their wealthwith the B's only voluntarily, at their own discretion,without compulsion? How much of their wealth must theA's share with the B's before they cease to be "selfish"?What is the moral nature of an altruism thatrequires force and compulsion rather than voluntarychoice for its implementation? Why would it be moral toserve others, but immoral to serve one's own self?Finally, if the B's wished to pay the A's for benefitsreceived, would they have the right to do so? Unfortunately,these and related moral questions, raised byaltruism and "redistribution," cannot be pursued in thisbook.Altruism Means Lower Living StandardsThere are still other reasons why it is a fallacyto regard self-interest and altruism as opposingpremises. The fact remains that no person could survivephysically while acting purely altruistically. If aperson, as a pure altruist, works only for others, andnot for himself, he himself can survive only if (a)others, in turn, take care of him (tit-for-tat, so tospeak) by providing him with food, clothing, etc., or if(b) he steals from others whatever he needs. But inboth of these alternatives he is necessarily serving hisown self-interest (i.e., his selfish desire for survival), and therefore cannot be regarded as a pure altruist.Similarly, if he does not resort to alternatives(a) and (b), but begins to produce for himself thethings he wants, this too would be "selfish" behaviorand nullify his pure altruism.Furthermore, alternative (a) would result in areduced standard of living for the average person. Thereason is that if, in addition to the A's taking care ofthe B's, the B's are now to also take care of the A's,we end up with a reversion to primitive barter which,despite its altruistic veneer, would signify a woefulregression from the advanced division of labor achievedsince the Industrial Revolution of 1750-1850 (recallChapter III) . Gone would be the obvious benefits of themonetary economy, specialization, and large-scale technologywhich have brought greater output per capita andrising living standards. Instead, the barter economy111

would force people to live from hand to mouth underconditions tantamount to poverty.First Things Are Still FirstPure altruism also distorts the order ofreality: it overlooks the basic fact that what isbeing sacrificed and given away consists primarily ofthe "self" of the altruist. Therefore, in order for thealtruist to be able to give anything away, he must firstacquire some "self"—in the form of wisdom, skill, orproduct; otherwise he would have little or nothing ofvalue to give away. And since, logically, preservationof his own life is prior and requisite to his ability toserve others, the conclusion is clear: self-interestedself-preservation is necessarily prior to altruism.This can be readily seen in the case of RobinsonCrusoe, our mythical, isolated man. His every effort toproduce the means of his own survival is clearly in hisown self-interest; no one could logically smear thisselfishness with the taint of "immorality." How, then,does Crusoe's situation change if he suddenly abandonsisolation and joins "society," to become one produceramong many producers?Once Crusoe becomes part of the social economy,it is possible for him to exchange his goods and serviceswith other producers. He will trade with them solong as this leaves him better off than otherwise, inaccordance with the maximizing principle. On the otherhand, if he finds no advantage in trading with others,he will tend to revert to his former pattern of isolated,self-sufficient production.ConclusionFinally, it is appropriate to ask: Why shouldpure altruism be regarded as superior in any way toself-interest? To regard altruism as an absolutelyhigher principle assumes either of the following: (a)service to others is the only satisfying act, whereasself-service is never satisfying; or (b) service toothers is always more satisfying than self-service.Both of these assumptions are patently absurd; they aretotally contradicted by the behavior of real people.Granted, people do not "live by bread alone," butneither do they live by altruism alone. In practice,112

people help each other gratuitously in many diverseways. More importantly, however, they primarily takecare of themselves first. Only in this way are theyable to become altruists at all. And, irony of ironies,it is precisely because the so-called altruistic act isat bottom a self-satisfying and, therefore, selfinterestedact, that one is desirous of being"altruistic" (without "compensation"?!) in the firstplace.113

114

CHAPTER VITHE DEMAND SIDE OF THE MARKETThe market place is a social-economic context inwhich suppliers and demanders face each other in repeatedinstances of exchange—actual and potential. Therates at which they exchange their goods and servicesand money constitute the "prices" of the market. As weshall see in Chapter VIII, it is the free and spontaneousinterplay of demand and supply forces whichdetermines the prices that tend to prevail in themarket. Having already discussed the basic aspects ofproduction and supply in Chapter IV, and the ramificationsof wants in Chapter V, we now examine the demandside of the market in all of its relevance to the firm.Demand vs. WantsOur first task is to clarify the distinctionbetween natural wants (i.e., desires, wishes, needs,appetites, etc.) and the concept of demand, a distinctionalready noted in Chapter II and Figure 5. When wetalk about "wants" in economics, we have in mind thenatural fact that all human action is broadly motivatedby one or another desire, wish, or purpose. Furthermore,as we have seen, a want can be satisfied only bythe application of means—time, effort, or wealth—thatis, some expenditure, sacrifice, or cost. In otherwords, in a world of scarcity, wants b£ themselves donot help us very much; means must be acquired and appliedto achieving the satisfaction of wants.Here is where the concept of demand comes in:it encompasses not only the fact that a person has wantsor goals, but that he also has the means to satisfy themeffectively. Thus, in a barter economy, demand is exercisedby means of producing and exchanging one's ownproduct for the products of other producers. By contrast,in the modern market economy, the means used forthe purpose of exercising demand typically takes theform of money, which, as a means of payment, isexchanged for product. Besides money. othc?r forms ofwealth—such as financial assets—also serve as sourcesof purchasing power (albeit not as money proper), which115

must be converted into money before they can be acceptedas a means of payment.Demand vs. Needs, ConsumptionSimilarly, demand must be distinguished from theterm needs, which we saw in Chapter V is a term used toemphasize a want to which one attaches a special degreeof importance. "Needs," like wants in general, are alsohandicapped by the fact that, by themselves, they do notpossess the means to be satisfied; and just like wants,needs can only impel people to acquire means to satisfythem. Thus there is no "need" that can be satisfiedwithout some effort or cost.Before we proceed, we should note another importantdistinction of terminology—the difference between"demand" and consumption. Demand, as has been shown, isrelated only to the act of acquiring goods; in contrast,"consumption" represents that act of actually satisfyingthe want for which the goods were acquired. More precisely,demand is exercised by the use of means, throughexchange or purchase transactions; however, the actualconsumption of the goods thus acquired does not takeplace until the person actually uses them for the purposeof directly satisfying the given want or fulfillingthe given goal.More on ConsumptionTo be sure, a person's ability to consume restsprincipally on one's ability to exercise demand in thefirst place. Thus, demand is logically prior to consumption,and consumption is therefore predicated uponthe exercise of demand. But this fact in itself doesnot imply anything as to when the final act of consumptionwill actually take place. For example, consumptionmay occur virtually simultaneously with the act ofdemand, as in the case of a frankfurter purchased at ahot-dog stand and eaten right there. Alternatively,consumption may occur only after a deferred period followingthe acquisition of the goods, as in the case offrankfurters purchased and stored in the refrigerator,pending a subsequent picnic or other occasion.Furthermore, in economics, consumption has amuch broader or general meaning than the narrow,116

materialistic meaning usually given to it by the layman.For example, economics classifies as consumers' goodssuch things as leisure, music, spiritual worship andother intangible or non-material goods alongside suchmaterial goods as food, clothing, or jewelry—and forthe same reason: any goods that have the capacity todirectly or personally satisfy a want or purpose, be itmaterial or non-material, must be classified as consumers'goods. Hence, the act of personally using aconsumers' good is regarded as "consumption."Demand is Based on ProductionAs important as means are for the exercise ofdemand, equally important is the fact that, whether theeconomy is based on barter (direct) exchange or monetary(indirect) exchange, means must be acquired typically byproductive effort. This productive activity yieldspurchasing power to the producer— whether in the formof (a) goods produced in the case of Robinson Crusoe andsubsistence, direct-use economy, or (b) money incomeearned in the modern monetary economy. It is thisproductive effort which constitutes the basic sacrificeor cost involved in the acquisition, directly or indirectly,of the means to satisfy one's wants. Sincemeans are required to exercise demand in the market, andmeans must be acquired by productive effort, it followsthat demand must ultimately be based on productive effort.Thus, demand is more than mere wants or needs.All of this brings us to a fundamental implication.The fact that, on the one hand, wants cannot besatisfied without the use of means, plus the fact, onthe other hand, that the means are scarce, imply thefollowing: There is an inverse or opposite relationshipbetween the quantity or extent of wants to be satisfiedand the sacrifice or cost involved in achieving thesatisfaction of wants. That is to say, the greater thesacrifice or the more it costs to satisfy a given want,the less of that want will a person seek to satisfy;conversely, the less it costs a person to satisfy thewant, the more of it will he be induced to satisfy.Demand vs. "Quantity Demanded"Here we have the essence of the economic principlereferred to as the law of demand. In order to seehow economics formulates this law, we must first intro-117

duce and define the key, albeit simple, term quantitydemanded, which is not to be confused with the term"demand." Indeed, the term "demand" itself remains tobe defined more precisely, since up to now we have usedit superficially.For convenience, the term "quantity demanded"will be expressed simply as "Qd." Qd stands for thenumber of units of a good or commodity that a personwould purchase at any given price. This term acknowledgesthe fact that, in the market place, goods ofwhatever class or grade are typically sold and purchasedin units of numbers (e.g., one, two, or more), weight(e.g., ounces, pounds), or length (e.g., yard goods).Furthermore, prices in the market place are typicallyquoted in terms of such units; for example, the price ofhamburger meat would be quoted at $1.50 per pound.Since the term Qd includes the word "demanded,"it is evidently associated with the act of acquisition(via purchase or exchange) and not with the act ofconsumption. As a rule, therefore, Qd refers to therate of purchase—that is, the number of units that aperson would purchase at a given price—and not to therate of consumption. Thus, to paraphrase the implicationstated at the end of the previous section,economics asserts: there is an inverse or oppositerelationship between the price of a given good and theQd of that good. Specifically, the higher the priceasked for a unit of a given good, the smaller will bethe Qd; the lower the price, the greater will be the Qd.This proposition brings us pretty much to the heart ofthe law of demand.Determinants of the Quantity DemandedIn order to fully appreciate the law of demand,one more important bridge remains to be crossed. Thereason is that while the law of demand assumes thatprice is the only determinant of the Qd of a product, inreality this is not strictly true. As we shall now see,there are several other determinants of Qd—other thanprice, hereinafter referred to as non-price determinants,for convenience—that also exert importantinfluence on the Qd of a given product. So, let usfirst examine each one of these non-price determinants,and thereby gain a better perspective on the law ofdemand.118

What else does the Qd of a product depend on,other than the price of the product itself? We havealready seen that the price of the product would be a"negative" or inverse influence on the Qd: a lowerprice would induce an increase in Qd r whereas a higherprice would cause a decrease in Qd.... However, to bemore precise, we should add an important proviso:provided that other (non-price) determinants of Qd areassumed to be passive and uninfluential. Why is thisproviso necessary? Because these other, non-price determinantscan influence Qd even when the price of theproduct has not been changed by the firm; that is,changes in one or more of the non-price elements couldcause Qd to" change even when the price of the productitself remains unchanged. The following examples helpus to understand this.Income and PopulationThe first non-price determinant of Qd that comesto mind is a fairly obvious one: the consumer's incomeor other purchasing power or wealth. Thus it wouldfollow that, other things being equal, the greater aperson's purchasing power, the greater would be his Qdof a given product. In other words, the rate at whichwe buy things depends on how "rich" we are. A person'spurchasing power depends primarily on his income as wellas on accumulated savings from past income; the lattermay take the form of financial investments or assets(e.g., securities, deposits) that are readily convertibleinto money (i.e., are "liquid").Another important determinant of Qd, also fairlyobvious, is the size of the household unit, or of thetotal population. Other things being equal, we wouldexpect that the greater the number of people in thehousehold, or in the population as a whole, the greaterwould be the Qd of the given product, and vice versa.Subjective Value:Tastes or PreferencesAnother important determinant of Qd is somethingwe discussed at length in Chapter V: subjective value,or the degree of importance attached to a unit of agiven product. Thus, other things being equal, thegreater the subjective value, the higher the price onewould be willing to pay; conversely, the less importantthe product, the lower the price one would be willing topay. If we recall, subjective value depends on two119

things: the character of taste, or the preference-scaleranking attached to the product; and the amount of stockof the given product already possessed by the consumer(the law of marginal utility). Thus, with reference tothe preference-scale, the higher the rank of the producton a person's preference-scale, the higher the price onewould be willing to pay; conversely, the lower the rankheld by the product, the lower must the seller's pricebe in order to induce a purchase.A few examples will suffice to illustrate thisaspect of subjective value. Advertising by firms, oneof the most familiar institutions in the market place,serves two important functions: the one is to informconsumers about the product—its price, quality, locationof sellers, etc.; the other is to persuade consumersthat they cannot live without the given product,hoping that the consumer will then place the givenproduct on a higher rank of his preference-scale. Medicalreports on the link between tobacco smoking and lungcancer have caused cigarettes to drop to a lower rank ordisappear altogether from many people's preferences.Studies on the relationship between diet and health haveplayed havoc with the position of eggs, butter, andprocessed foods in our preferences. Finally, changes infashion play similar havoc with the position of oldermodels or styles in cars and clothing, as well as livingpatterns in general.The Law of Marginal UtilitySimilar effects on subjective value can beexerted by variations in the amount of stock alreadypossessed by the consumer of a given product. This isthe aspect of subjective value where the law of marginalutility becomes relevant. If we recall, the law assertsthe following: the smaller the stock, the higher is themarginal utility (MU) or subjective value attached to aunit of the product; conversely, the larger the stock onhand, the lower is the MU attached to each unit.Now, applying this law to prices, we come upwith the following: the smaller the quantity suppliedby sellers and the higher the MU therefore attached bythe consumer to each of the fewer units, the higher isthe price that the consumer is willing to pay for anyunit of the product; conversely, the greater the quantitysupplied by sellers and the lower the MU thereforeattached by the consumer to each unit of the available120

supply, the lower must the price asked by the seller bein order to induce consumers to buy more units.A clear example of the relevance of the law ofMU was the gasoline shortage in late 1973. At the timeof the oil embargo, in the fall of 19 73, the supply ofrefined gasoline reaching the market had dropped significantly.When car drivers realized that considerablyless gasoline would be available, it did not take longfor them to adjust and begin to attach a higher MU toeach gallon of gas obtained after much search and waitingin line at the gas pump. Simultaneously, they alsoadjusted upward the price they were willing to pay foreach of the more precious gallons.Complementary ProductsAnother important set of influences on the Qd ofa given product involves the effect of changes in theprice of other related products. Many products are"related" to each other in one of two possible ways—ascomplementary products or as substitute products. Complementaryproducts typically go together; that is, theyare usually jointly consumed. Good examples are breadand butter, beer and pretzels, cars and gasoline. As aconsequence, a change in the price of one of the pairwould be expected to exert an opposite effect on the Qdof the other. For example, a rise in the price ofgasoline would be expected to cause a drop in cardriving—moreprecisely, a drop in the Qd of transportationmileage by automobile; conversely, a drop in theprice of gasoline would be expected to induce an increasein car-driving—that is, an increase in the Qd oftransportation by automobile.Substitute vs. Complementary ProductsSimilar considerations apply to substitute products,that is, products that are regarded as "rivals"or "competitors" to each other with respect to a givenuse or purpose. Good examples are butter and margarine(for cooking); paper and cellophane (for wrapping);natural fibers like silk, cotton, and wool as againstnylon, dacron, orlon, and other synthetic fibers (forclothing and textiles). Since these commodities aresubstitutable for each other in specific applications,it stands to reason that a rise in the price of the one(say, butter) relative to the price of the other (i.e.,121

margarine) would induce a rise in the Qd for margarine,as people are induced to shift from butter to margarine.Conversely, a drop in the price of butter would beexpected to induce a drop in the Qd for margarine, aspeople are induced to shift from margarine to butter.In the case of complementary products, pricechanges in one of the pair are expected to induce oppositechanges in the Qd of the other complementary product.Thus, a rise in the price of gasoline is expectedto induce a drop in the Qd for transportation by car.On the other hand, in the case of substitute or rivalproducts, price changes in the one are expected toinduce Qd changes in its rival products in the samedirection. Thus, a rise in the price of paper relativeto its rivals (say, cellophane wrap) is expected toinduce a rise in the Qd for cellophane. In general,therefore, changes in the price of one of the "related"products would be expected to induce Qd changes in theother of the related products.Before proceeding, we should note that the preceding,non-price determinants of the Qd—such asincome, subjective tastes or valuations, and size ofhouseholds—were truly "non-price" in character. However,in the present case we were dealing with thepossible effects of price changes in related products,so that, strictly speaking, the subject is not "nonprice."For convenience, however, the effects of pricechanges in related products are treated as a "non-price"determinant.Expectations of Future Price ChangeA final, but nevertheless important set of determinantsinvolves expectations about the future. Thisdimension of influence is made relevant by the factthat, so long as such determinants of Qd as price andincome are subject to change, the future becomes uncertain.That is to say, tomorrow's price will not necessarilybe the same as today's price, since it may behigher or lower than today's price; nor will tomorrow'spersonal income necessarily remain the same as today's.As a consequence, today's Qd will depend not only ontoday's price and income, but also on tomorrow's priceand income.For example, assume a situation in which priceshave been falling, as during periods of price "defla-122

tion." A consumer therefore has grounds to expect thattomorrow's price (say, of clothing) may be still lowerthan today's price. Given such expectations it would bereasonable for the consumer to postpone his plannedpurchase of clothing until tomorrow, since he wouldprefer to buy at tomorrow's expected lower price ratherthan at today's relatively higher price. Conversely,assume that prices have been rising, as during periodsof price "inflation." The consumer would thereforereasonably expect that tomorrow's price could be higherthan today's price, and consequently decide to hastenhis purchase and buy today rather than delay his purchaseuntil tomorrow, since today's price appears relativelylower compared to tomorrow's expected higherprice.In sum, therefore, expectations of a change intomorrow's price compared to today's price would reasonablyinfluence the consumer's rate of purchase (Qd)today: an expected higher price would induce ahastening in the rate of purchase (i.e., an increase inthe Qd today), whereas an expected lower price wouldinduce a postponement of purchases (i.e., a decrease intoday's Qd). So long as prices are not stable or constant,but are either rising or falling, it is clearthat tomorrow's price will not be the same as today's.Therefore, at any given time, the consumer is faced withnot one price but two prices: today's price and tomorrow's possible price. As a consequence, he is promptedto decide which of the two prices will be the relativelylower, and decide his Qd accordingly, that is, at therelatively lower price, according to the law of demand.Expectations of Future Income ChangesSimilar considerations apply to expectations ofchange in one's future income. For example, an expectedincrease in salary or wages due to an expected promotionwould obviously herald an increase in future income;conversely, an expected reduction in working hours orloss of one's job, due to a slackening of business,would lead one to expect a drop in tomorrow's income.In either case, the expected change in tomorrow's incomewould induce a reasonable adjustment in today's rate ofpurchase (Qd).For example, if a worker expects to receive awage increase in the nearby future, it would not beunreasonable for him to spend that money now, in antici-123

pation of his increased future income and on the assumptionthat "the money is as good as in the bank," so tospeak. Similarly, if Congress announced a cut in taxrates effective within a few months, it would not beunreasonable for taxpayers to spend that money now.(Economists attribute the stepped-up rate of spending inthe latter half of 1963 to the anticipated Kennedy taxcutscheduled for 1964.) In both cases, the effect ofthe anticipated increase in future income is an inducementto increase the current rate of spending (Qd). Theopposite would happen in the case of anticipated decreasesin income. That is, wage-earners would beexpected to reduce their current Qd if faced with layoffsor curtailed working hours; taxpayers, too, wouldbe expected to spend less today if faced with a taxincrease tomorrow.What About Changes in Supply?Have we left anything out? Well, what about thesupply of the product—that is, couldn't changes insupply conditions cause changes in Qd? For instance,couldn't increased supply cause an increase in Qd, andvice versa? Economics would answer as follows: changesin supply can affect Qd only indirectly, through theprior effects on the price of the product. Thus, otherthings being equal, an increase in supply would firsthave to cause a drop in price before it could induce alarger Qd; conversely, a decrease in supply would firsthave to cause a rise in price before it could induce asmaller Qd.Restatement of the Law of DemandThus, we see that the quantity demanded (Qd) ofa product in the present can be influenced not only bythe price of the given product but also by a variety ofnon-price determinants. As a consequence, it would bereasonable to conclude that, even if the current priceof a product remained unchanged, the current Qd couldnevertheless be induced to change due to a change in oneor more of the non-price determinants. In any event,the firm faces a difficult task in assessing which ofthe several non-price determinants is influencing the Qdfor its product and to what degree. It is one of theprimary functions of market research to study the importanceof each of these determinants of market demand.124

All of this enables us to state the law ofdemand with greater precision than before. First comesthe general statement of the law of demand: there is aninverse, opposite, or negative relationship between thecurrent price of a good and the quantity demanded (Qd)of this good, provided other things (i.e., the non-pricedeterminants) remain the same. From this general principleare derived the two important corollaries: (1)other things remaining the same, at a sufficientlyhigher price the Qd will be expected to decrease; (2)other things remaining the same, at a sufficiently lowerprice the Qd will be expected to increase.Before we proceed, it is important to note thatthe law of demand applies only to the case where theprice of the given product is changed relatively to, orcomparatively to, the prices of other products. Thus, adecrease in the price of product X can be regarded as a"lower" price only when compared to what happens toother product prices, especially substitute or similarproducts. Thus, a decrease in the price of product Xcan be regarded as a "lower" price only when compared towhat happens to other product prices, especially substituteor similar products. If prices of other similarproducts are decreased in the same proportion as productX, then the drop in X's price is not a comparativelylower price. The price of X is truly "lower" only whenit is decreased while other prices remain the same, ordecrease less than X's price, or even increase. Conversely,X's price cannot be regarded as a "higher"price unless it is increased more than in proportion tothe prices of other similar products, that is, only ifother prices do not increase, or increase less than X's,or even drop.The "Ceteris Paribus" ProvisoWe can now see more clearly why the law ofdemand is based on the special assumption that "otherthings remain the same," and that the price of the givenproduct is the only determinant of its Qd. The proviso"other things remaining the same" has become known inits latin form as the ceteris paribus clause (whichliterally means: other things being equal). In thereal world, of course, it is more reasonable to assumethat the non-price or "ceteris" determinants do notremain fixed or unchanged, and that any given change inQd could be a result of a non-price change as well as ofa price change by the firm. However, for the purpose of125

economic analysis, which seeks to intellectually isolatethe effect on Qd of the price alone, it is logicallynecessary to abstract from the non-price determinantsand assume that they are, for the moment, passive ordormant.In other words, the law of demand assumes thatat any given moment it is reasonable to assert that theQd of a given product X is influenced only by the priceof X—that is, market exchange involves only P's andQ's, so to speak. This special assumption of ceterisparibus is a kind of "mental experiment." It is theclosest that economic analysis comes to duplicating acontrolled laboratory experiment, as in the physicalsciences, where it is possible to isolate and excludeall variables or determinants except one. In the humansciences, including economics, it is impossible to conductsuch physically controlled experiments; the onlyintellectual recourse left, then, is the method of "partialanalysis," which uses the logical device of theceteris paribus proviso.Law of Demand Is Not "Automatic"One additional explanation is needed. We havedeliberately used the word "sufficiently" in the phrases"at a sufficiently higher price" (corollary 1) and "at asufficiently lower price" (corollary 2). This is toexclude the case of very small or minute changes inprice which, in practice, may not induce any significantchange in Qd. Realistically, it would not be reasonableto expect that just any size of price increase (ordecrease) would necessarily induce a decrease (or increase)in Qd; indeed, it is very possible that a verysmall or insignificant change in price would have practicallyno impact on Qd.For example, it is possible that during theearly stages of the gasoline shortage in the fall andwinter of 1973-74, the relatively small initial increasesin gasoline price did not in themselves causeany significant drop in Qd of gasoline. However, suchunresponsive changes in Qd to the rise in prices wouldnot constitute a contradiction of the law of demand,since, properly stated, the law pertains only to relativelysignificant of "sufficiently" large changes inprice. Thus, whereas a rise in gasoline price from,say, 40 cents to 50 cents a gallon might not in itselfcause any significant drop in Qd, a "sufficiently" great126

increase from 40 cents to 80 cents, say, could be expectedto cause a significant drop in Qd.In other words, the law of demand does notassume that people react automatically or mechanically(i.e., immediately) in response to just any size ofstimulus (e.g., a price increase). Indeed, it is ratherusual for people not to react significantly to smallor tiny stimuli, and it is only when stimuli are "sufficiently"large that they will react and adjust inreasonable ways.Furthermore, even when the stimulus is substantial,people will respond only after they are able todiscover the best way of adjusting to the stimulus—allof which will take some time. In the case of a pricestimulus—for example, an increase in price—it willtake some time at least before the consumer can adjust(a) by switching to a substitute product, or (b) bydeciding to do with less of the given product, whichinvolves a distinct change in taste or preference.Graphic Presentation of Law of DemandWe are now at the point where the law of demandcan be illustrated graphically. The graph shown inFigure 8 is based on the fact that the law of demandinvolves only "P's and Q's," that is, prices and quantitydemanded; hence, only a two-dimensional graph isrequired. The vertical scale or "axis" on the leftrepresents the various prices that could be charged pergallon of gasoline, rising up from lower to higherprices. The horizontal axis represents the quantitiesthat would be demanded at various prices, showing increasedquantities as you move from left to right.Of course, Figure 8 is not based on actualmarket data, which could be obtained only by a marketresearch survey. It is merely an illustration of whatan economist might expect to find if he undertook amarket survey by asking car drivers the simple question:"How many gallons of gasoline would you purchase atvarious prices, say, from 30 cents up to $1.20?" Theresulting sample data represent aggregation of the datagleaned from the survey responses.Each dot in the graph represents two bits ofinformation: a given, potential price that could prevailin the market,and the corresponding number of127

(P)130_120H 110LUO 100z" 90zg sog 70£ 60aS 5°4030f24 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22QUANTITY DEMANDED AT EACH PRICE(per driver, in average gallons per week)(Qd)FIGURE 8:DEMAND FOR GASOLINE BYPASSENGER CAR DRIVERS.128

gallons that would be demanded by each car driver. Thatis, each dot represents a given "P and Q," so to speak:a given price (P) and the corresponding quantity demanded(Qd). Thus, at $1.20 a gallon, very few gallonswould be demanded, but, at successively lower prices,more and more gasoline would be purchased.The Demand "Schedule"Notice that the dots are linked to each other insequence by straight lines, and form what is known asthe demand curve. Ideally, the demand curve would bederived from data collected by a market survey, with theseries of dots representing a discrete array of pairs ofprices and Qd's. Indeed, the original statistical dataobtained in such market surveys might very well assumethe tabular form presented below in Table I. Noticetherein the inverse relation between the prices andQd's, with the P's going from high to low while thecorresponding Qd's go from low to high. Together, thisarray of pairs of P's and Qd's, presented in tabularform, constitutes the demand schedule.Table IDEMAND FOR GASOLINEBY PASSENGER-CAR DRIVERS(in gallons)Price(per gallon)$1.201.101.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.30Weekly Quantity Demanded(per driver)46810111213141622129

An "Instantaneous Snapshot"Thus, Figure 8 is an illustration of the law ofdemand by means of the demand curve. Here the Qd's areshown to vary only in response to the different possibleprices—on the ceteris paribus assumption, of course,that personal tastes, incomes, and other non-pricedeterminants of Qd are dormant. In this sense, therefore,the curve gives us, in effect, an instantaneoussnapshot of how people "feel" about gasoline prices whenexpressed in terms of gallons demanded. It is thisoverall view of the various possible pairs of P's andQd's which is designated as the total "demand" schedule,in contradistinction to the specific "quantity demanded"which is related to a given price.Thus, even if we had no precise idea of thespecific magnitudes that the market survey would reveal,the law of demand would lead us to expect that thedemand curve would have this overall characteristicslope; downward from left to right. So, assuming thepresent price was 50 cents a gallon, a price increase to60 cents a gallon would be expected to cause a drop inQd to 13 gallons a week, whereas a price decrease to 40cents would be expected to induce an increase in Qd to16 gallons.The "Elasticity" of DemandIn this connection it should be noted that,while all demand curves possess the characteristicallygeneral slope downward (from left to right), not everydemand curve necessarily has the same degree of slope,technically referred to as elasticity of demand. Thefollowing Figure 9 illustrates three different schedules,each having a different degree of slope or elasticity.Curve Di on the left would be classified as"inelastic," curve D2 in the middle displays "unitary"elasticity, while curve D3 on the right would be regardedas "elastic." Notice that the "curves" have beendrawn, for convenience, as straight lines in order toemphasize the general degree of slope of the entireschedule. A more detailed analysis of demand elasticity,and the critical importance of the concept, willbe the subject of the next chapter.130

131HI

As a final note, it should be stressed that thedemand schedule does not constitute an actual rate ofpurchase, but merely an indication of people's readinessto buy, based on their wants and modified by theireconomic ability, that is, their purchasing power. Inother words, the use herein of the term demand, byitself, will connote not a sense of actuality but ratherof potentiality.'Shifts" of the Demand ScheduleWe come now to an important question: Whathappens to the demand schedule when the basic ceterisparibus assumption of the law of demand—that non-pricedeterminants are dormant or unchanging—is relaxed, andthese determinants are allowed to change, as they do inthe normal course of events? That is to say, what isthe effect on demand of a change in one or more of thenon-price determinants? For example, what happens tothe demand for product X when people's incomes or tastesand preferences change? Well, it all depends on whetherthese determinants increase or decrease.For example, if there is a general increase _inincome in the community—of wages, say—then we couldexpect that people would be able to purchase more unitsat each possible price. This can be seen in Table II,where the quantity of gallons that would be purchased ateach possible price (from $1.20 down to 30 cents) wouldbe expected to increase in varying degree as shown forPeriod 2. Graphically, the resulting change in thestate of demand is shown in part A of Figure 10. Thatis to say,, the entire schedule or curve of D would beexpected to shift from position D x to D 2 , from left toright, indicating that, at all possible prices, peoplewould be willing and able to buy more. A similargraphic effect would be expected if, instead of anincome increase, there occurred an increased taste orpreference for a given product.The same reasoning applies to the case of a decreasein incomes in the community. Here we wouldexpect that people, with reduced purchasing power, wouldbe induced to buy less at each possible price, and thedemand schedule would correspondingly undergo a "shift"to left, as in part B of Figure 10.132

Table IIAN INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR GASOLINEBY PASSENGER-CAR DRIVERSPrice(per gallon)Weekly Quantity Demanded(per driver)Period 1 Period 2$1.201.101.00.90.80.70.60.50.40.304 56 78 910 1111 1212 1313 1414 1516 1922 27Some Comments on Demand ShiftsIt should be noted that in all such instances ofchange in non-price determinants—and in the correspondingshifts of demand curves—it is not possible topredict exactly the extent or degree of change; only thegeneral direction of shift is predictable.Finally, it should be stressed that a shift inthe entire demand schedule cannot be caused by a pricechange—only by a non-price change. True, laymen customarilysay such things as, "rising prices cause a dropin demand," or "falling prices cause an increase indemand." For economics, this language is not133

D2D1INCREASE IN DEMANDQdDECREASE IN DEMANDQd(A)(B)FIGURE 10:"SHIFTS" IN THE DEMAND SCHEDULE.134

sufficiently precise: in each statement the underlinedword "demand" should be replaced by "quantity demanded"to make the statement correct. Price changes can onlycause specific changes in Qd along a given unchangeddemand schedule ("a movement along the curve," so tospeak); on the other hand, only non-price changes caninduce "shifts" of entire demand schedules.The Role of Market ResearchHow would the firm become aware of such a shiftin demand? First of all, we must be sure that thechange in Qd's was not caused by a change in price bythe firm; that is, the selling prices of firms must beassumed to have remained unchanged, so that any changein Qd cannot be attributed to a price change but ratherto a change in one of the non-price elements. Thus, ifa firm has not changed its price, and yet the Qd for itsproduct has either increased or decreased, then it iscertain that one or more of the non-price determinantswere at work.This raises the question: How can the firmdiscover which one or more of the non-price determinantsof demand is at work, and to what extent? In thisconnection, market research projects become veryrelevant. The firm may have to undertake marketresearch studies on each of the possible non-pricedeterminants. Such studies, even though very costly,may be worthwhile if the firm believes that knowledge ofdemand determinants would improve its ability to planfuture production and marketing, and leave it better offthan otherwise.Explaining the Law of DemandWe have now reached a crucial point in theanalysis. So far we have presented mainly a descriptionof the law of demand, without really giving therationale behind it, and without explaining why we wouldexpect the demand curve to slope generally the way itdoes. Although the law of demand makes a lot of commonsense, it is nevertheless important to explain preciselywhy this is so. Some writers have attempted to explainthe "why" of the demand curve, and it is useful tobriefly examine their efforts.135

Substitution EffectsOne explanation of the law of demand is based onthe notion of the substitution effect, which assumesthat all products have "substitutes," either in the formof rival brands or rival products, as in the case ofbutter vs. margarine. Thus, when the price of a givenproduct X is decreased, potential buyers are supposed tobe induced to switch their buying from other products toproduct X, and thereby cause an increase in the Qd ofX. However, the trouble with this theory is that itdoes not necessarily follow.This can be seen in the case of a pricedecrease. For one thing, there is no certainty thatproduct X has any substitutes at all from which loyaltycan be switched to it. Nor is it necessary that thesavings resulting from the lower price of X willinevitably be used to buy more of X itself rather thanmore of some other unrelated product.What about an increase in the price of productX? The substitution effect would be expected to work asfollows: a higher price for X would induce purchasersof it to buy less of it, and thereby cause a decrease inQd of X. Thus far, then, the "substitution" theory isstill consistent with the law of demand. Beyond this,however, it falls down: substitution effects do notnecessarily follow.First of all, unless we know something about theprice-elasticity of demand for X (to be discussed inChapter VII), it is not even certain that a reduced Qdwill yield any savings at all. Indeed, in the casewhere few or no substitutes are available, it ispossible to get the curious result that the smaller Qdis associated with an increase in total expenditures onX (as would be expected in a product like gasoline,which people cannot easily cut back if they are heavilydependent on automotive transportation). Hence, ifthere are no savings to start with, there can be noincrement of money, at least in the short run, withwhich to do any switching to substitutes.To be sure, if substitutes are sufficientlyavailable, the substitution effects could easily occur,as the higher price of X induces people to switch to thesubstitute brand or product and causes a decrease in theQd of X. Furthermore, if product X is of the type thatsimply does not command any strong preference or136

attachment among its customers, and people find they caneasily do without it, (i.e., the demand for it is very"elastic"), then its Qd could be expected to decrease asa result of its higher price; however, in this casethere need not ensue any substitution effects.Income EffectsThus, the substitution effect is not a sufficientexplanation of the law of demand. Another explanationoffered by some writers is based on the notion ofthe income effect, which correctly assumes that changesin the price of products affect the purchasing power ofone's income. That is to say, a lower price for productX makes buyers of X "feel richer," whereas an increasein price makes them "feel poorer." However, this doesnot necessarily follow.Let us first take the case of a decrease in theprice of X. The fact that the lower price yields a kindof savings to buyers of X does not necessarily implythat this increment will be devoted to increased Qd of Xitself. Indeed, it could just as well be devoted tosome other unrelated products. But, for argument'ssake, let us suppose the savings are used for buyingmore of X: unless we know something about the priceelasticityof demand for X (to be analyzed in ChapterVII), it is possible to come upon the curious resultseen in Table I: for example, the drop in price from 40cents to 30 cents could be associated with an increasein total expenditures—from $6.40 (40 cents x 16 gallons)to $6.60 (30 cents x 22 gallons)—that is, anincrease in total spending of 20 cents that could beattributed as much to a strong subjective preference foradditional travel as to any income effect per se.How would the income effect occur in theopposite case of a price increase? The assumption isthat, at the higher price, the decrease in Qd is inducedby the feeling of being made "poorer" by the priceraise. However, here too it is not entirely true thatthe reduced Qd is induced only by the impoverishmenteffect. Again, in Table I, we see a case where a priceraise, say from 40 cents to 50 cents, would beassociated with an increase in total expenditures—from$6.40 (40 cents x 16 gallons) to $7.00 (50 cents x 14gallons). That is to say, even though the price raisecaused a drop in Qd, the fact is that total spendingincreased by 60 cents, revealing not an income effectbut rather a lingering strong preference for car137

driving, such that drivers are willing to pay more money(in total) for fewer gallons of gasoline.People Prefer Lower PricesIn summary, then, neither the substitutioneffect nor the income effect is sufficient to explainwhy the demand curve slopes the way it does. In thisconnection, it should be noted, there is a third type ofexplanation: the idea that the law of demand is merelya description of how demanders in general and consumersin particular "feel" about prices. Thus there followsthis proposition: people prefer lower prices to higherprices. That is to say, in terms of the law of demand,this can be expressed as follows: preference for lowerprices is reflected in the greater quantities demanded,whereas rejection of higher prices is reflected in thefewer units purchased. This proposition, that peopleprefer lower prices, turns out to be, in effect, areverse way of expressing the law of demand: for anygiven quantity to be purchased, a person would prefer tobuy it at a lower price rather than at a higher price;indeed, the lower the price, the better.The Least-Cost PrincipleLet us pursue this line a bit. The money priceasked by the seller of a good in the market placerepresents a kind of cost or sacrifice that the demandermust make in order to acquire the good. The element ofsacrifice lies in the fact that the demander must giveup leisure and go to work in order to earn the moneywith which to pay for the desired good. We can nowrestate the preceding proposition: for any given wantor goal, the lower the cost or sacrifice involved, thebetter—other things being equal. Logically, this leadsus to conclude that the least cost or sacrifice is thebest.Indeed, this leads us to yet anotherproposition: in order to achieve any given purpose orgoal, man prefers the least-cost method, other thingsbeing equal. This would be thoroughly consistent withthe maximizing principle (see Chapter V). As we recall,the maximizing principle asserted that man chooses to dothat which he expects will leave him better off thanotherwise. Since, in our present case, lower moneyprices, lower costs, or lesser sacrifices clearly leave138

man better off than otherwise, it is reasonable toassert that man would prefer not only the lesser cost(to the higher cost) but, indeed, the least cost.When all is said and done, however, the factremains that the least-cost principle is merelyconsistent with the law of demand (and the maximizingprinciple), but cannot serve as a sufficient explanationof why the demand schedule slopes downward from left toright. The reason is that it, too, can be criticized onthe same ground as the income-effect explanation. Theincome effect operates on the premise that lower pricesmake us feel "richer;" the least-cost principle isrelevant primarily to the case of a price decrease. Ineither case, the increased purchasing-power effectcaused by a price reduction does not necessarily implyan increase in Qd of product X itself: the "income"increment could just as well be devoted to other, non-Xproducts.Again, The Law of Marginal UtilityThis writer believes that the best all-aroundexplanation of the law of demand is the law of marginalutility (Chapter V). The best way to see this is toraise the question: For whom does the law of demandhave the greatest practical significance? Clearly, forthe firm or the seller in general. As a firstapproximation, what the law of demand says to the selleris simply this: if you want to sell more (i.e., inducea greater Qd), you will have to reduce your pricesufficiently; conversely, if you want to withhold supplyfrom the market and offer fewer units for sale, then youcan raise your price and this will reduce the Qd. Butthis still is begging the question; we have to invokethe law of MU, especially its corollaries.First let us apply the law of MU to the case ofa price reduction. Relevant here is the corollary ondiminishing MU, which asserts that, other things beingequal, an increased stock of a given good X isassociated with a diminished subjective value attachedto any one unit. How does this tie in with the law ofdemand? In this way: if the seller wants to sell moreunits of a given good X to people for whom each unit ofthis good is subject to a diminishing subjective value(i.e., because more units are available), then theseller must reduce his per-unit price sufficiently inorder to induce people to buy more.139

In other words, the buyer could not be expectedto be willing to pay the same price for additional unitsof good X since, for him, acquisition of additionalunits is subject to the law of diminishing MU. Only alower price per unit will induce him to buy more units.A very familiar example is the "economy-size" approachused in retail selling of detergents, coffee, and otherconsumers 1 goods: compared to the smaller-size package,the larger (economy) size package is priced so that eachounce or pound of the good costs less than in thesmaller package.Similar reasoning applies to the case of a priceincrease. Relevant here is the corollary on increasingMU, which asserts that, other things being equal, adecreased stock of a given good X is associated with anincreased subjective value attached to each unit. Thisties in with the law of demand as follows: if theseller makes fewer units available for sale to buyers,for whom each unit of this good would be subject to anincreasing subjective value (i.e., because fewer unitsare available), then the seller could raise his priceand expect to get it.In other words, people would be willing to pay ahigher price for each unit, albeit in fewer units thanbefore, since each unit is now subject to the law ofincreasing MU. Here, too, the economy-size approach isrelevant, although in reverse: compared to the largersizepackage, each unit (e.g., ounce) of the smallersizepackage is priced higher than in the largerpackage.Are There Exceptions to Law of Demand?One problem remains: people sometimes objectthat the law of demand does not apply as a generalrule—indeed, they claim there are exceptions to the lawof demand which destroy its general validity. We shallexamine a few of these alleged "exceptions" and see whythey fail to prove their case against the law of demand.Before we proceed, however, we should rememberthat the law of demand is concerned only with therelation between prices and quantities demanded (Qd's).It follows therefore that each alleged exception to thelaw of demand—in order to prove its case—must beframed strictly in terms of this exclusive relationshipbetween prices and Qd's, albeit in the opposite sense;140

that is, an alleged exception must be able to show that(a) a lower price will induce a decrease in Qd, or (b) ahigher price will induce an increase in Qd.Selling More at Higher PricesLet us first take up a familiar general case:The drug store which, after noticing that its bottles ofaspirin did not sell very well at the discount price of19 cents for 100 tablets, decided to raise the price to49 centsl To its pleasant surprise, the aspirin soldmuch better at the higher price. This example is oftengiven as an illustration of how a lower price inducedpeople to buy less of the product, not more, thuscontradicting the law of demand.Is this really an exception to the law of demand?The first thing to notice is that: Was it onlythe lower price that had first induced a smaller Qd?Was it only the higher price that induced the increasedQd? It is well to recall that an exceedingly low price—such as the 19-cent price—may connote a product oflower quality as well, such that the lower price mightinduce a decrease rather than an increase in Qd! In thesame vein, it is also well-known that a higher price fora given product often connotes to people a product ofhigher quality as well, such that the higher pricecould, not surprisingly, induce a greater desire to buyand an increase in Qd. Both of these cases appear to beclear contradictions of the law of demand.Aspirins Fail the TestTo return to our aspirin case, it is relevant toask again: Was it the lower 19-cent price itself thatdeterred purchases, or was it rather the fact that thelow price also connoted inferior quality, thereforemaking the product not worth buying at all? Conversely,was it the higher 49-cent price itself that inducedincreased Qd, or was it rather the fact that the higherprice connoted superior quality and therefore made theproduct more attractive?To put this another way, in order to make theaspirin example a proper test case of the law of demandthe following procedure would have to occur: at thesame time that the seller raises his aspirin price from19 cents to 49 cents he informs the customer that the141

49-cent price is for the very same bottle that he couldstill buy at 19 cents—and then asks the customer: "Doyou prefer to pay the 49-cent price or the 19-cent pricefor the identical commodity?" The outcome ispredictable: For any given product, people would preferto pay lower prices to higher prices, and the law ofdemand would still prevail.In fact, of course, the drug store did not dothis, and consumers were unaware that the aspirinquality was the same even at the higher price. Indeed,it was this ignorance of quality which explains why theQd was greater at the higher price than at the lowerprice. Furthermore, the persistent tendency of sellersto resort to "sales" and "slashed prices," in order tosell out goods at a faster rate than at the formerhigher prices, is testimony to our contention that thelaw of demand remains intact.Prestige GoodsAnother alleged exception to the law of demandinvolves the class of products known as prestige goods.Familiar examples include mink coats and Rolls Roycecars, whose prices are characteristically very high.The allegation claims that it is the higher price ofthese goods that induces a greater Qd than otherwise.In rebuttal, however, it is not the higher price itselfthat induces the greater Qd, but rather the status orprestige attached to the higher quality of the product.That is, people are willing to pay a higher price forthe added prestige or status.Furthermore, the fact that a mink coat, forexample, is of a higher quality than, say, a silver foxcoat, means that it must be classified as a differenttype or grade of product, and therefore does not belongon the same demand curve as silver foxes or other lowergradefurs. That is, a separate demand schedule must bedrawn for each different type or grade of product.Thus, the demand schedule for a given grade of mink coatwould be expected to reveal the familiar downward slope,left to right, associated with the law of demand; inthis case, people would certainly not pay a higher priceif they knew they could get the very same coat at alower price.142

Price ExpectationsA final set of alleged exceptions involves priceexpectations. Let us first take the case of expectationsof rising prices, as during a period of priceinflation. As we saw above, expectations of higherprices tomorrow would be expected to induce a greater Qdtoday. Hence, it is alleged that this is an example ofhow higher prices can induce a greater Qd, therebycontradicting the law of demand. Actually, thisallegation involves a distortion: it is not tomorrow'shigher prices that induce the greater Qd, but rather therealization that today's prices are relatively lowerthan tomorrow's expected higher prices; it is thisrealization that induces us to buy more today thanusual. Hence, the law of demand remains intact.The opposite case involves expectations offalling prices, as during a depression period marked byprice deflation. As we saw above, expectations of lowerprices tomorrow would be expected to induce a smaller Qdtoday. Again, the allegation claims that thiscontradicts the law of demand, since it shows that lowerprices cause a drop in Qd and not an increase. This,too, is a distortion: it is not tomorrow's lower pricesthat reduce today's rate of purchase, but rather therealization that today's prices are relatively higherthan tomorrow's lower prices. That is, at today'srelatively higher prices it pays to postpone purchasesuntil tomorrow, when prices will actually be lower.Once again, the law of demand comes through unscathed.ConclusionA careful review of the alleged exceptions tothe law of demand reveals a common characteristic: eachbasically involves a non-price determinant of Qd. Thisincludes the case of price expectations, which we haveclassified among the "non-price" determinants. Sincethe law of demand involves only the relation betweenprices and Qd, it cannot be contradicted by cases thathinge on non-price determinants.143

144

CHAPTER VIIPRICE-ELASTICITY OF MARKET DEMANDAfter all is said and done, the law of demand isnot enough. The reason: demand schedules come in avariety of slopes or price-elasticity—which makes allthe difference in the world for the firm. Hence thischapter.In the preceding chapter we visually alluded tothe concept of price-elasticity of demand (Figure 9) byshowing how market demand schedules, even though theyall slope downwards from left to right, will in practicevary in their degree of slope or elasticity. We alsonoted that, technically speaking, demand schedules fallinto three categories: elastic, inelastic, and unitary.In the present chapter we will not only explain themeaning of these categorical terms but will also showtheir extreme practical importance for the firm, as wellas the special factors—social, technical, and economic—that help determine the category into which a givendemand schedule would be expected to fall.I- The Anatomy of Demand-ElasticityThe concept of elasticity of demand reflects thefact that, while the quantities demanded (Qd) by buyersare affected by the price of the product—as under thelaw of demand—the degree of responsiveness of buyers toa change in the price may vary from product to product,from person to person, and from time to time. That isto say, while a lower (higher) price set by sellers willbe expected to increase (decrease) the Qd by buyers, thesensitivity of response of buyers to the given change inprice will vary in degree. These different degrees ofsensitivity or elasticity in Qd, in response to a givenchange in price by the seller, necessarily make theelasticity concept of greatest practical importance tothe seller.The Law of Demand Is Not EnoughThe best way to get into the concept of priceelasticityof demand—"elasticity," for short—is to145

ealize that it is directly related to a situation oftenfaced by the firm: the firm seeks to increase its totaldollar sales receipts (hereinafter noted simply as TRfor total receipts) by means of a change in its sellingprice, that is, by cutting it or raising it. Thus, inits quest for increased TR, the firm wants to determinethe following: should it reduce its price, or increaseit?At first glance, this would seem a fairly simpledecision: in order to increase TR, the firm should tryto sell more units of its product. To accomplish this,the firm should reduce its price, according to the lawof demand (see Chapter VI). So the decision seemsobvious: cut the price. Right? No—wrong! It doesnot follow that selling more units at a lower price willnecessarily increase the TR as well. True, the lowerprice will enable the firm to sell more units—accordingto the law of demand—but it does not necessarily followthat the quantity demanded (Qd) will increase sufficientlyto offset the dollar loss due to the lower pricereceived for each unit sold. It all depends on theelasticity of demand. Clearly, in such a pricing decision,the law of demand is not enough as far as the firmis concerned. So, without further ado, let us pursuethis matter of elasticity.How To Increase Total ReceiptsImagine a firm that wants to increase its TRbecause, say, it is confronted by a union demand forwage increases. Other things being equal, a wage increasewould cause an increase in the firm's totaldollar costs (hereafter referred to simply as TC). Suchan increase in TC, unaccompanied by a proportionateincrease in TR, would in itself reduce the profit marginbetween TR and TC. (Note: total profits = TR - TC.)Now, one of the things the firm could try to do tooffset the profit squeeze is to increase its TR sufficientlyto cover the increase in TC.Of course, the firm could try two other thingsin order to offset the wage increase and restore itsformer profit margin. Instead of increasing its TR, thefirm could try to reduce its TC. On the one hand, thefirm could lay off some workers and reduce its totalwage bill enough to keep the TC at its former level.Or, it could install more efficient methods of production;this, too, would enable the firm to reduce its TC146

sufficiently to restore its former profit margin. Inthe present case, however, we assume that instead ofreducing its TC, the firm seeks to increase its TR byselling a larger quantity of its product.Quantity Demanded vs. Total ReceiptsNow, according to the law of demand (ChapterVI), the firm would have to reduce its price in order toincrease the quantity-demand (Qd) of its product. Sincethe law of demand is a matter of common knowledge, wewould expect the firm to do the obvious and cut itsprice (P) in order to sell the larger quantity (Q) ofits product. So far, so good—or so it would seem.But, as we have been intimating, the law of demand isnot enough—not as long as the lower P fails to increasethe Qd enough to offset the cut in price required toinduce the increased Qd.Let us illustrate graphically the problem ofdemand-elasticity now facing the firm. Figure 11reveals a firm that has been selling 10,000 units at aprice of $8 (see the dot 0). If the firm now decides toreduce the price to $5 in order to sell more units, ithas no way of forecasting precisely how much the Qd willincrease. This much, however, it does know: it wouldlike the Qd to increase enough to offset the drop in Pof $3 per unit sold; that is, it would like the TR toincrease despite the lower price received. Only afterit has actually cut its price will the firm be able todetermine whether its TR has increased, that is, whetherthe Qd is sufficiently "elastic" to offset the pricecut.Selling More But Enjoying It LessIf after the price cut from $8 to $5 the Qdincreases from the current 10,000 units to 24,000 units(see dot E in Figure 11), it is visually apparent thatthe response in Qd was comparatively great. More important,simple calculation reveals that the TR increasesfrom the previous total of $80,000 (derived from P = $8multiplied by Qd = 10,000) to a total of $120,000(derived from $5 times 24,000 units)—despite the cut inP of $3 per unit! That is to say, the Qd proved to besufficiently responsive to the price cut, and thereforeable to offset the drastic price cut. Whether or notthe increase of $40,000 in TR is actually enough to147

PRICE2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 Qd (in ooo's)FIGURE 11:ELASTICITY OF DEMAND IN THE CASEOF A PRICE-CUT.148

satisfy the firm's goal, the fact remains that such asensitive response in Qd is technically referred to aselastic. Elastic responses are precisely what thedoctor should order if ever the firm has to cut itsprice, for only in such cases would the TR be expectedto increase despite the price cut.Things could have worked out just the reverse!If the Qd, instead of increasing to 24,000 units, increasedonly slightly—to only 12,000 units, say—the TRwould show a decrease from its previous $80,000 to$60,000! (This is the result of the lower P of $5 timesthe 12,000 units sold, shown by dot I in Figure 11).Clearly the increase in Qd here is relatively smallcompared to the sizable price cut—it does not increasesufficiently to offset the hefty price cut—so that onbalance, the TR decreased from its former level. Therelatively insensitive response in Qd, indicated by thedemand segment 01, is technically referred to as aninelastic response. Inelastic responses are preciselywhat the firm does not want to encounter if it ever hasto cut its price, for in all such cases the TR woulddecrease in spite of the increase in Qd. This amountsto selling more but enjoying it less, so to speak.The Unknown Demand ScheduleAt this point we should note some additionalproperties of the demand schedule that are practicallyimportant to the firm. First of all, only after thefirm changes its selling price can it get some idea ofthe slope of demand for its product. More precisely, atbest it could discover no more than the segment of thedemand that lies in the range of prices around itscurrent price (e.g., the segments 01 and OE in Figure11). Indeed, so long as the firm continues to sell agiven quantity at a given (unchanged) price—e.g.,10,000 units at $8, in Figure 11—the only thing itreally knows about the demand schedule is a single"dot"—the dot 0 in Figure 11, which represents thecurrent selling P of $8 and the Qd of 10,000 units.Only by a trial-and-error process of changing its P canthe firm discover the slope of the demand segmentnearest to its previous position or "dot."The second noteworthy thing is that the slopesof the demand segment in Figure 11 are basically different:the inelastic segment 01 slopes more to thevertical, while the elastic OE segment slopes more to149

the horizontal. And this is generally the case: wheneverthe demand schedule assumes a relatively verticalposture, it is technically identified as "inelastic,"whereas the demand schedule that slopes toward the horizontalis identified as "elastic."Elastic, Inelastic and UnitaryOmitted from Figure 11 is the oddball in-betweencase where the degree of elasticity is technically categorizedas unitary—neither elastic nor inelastic. Thisis the extremely peculiar case where the TR remains thesame as before—TR neither increases nor decreases—eventhough both the price and Qd have changed. In the caseof a price cut, as shown in Figure 11, the unitary casewould be represented by an increase in Qd to 16,000units, which at $5 a piece yields a TR of $80,000,precisely the same amount as the original TR. Such aresult can occur only in the very unlikely event thatthe Qd responds just enough to compensate for or offsetthe extent of the price change, as a consequence ofwhich the TR remains virtually the same as before.Third, it should be noted that the demand schedule(D), which consists of an array of possible"dots"—each of which represents a given P and the Qd atthat price—for that very reason also consists of anarray of potential TR's which can be calculated from therespective P's and Q's. In other words, the D schedulemay also be interpreted as a TR schedule. As the firmmoves from one selling price to another, it encountersnot only a change in Qd but also a change in TR.Elasticity of Demand and UncertaintyThis brings us to the fourth and probably mostimportant aspect of the demand schedule—at least as faras the firm is concerned: the TR does not necessarilychange in the same direction as does the Qd under thelaw of demand. That is to say, under the law of demandit is always true that a significant price decrease willcause Qd to increase, but it does not necessarily followthat TR will also increase. (Similarly, a significantprice increase will cause Qd to decrease, but it willnot necessarily cause TR to drop, too. More on thisbelow.) It all depends on the slope, or degree ofelasticity of demand. As we saw in Figure 11, in thecase of a price cut, TR will actually decrease when the150

D schedule is inelastic, even though the Qd is increased.Only when the D schedule is elastic will aprice cut increase TR as well as increase Qd.A Note on Statistical ProceduresThe direct implication of this possible discrepancybetween changes in Qd and changes in TR is theuncertainty that it causes for the firm whenever itwants to change its price and increase its TR. Will aprice cut, for example, increase its TR or decrease it?The same question, we will see, applies to a priceincrease. The firm cannot know for certain which of thetwo TR outcomes will occur unless it knows the degree ofelasticity of demand—that is, unless it knows whetherthe D for its product is "elastic" or "inelastic" inresponse to a price change. How can the firm acquiresuch practical knowledge of the elasticity of D for itsproduct? Before we answer this question, we must resumeour graphic analysis of elasticity to include the caseof a price increase.Before proceeding, we should note the technicalproblem posed by the fact that the raw sales data showingthe TR change cannot be accepted at face value. Thereason: in practice, some part of the TR change may bedue not only to the given price change (e.g., the pricecut) but also to changes in non-price determinants, suchas tastes or income. As we saw in Chapter VI, the lawof demand abstracts from the impact of the various nonpriceinfluences on Qd. In the present chapter, for thepurpose of illustrating the elasticity concept, we aresimilarly abstracting from possible non-price influenceson TR, in order to be able to focus only on the relationbetween price changes and TR changes.As a consequence of this technical problem,posed by the complex nature of the raw TR data, avariety of statistical procedures have been required toenable, at least approximately, the elimination of possiblenon-price influences on TR and the calculation ofan "adjusted" TR figure which is related purely toprice. A similar statistical chore is required in orderto compute the coefficient of elasticity, which is thetraditional method of explaining the concept of demandelasticity(see Appendix to this chapter).151

The Hazards of Price-RaisingVirtually everything we have said concerning thecase of a price cut applies with equal force to the caseof a price increase. Assume, now, that our firm hastried the price cut as a means of increasing its TR anddiscovered to its dismay that market demand was inelastic,so that its TR was now lower than before! Thefirm, being guided purely by the law of demand, mightbelieve that its salvation lies only in a price cut—nota price increase—reasoning that only an increase in Qdcould bring the desired increase in TR. Let us assume,however, that in sheer desperation it tries the priceincrease route to its goal.In Figure 12, our firm has decided to raise itsprice from $8 to $10. Being ignorant of the degree ofslope or elasticity of the demand schedule, it has noway of forecasting whether the extent of drop in Qdcaused by the price increase will be dot E or dot I. Asa starter, suppose the price-raise caused a drastic dropin Qd from the original 10,000 units (dot 0 in Figure12) to a mere 4,000 units (dot E). Just by looking atthe slope of the demand segment OE, it is apparent thatthe drop in Qd has been relatively drastic. It is clearthat the price increase of $2 per unit was more thanoffset by the sharp decrease in Qd. It is no surprise,therefore, to find that TR, too, undergoes a drasticdrop from the original $80,000 to only $40,000. Thefirm's worst fears have been confirmed: the price-raisedid scare off too many customers.Technically speaking, the demand segment OErevealed by the price increase in Figure 12 is regardedas elastic. Not only does Qd decrease in response tothe price increase (and the law of demand), but moreimportantly, so does TR decrease, which is contrary towhat the firm had desired. If ever the firm thinks thatit must raise its price in order to increase its TR, itwill learn at least one thing: to keep its fingerscrossed lest demand turns out to be elastic.Selling Less But Enjoying It MoreIn contrast to the dour outcome associated withDot E in Figure 12, there is the totally opposite andhappier possibility shown by dot I. Although here, too,Qd has dropped in response to the $2 price increase, itis apparent that the drop in Qd was relatively slight,152

PRICE-12111 nI U987654321-----I—HI I \ i i i i i 1 I 1 I1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Qd (in ooo's)!^ _ ___ _ ____oFIGURE 12:ELASTICITY OF DEMAND IN THECASE OF A PRICE-INCREASE.153

and not nearly as much as the dot E. Indeed, when wecheck out the result in TR terms, we see that TR hasincreased from $80,000 to $90,000—despite the drop inQd! Clearly, the drop in Qd proved to be sufficientlysmall that it did not offset the $2 raise in price.Whether or not the $10,000 increase in TR is, inpractice, enough to satisfy the firm, the fact remainsthat, technically speaking, the demand segment 01 isregarded as inelastic. Such "inelastic" responses areexactly what the firm would like to experience if andwhen it ever wants to raise its price, for only in suchcases could TR be expected to increase in spite of thedrop in Qd. In other words, the firm may be sellingless but it is enjoying it more.A Tableau of Our ResultsAgain omitted from our Figure 12 is the curiousin-between category of elasticity technically referredto as unitary. As noted above, a "unitary" degree ofelasticity is indicated only in those special instanceswhere the price change somehow does not affect total TReven though the Qd changes; that is, TR remains virtuallyconstant. In Figure 12 this unitary response wouldbe indicated by a third dot placed right at the pointjoining the new $10 price and the reduced Qd of 8,000units, which together make for a TR totalling $80,000—exactly the same as the original TR. Since the unitaryresponse remains a relatively transitory case in practice,we will neglect it and devote our attention mainlyto the more practically significant elastic and inelasticcases.It is now possible to summarize the results ofour analysis by the following tableau:Type Change in Qd Change in TRof under the as Indicator ofPrice Change Law of Demand Degree of Elasticity of Demand+ Elastic degree of elasticityPrice Cut + - Inelastic degree of elasticity= Unitary degree of elasticity- Elastic degree of elasticityPrice Raise - + Inelastic degree of elasticity= Unitary degree of elasticity154

Elastic vs. Inelastic;Which Is Better?Before we proceed, we should explain some of theentries in the tableau: the "plus" sign indicates anincrease in the Qd or TR, the "minus" sign stands for adecrease, while the "equals" sign stands for no-change.Now, the first thing to note is that elastic casesemerge only where the TR changes in the same directionas the Qd— : that is, when TR increases while Qd increases,or when TR decreases while Qd decreases. Onthe other hand, the inelastic cases occur only when TRchanges in a direction opposite to that of the Qd—thatis, when TR decreases while Qd increases, or when TRincreases while Qd decreases.The next thing to note is that an "elastic" or"inelastic" demand does not always have the same practicalsignificance for the firm. Thus, as illustratedby Figure 13, if the firm is considering a reduction ofprice, it would clearly prefer an elastic to an inelasticdemand segment, since only an elastic demand willbring with it the desired increase in TR despite theprice cut. Conversely, when the firm is considering aprice increase, it would clearly prefer an inelasticdemand segment, for only in this case will the TR increasedespite the drop in Qd. Put another way, anelastic demand would be "good news" to the firm onlywhen considering a price cut, while an inelastic demandis "good news" only when a price increase is beingconsidered.The Practical Importanceof Demand-ElasticityOnce again, then, we see why knowledge of thelaw of demand is not enough as far as the firm is concerned.Of great practical importance is an awarenessof the price-elasticity dimension of demand, especiallyas it operates through changes in TR. More precisely,only from its market experience can the firm learn,sooner or later, that elastic and inelastic demand segmentswill exert significantly different effects on TRwhen it undertakes a price change. Only through constanteffort to adapt to changes in market demand, viaadjustments in selling price and/or quantities supplied,can the firm learn anything about the elasticity ofdemand for its product.155

InelasticElasticQdFIGURE 13:DEGREES OF ELASTICITY PREFERRED BY THE FIRM.156

By now, the preceding analysis must have raisedat least two questions in the reader's mind: (1) Whatare the various social, technical, and economic forcesthat help determine whether market demand will be elasticor inelastic? (2) In what ways can the firm acquireknowledge of the elasticity of demand, which can guideit in forecasting the possible effects of a pricechange? It is these two practical questions to which wedevote the next part of this chapter.II.The Determinants of ElasticityIn the following analysis of the determinants ofelasticity, we enumerate and analyze several basicdimensions through which the forces influencing thedegree of elasticity of demand exert their effects.These determinants of elasticity ultimately boil down tobut a few basic dimensions having to do with the productitself, the nature of the competitive environment, andthe subjective conditions of the consumer. Our analysiswill help us learn the nature of those conditions whichtend to make demand elastic or inelastic, and which aretherefore of direct practical relevance to the pricingpolicies of firms. As we will see, there is nothing inthis common-sense analysis that the firm cannot, anddoes not, learn from Its own trial-and-error experiencein the market place.(1) Availability of Close SubstitutesFor virtually any given product X offered forexchange or sale in the market place, there can be foundone or more close substitutes—other products that canserve the same purpose or provide the same utility(usefulness) as the given product X. One example alreadyfamiliar to the reader involves butter and margarine(see Chapter VI). Substitutes need not be identicalin physical properties. That is to say, thedegree of substitutability or similarity of product isdetermined not only by the physical/technical propertiesof the interchangeable commodities, but also by thejudgment of the consumer. Substitutability lies in theeyes of the beholder, so to speak.If, for example, people use newspapers as wellas wax paper for wrapping purposes, then this practiceeffectively makes them substitutes for each other withrespect to the given purpose (wrapping), even though the157

two products are not physically identical. So long asthe different products can be used to serve the samepurpose, more or less, they are to that extent substitutablefor each other—indeed, as far as the consumeris concerned, they may be viewed as rivals, in competitionwith each other.Substitutes and CompetitionAnother equally important dimension of substitutabilityis the extent of competition provided byrival brands or firms producing the given product X.The larger the number of competing firms producing productX, the greater the degree of substitutability asfar as the consumer is concerned. For example, if theconsumer does not like Schlitz beer, for reasons ofprice or quality, he can find a half-dozen or moresubstitute beers produced by rival firms, all of whomoffer a similar product that effectively serves as aclose substitute for Schlitz.We thus have not one but two dimensions ofsubstitutability, both of consequence to the competitionamong products and firms. In effect, therefore, theavailability of close substitutes is a reflection of thecompetitive environment facing the firm and its product.Hence, the greater the competition among both productsand firms, the greater the availability of closesubstitutes—and vice versa. We now must ask: What isthe effect of availability of substitutes on the degreeof slope or elasticity of market demand? First, we willanalyze the case of a price raise, and then the case ofa price cut.Substitutes and ElasticityAssume, now, that a given firm has raised theprice of its product, while other firms producing asimilar product have not raised theirs, or have notraised theirs as much. It would be reasonable to assert:other things being equal, the greater the availabilityof substitutes, the more likely that the demandfor the product will be elastic (see segment OE inFigure 14, part A); conversely, the smaller the availabilityof substitutes, the more likely that demand willprove to be inelastic (see segment 01 in Figure 14, partA). The reasoning here is straightforward: the greaterthe competition, the better able are buyers to locate158

159

elatively cheaper substitutes and to shift their purchasesto those alternatives. They would rather switchthan fight, to re-coin a phrase. Conversely, the smallerthe extent of competition, the fewer the alternativesavailable to buyers.What about the case of a price reduction? Hereit would be reasonable to assert the same propositionsas in the case of a price increase: other things beingequal, the greater the availability of substitutes, themore likely that demand will be elastic (see segment OEin Figure 14, part B), while conversely, the less theavailability of substitutes, the more likely that demandwill be inelastic (see segment 01 in Figure 14, part B).Here the reasoning would be as follows: if the ABCCompany cuts its price while all other firms fail tofollow suit, then the greater the extent of competitionfrom rival brands and products, and the greater thenumber of customers that can be won over from competitorsin favor of ABC's lower price. Conversely, thesmaller the extent of the competition, the fewer thecustomers to be won away from competitors.Notice that in both cases of price raising andprice cutting, the same conditions of substitutabilityresult in the same degree of elasticity. Thus, thegreater the availability of substitutes, the more likelythat demand will be elastic in both the case of a priceraise and a price cut. The same proposition applies tothe situation where substitutes are not very available.As a consequence, the overall slope of market demandwould be expected to be elastic (E) when numeroussubstitutes are available, and inelastic (I) when substitutesare not very available (see Figure 15).Subway Fares and Oil CartelsHow does all this apply to the practical pricingpolicies of firms? A couple of important examples willsuffice, although numerous others can be recounted.Officials of New York City's subway system have beenperiodically faced with the need to increase their totalsubway receipts (TR), especially to finance increasedwage demands by union workers. Which way should theygo—reduce the subway fare or raise it?History tells us that the subway authoritieshave repeatedly resorted to an increase in the fare insteadof a decrease. Why? Presumably, officials ruled160

NUMEROUSAVAILABLESUBSTITUTESFEW AVAILABLESUBSTITUTESQdFIGURE 15:AVAILABILITY OF SUBSTITUTES AND ELASTICITY OF DEMAND.161

out fare cuts on the belief that demand would be inelasticfor a lower fare: they were probably skeptical thatthey could attract enough additional subway riders bythe lower fare. So they turned instead to the fareincrease, implying a belief that they had an inelasticdemand for transportation. Clearly, the millions ofworkers going to jobs every day in Manhattan and otherboroughs have little alternative to the subway. Thecomparative absence of any serious competition fromalternative systems of transportation—taxis and ownerdrivenautos—would make for low substitutability andinelastic demand. Since the subway TR was increased asa consequence, the hunch about inelastic demand provedcorrect.Another important example occurs in connectionwith the recent efforts of the oil cartel to increasetotal receipts (TR) by reducing supplies and charginghigher prices. Intimately connected with this wellplannedand orchestrated program were the gasoline"shortages" of the 1970's and the accompanying significantincreases in gasoline prices. The oil producersmust have been very confident that their Western customerswere not only heavily dependent on oil, but alsohad few available substitutes, at least in the shortrun. Economic studies confirm their judgment: theyshow, for instance, that the demand for gasoline in theU.S.A. is very inelastic.Before we proceed to the next determinant ofelasticity, it is important to remember the proviso inour propositions: "other things being equal," i.e.,ceteris paribus. This proviso reflects the fact that,in practice, there may be two or more determinants—notmerely one—exerting their influence simultaneously onthe demand for a given product. What makes this significantis the fact that the full array of determinantsmay not be exerting their influence all in the samedirection, but rather in opposite directions. That isto say, one of the determinants may be imparting aninelastic thrust while another determinant may be impartingan elastic thrust. How does this affect ouranalysis of determinants? This will become clearer aswe discuss other determinants.(2) Relative Price of the ProductIt is no secret that the various items we purchasein the market place have different price tags162

attached to them, and that some of these prices arerelatively low or insignificant—such as the prices ofnewspapers, bottles of coke, or cigarettes—while otherprices are relatively steep or expensive, such as theprices of automobiles or refrigerators. Even thoughautomobiles and other durables may be bought on aninstallment basis, involving lower monthly payments, thefact remains that such payments constitute relativelylarge-size items in one's budget. In any event, howwould the relative dollar-size of the item affect theelasticity of demand?The Case of a Price IncreaseFirst, take the case of a price increase. Forpurposes of illustration, let us assume a price increaseof 50 percent and compare the effects in the case of twodifferently priced products—say, a newspaper and anautomobile. If the newspaper was selling for 20 cents,the new price would be 30 cents; if the car was sellingfor $6,000, the new price would be $9,000. Clearly, theimpact on the elasticity of demand of the given 50-percent price increase would be vastly different in eachcase; the 10-cent price hike for the newspaper isvirtually infinitesimal compared to the $3,000 boost onthe car. As a consequence, a 10-cent boost would havevirtually no deterrent effect on the rate of purchasecompared to the deterrent effect of a $3,000 boost.Hence, it is reasonable to assert the following proposition:other things being equal, the smaller therelative price of the item, the more inelastic is thedemand likely to be; conversely, the more expensive theitem, the more elastic is demand likely to be—ceterisparibus.This proposition can be confirmed by a varietyof cases, but one important instance should suffice. Awidespread practice among the governments of the worldis the levying of excise taxes, particularly on lowpriceditems, such as cigarettes, cosmetics, movies, andliquor. This "nickel-and-dime" method of public financehas been a successful revenue raiser mainly because thelow-priced items involved show inelastic demand againstprice increases. This means that the price hike causedby the tax has relatively slight deterrent impact on therate of purchase.163

The Case of a Price CutWhat about the case of a price reduction? Here,too, it would be plausible to assert the same propositionas above, and for similar reasons. A price cut ona low-priced item will spare the buyer only smallamounts, and hence constitutes a relatively weak inducementto buy more. On the other hand, a similar percentagecut on a high-priced item will mean a relativelyhuge saving to the purchaser, and therefore constitute avery great inducement to buy. Hence, an inelastic responsein Qd would be associated with the low-priced itemwhile an elastic response would be expected in the caseof a high-priced item, ceteris paribus.Finally, we should note that, since our propositionsare the same for both cases of price raising andprice cutting, the overall conclusion is that elastic(E) demand will emerge in the case of high-priced items,and inelastic (I) demand will emerge in the case of lowpriceditems (see the slopes E and I in Figure 15).The Meaning of "Ceteris Paribus"Before we proceed to a third determinant ofelasticity, it is pertinent to recall our earlier commenton the "other things being equal" proviso. Therewe noted that, in practice, we are likely to find notone but possibly two or more determinants of elasticityat work, and in opposite directions. Now, with theautomobile, at least in areas where people have fewalternative means of transportation (such as LosAngeles), we have an excellent example of this case.In the Los Angeles area, for instance, automobilesare not only expensive in price (like everywhereelse in the country) and in upkeep (because of the greatmileage travelled by each driver), but they remain virtuallythe only means of transportation. (About theonly substitutability is in switching from "gas-guzzler"models to "economy" models.) This heavy dependence onthe automobile not only makes for inelastic demand, butalso accounts for families tending to own two or morecars—depending on the size of family, etc.,—-whichfurther adds to the purchase expense. Thus, we havedeterminants of opposite influence on elasticity: onthe one hand, the lack of available substitutes causesinelasticity of demand, while on the other hand, thegreat expense of acquiring cars makes for elasticity of164

demand. This makes it more difficult for producingfirms to predict the overall effects of an increase inthe price of new cars as well as an increase in theprice of gasoline.(3) Subjective Preference RankingAt least twice before—in Chapters V and VI—wehave met the subjective preference-scale on which, atany given moment, we rank our wants and the means tosatisfy them. The specific forces that shape and influencethese subjective preference rankings—the importancewe attach to things—are as numerous and varied asthe human mind can imagine. They include such widelyranging factors as individual nutritional requirements,aesthetic tastes, and lifestyle—on to advertising,fashion, and professional/technical requirements.Price Increases vs. Price CutsBefore we examine some noteworthy aspects, letus first state the following propositions. If the firmis contemplating a price increase, it would be reasonableto assert: other things being equal, the higherthe subjective preference-ranking for the particularproduct or want, the more likely that the demand will beinelastic in the face of a price raise. (In this connection,see Figure 14, part A, segment 01.) Conversely,the lower the subjective ranking for the item, themore likely that demand will be elastic in the face ofthe price raise. (See Figure 14, part A, segment OE.)The reasoning here is straightforward. The moreimportant the item is for the consumer, the less resistantwill the consumer be to a price increase—ceterisparibus. The example of gasoline readily comes to mind.The inelastic demand attributed to gasoline in the faceof price increases is as much due to the importanceattached to the automobile as to the lack of availablesubstitutes for automobile power. Conversely, the lessimportant the item is for the consumer, the more likelythat he will be deterred from buying at the higherprice—other things remaining the same.What about subjective preferences and pricereduction? Here the propositions would run as follows:other things being equal, the stronger the subjectivepreference, the more will demand tend to be elastic,165

while the weaker the subjective preference, the morelikely that demand will be inelastic. (See Figure 14,part B, segments OE and 01, respectively.) And thereasoning here is also straightforward: the more importantthe item is to consumers, the more likely are theyto take advantage of the price cut; the less importantthe item, the less likely are consumers to be induced tobuy by the price cut.Practical ImplicationsA further significant proposition follows fromthese considerations. On the assumption that firmsprefer larger total receipts (TR) to smaller TR's, theywill tend to produce goods of higher-valued preference,or cater to wants of nigner higher rank, rather than producegoods or cater to wants s of lower-valued Lrank.In this connection, an examination of Figure 16readily tells us why: higher-ranked goods or wants (seepart A of Figure 16) are associated with demand segmentswhose degree of elasticity implies increased TR's if andwhen the firm wants to either increase its price (seesegment 01) or cut its price (see segment OE); conversely,lower-ranked goods or wants (see part B of Figure16) are associated with demand segments whose degree ofelasticity implies decreased TR's when the firm raisesits price (see segment OE) or cuts its price (see segment01). To put it another way: if ever the firm isfaced with the decision to change its price in order toincrease its TR, it would clearly be better off producinggoods of higher value than goods of lower value.The Case of Agricultural ProductsAll of this has great relevance to governmentpolicy on agricultural products—their supply andpricing. Here it suffices to note that the demand foragricultural products and foodstuffs as a whole is overallinelastic. This means that farmers face two alternatives.They could, on the one hand, increase theirTR's by producing less and charging higher prices. Onthe other hand, they could increase production and reduceprices in order to increase the Qd; but in so doingtheir TR's would decrease due to the inelastic demand!At least two interesting implications emergefrom the agricultural case. One is the implication,166

5s55isu. zzLJJo< QJ167

just noted, that farmers can be induced to increasetheir TR's by producing less and increasing prices. Theother is an implication that applies to other goods thatshare a similar characteristic: while these goods possessgreat importance for people, they are neverthelessneeded in only minimum quantities, such that the demandfor them is inelastic both for a price raise and for aprice cut.Minimum RequirementsFor example, in the case of foodstuffs, peoplegenerally desire certain minimum quantities for nutritionalpurposes (causing demand to be inelastic againsta price hike). For this reason, they are not sufficientlyattracted to opportunities to acquire more foodstuffsat lower prices, in preference to other goods(hence the inelastic demand to a price cut). Similar isthe case of special technical instruments or equipment,such a slide-rules, pocket computers, or stethoscopes.For these items, people have only a limited professionalor technical requirement—that is, they need but oneunit, not more. Therefore, the firm would h'ave to cutits price steeply in order to induce buyers to acquire asecond unit or more. It may be noted, however, that atthe greatly reduced price, additional customers can bepicked up from two other groups of purchasers: peoplewho have a relatively low-ranked preference for suchitems, and can be induced to buy only by a much-reducedprice; and people in lower-income classes who can nowafford to buy at the much lower price. This latterdimension of elasticity-determination will be examinedin more detail in the next section.(4) The Structure of Social IncomeThis dimension of demand-elasticity is relevantprimarily to two cases. One involves a given productthat has significant markets in each of the layers ofthe social income structure—from the higher-incomestrata, down through the middle-income, and into thelower-income strata—such that the problem facing thefirm involves a judgment as to which price or pricerange will maximize its total receipts (TR).Other things being equal, a relatively highprice caters primarily to upper-income people, but becausetheir number is comparatively small, the quantity168

demanded by them will be relatively small (see therelevant inelastic segment of the demand schedule inFigure 17). On the other hand, a relatively low pricecaters primarily to lower-income groups, but since theyexist in greater numbers, their Qd may be considerablylarge (see the elastic segment of demand in Figure 17).As a consequence, the firm must decide which of the twoattractive segments of the market offers the comparativelygreater TR, assuming the costs of producing thetwo different quantities does not significantly affectthe pricing decision.Closely related to this type of decision—whichinvolves the question: Which level of price will maximizethe firm's TR?—is another practical question:Which level of quality or grade of product will tap themost lucrative markets? Generally speaking, peopleassociate higher prices with higher-quality products,and lower prices with lower-quality goods. Thus, assumean automobile producer who is able to turn out either avery expensive, high-quality, deluxe car (with a relativelyinelastic demand) or a relatively inexpensive,lower-quality, mass-produced car (with a very elasticdemand). The one car would cater to a select group ofrich people or car enthusiasts; the other car would tapthe untold riches of the mass market. If an entrepreneurwere motivated primarily by the vision of a potentialmass market, he would clearly undertake productionof the inexpensive, mass-market car. Could this havebeen the paradigm for Henry Ford and his Model T car?(5) Supplies On Hand in the PantryIn pursuing this catalogue of elasticity determinants,we should also note a factor that must bepresumed to be an important influence on elasticity, butits significance cannot be easily ascertained by thefirm. It involves a wide variety of storeable commodities(from canned goods and linens to gasoline forthe car), which are kept in consumers' refrigerators,freezers, pantries, closets, tanks, attics, or wherever.Typically, the quantity or stock in possession of theconsumer can vary from zero or low to full or ample, sothat the firm cannot gauge the state of consumerinventories of consumables with sufficient precision.Nevertheless, the law of marginal utility (Chapter V)enables us to assert the following propositions.169

HIGH-PRANGEMIDDLE-PRANGELOW-PRANGEQdFIGURE 17:SOCIAL INCOME-STRUCTURE ANDELASTICITY OF DEMAND.170

First, the case of a price increase. Otherthings being equal, the greater the quantity of goodsalready in consumers' stocks, the more likely that consumers'demand will be elastic in response to the pricehike;conversely, the smaller the stocks on hand, themore likely that consumers' demand will be inelasticrather than elastic. The reasoning, based on the law ofmarginal utility, would run as follows: with ample orbulging stocks on hand (and the law of diminishing MUtherefore becoming relevant), consumers would be lessinclined than otherwise to pay a higher price; withsmall or meager supplies on hand (and the law of increasingMU therefore becoming relevant), consumerswould be less deterred than otherwise from buying at thehigher price.A parallel line of reasoning applies to a pricereduction. Other things being equal, the greater thequantity in consumers' stocks, the more likely thatconsumers' demand will be inelastic in response to theprice cut; conversely, the smaller the stocks on hand,the more likely that demand will be elastic. Why? Inthe case of ample stocks on hand, the law of diminishingMU becomes relevant: the lower price is less of aninducement to buy than otherwise. However, when stocksare very low, and the law of increasing MU becomesrelevant, the consumer finds the lower price a greaterinducement to buy than otherwise.Complexity of DeterminantsAs a concluding note to this analysis of elasticitydeterminants, it is necessary to stress againthat, in the real world, these determinants may exerttheir influence in combinations of two or more simultaneously,but with mutually opposite impacts on Qd.What we have done in this part of the chapter is a"partial analysis"—a study of the effects of isolatedor particular forces at work, on the ceteris paribulsassumption that other influences are not simultaneouslyat work. This enables us to explore theoretically thefull workings of any single factor. Then, equipped withthis knowledge of the workings of individual determinants,we should be better able to forecast the effectson elasticity that may be exerted by the complex, realworldconditions facing the firm in a given market.In this connection it is important to recall(from Chapter VI) that the firm knows little, if171

anything, about the demand schedule for its product—other than its current "dot," that is, its currentselling price (P) and the quantity demanded (Qd) at thatprice. The only other thing the firm knows is thatthere _is a demand schedule out there in the market—albeit unknown—and that if the firm raised (or lowered)its price, the Qd would decrease (or increase).Demand —The UnknownBut surely this is not enough. The firm couldstill not know in advance by how much the Qd woulddecrease (or increase) when it raises (or lowers) itsprice. Indeed, such information about the effect of aprice change cannot be known until the firm actuallyinstitutes the price change. Even then, the firm woulddiscover the degree of elasticity pertaining to only onesegment of a potentially more complete demand schedule.Logically, the only way the firm could discover the fullarray of "dots" constituting the demand schedule wouldbe to conduct a kind of experiment: It could post aseries of price changes over a wide range in order touncover the full array of the respective P and Qd dotsthat comprise the demand schedule—assuming, of course,that the demand schedule does not shift throughout theentire experiment!In practice, however, firms cannot and do notplay such games. They do not change prices unlessprovoked by special circumstances. For instance, theyhave in the past raised prices mainly in response torising costs rather than to take advantage of increaseddemand; from the public relations viewpoint, they prefernot to be accused of "charging what the traffic willbear." Conversely, they reduce prices mainly under thepressure of increased competition or the need to disposeof overpriced goods.III.Some Important QuestionsCan firms charge just any high price they want,and still prosper? Do firms always charge the highestprice consistent with maximum profits? Do firms actuallyhave complete knowledge of market demand so that theyknow exactly which price will maximize their profits?These and related questions can be answered, at leastpartly, with the help of the demand-elasticity concept.Let us see how.172

The Firm as "Profiteer"There is a widespread notion that, if leftalone, the firm would automatically charge the "highestpossible price" simply out of rapacious greed, and thatonly fear of government reprisal (e.g., anti-trustaction by the Justice Department) keeps it from resortingto price "extortion" or "profiteering." Whether ornot it is true that fear of public reprisal keeps thefirm in check is strictly an empirical question, whichmay or may not be open to investigation. As far aseconomics is concerned, the market alone suffices tokeep prices of firms in check (as we will see especiallyin the next chapter); it would be a waste of valuableresources to set up a public agency merely to policeprices in the market place when, all along, the marketitself can serve this function.It should be noted here, however, that no firmin its right mind would blindly and steadily raiseprices regardless of the elasticity of demand for itsproduct. As we have amply seen, the only time it paysthe firm to raise its price is when market demand isinelastic (not elastic!), for only inelastic demand willyield an increase in total receipts (TR) and an increasein total profits. (This assumes that cost-changes arenot a factor—that the smaller production rate due tothe drop in quantity demanded (Qd) does not affect totalcosts in a way that affects the profit rate.) However,if, following the price raise, demand proves to beelastic, the result would be a drop in TR and (assumingno cost-effects) a drop in profit rate, too, whichshould suffice to check the price-raising! In otherwords, the firm would go for a price raise only as longas demand is inelastic; if demand turns out to beelastic, the price-raising will stop.Ex-Ante IgnoranceThis brings us to a related question. Assume afirm that, in quest of increased TR and believing marketdemand to be inelastic, decides to raise its price.And lo and behold, it discovers it guessed correctly—its TR actually increases. This prompts the question:How come the firm had up to now been asleep at thewheel—selling at a lower price and TR—when all alongit could have been selling at a higher price and alarger TR? Assuming costs of production were not a173

factor, it looks like the firm had up to this pointforegone higher profits. Why would it do so?One possible answer is that the firm was more orless ignorant of the degree of elasticity of marketdemand when it had made its original ex-ante decision—when it set the price at, say, $10 in the belief thatthis represented its most profitable price for the quantityproduced. Had it known originally that a higherprice of $12, say—and a smaller quantity of production—would have brought a higher TR, it would undoubtedlyhave opted for that combination of P and Q. But inview of its ignorance—its incomplete knowledge of theactual demand situation—it could not know in the exantewhat it could know only in the ex-post, aftertrial-and-error. (See Chapter V on maximizing and theex-ante/ex-post aspects of decision-making.) In otherwords, had the firm at the start possessed perfectknowledge of the market demand, it would have opened upwith a $12 price—it would never have had to raise itsprice from $10 to $12, and consumers would not have anygrounds to complain of "profiteering"!"Social Pressures," Competition,and Income ChangesAnother possible reason why a firm might onlybelatedly discover that its initial price had been settoo low—in the sense that it was less profitable thanthe higher price it set later—is the widespread reluctanceof firms to raise prices in the face of various"social pressures." One such pressure stems from thetaboo, already mentioned, against "charging what thetraffic will bear." In terms of elasticity this means:do not raise prices even though demand is inelastic andTR would increase! Another form of pressure stems fromthe fear of prosecution by the Justice Department underthe anti-trust laws, on the grounds of "monopoly" or"market power."A third possible reason is the firm's fear ofcompetition from rival firms and rival products, suchthat a price raise might leave it out on the limb—losing customers to rivals that had not raised theirprices. In such cases it might occur to the firm thatthe best way to achieve higher profits is through collusionwith its rivals. Such concerted action would involvea basic agreement among firms to restrict supply,rig prices, and bolster profits by means of pools,174

mergers, or cartels. In other words, the firm mayovercome its fear of competition by, in effect, outlawingit in concert with its rivals. But history tells usthat such cartel-like arrangements have never workedwithout the backing and legal sanction of government.A Note on CartelsIn this connection, history also reveals thatcartels organized by commodity-producing nations—inorder to restrict supply and maintain the price ofcopper, coffee, oil, etc.—have tended to underestimatethe degree of elastic response in consumers' demand as aconsequence of consumers' ability to find substitutes inthe long run. Indeed, all demand schedules possess somedegree of elasticity due to the availability, more orless, of substitutes.History reveals that in the long run there is nosuch thing as a totally vertical (totally inelastic)demand schedule. Man has not let himself be crucifiedby a price hike. He has had the ingenuity to usescience and technology to find those substitutes thatenable him to reduce reliance on higher-priced resources.And this is probably the most productive aswell as the most effective way of bringing any cartel toheel.Rising Incomes and Price-IncreasesAlso worth mentioning is the following peculiarsituation. Imagine a case in which TR increases at thesame time that the firm raises its price—but not as aresult of inelastic demand. This is the case wheremarket demand had increased at the same time that thefirm had raised its price. In this case, the firm maynot have realized that demand had increased becausepersonal incomes of households had increased, therebycausing a "shift to the right" in the demand schedule(see Chapter VI). In this case the TR is increased notbecause of inelastic demand but because, despite thehigher price, the increase in the demand schedule wassufficiently large so that the Qd remains undiminishedor even increases!175

Why Not Blame the Consumer?The fact that the firm can raise its price andincrease its TR raises another issue. There have alwaysbeen people who regard price-raising by the firm as"reprehensible" or "gouging." Since it is usuallyinelastic demand that enables the firm to earn a largerTR when it raises its price, two further questionsbecome very relevant: (1) Why blame the firm for inelasticdemand, when only the consumers are ultimatelyresponsible for that? (2) Does not the firm have theright to take advantage of a market situation whichreveals an inelastic demand for a given product?As to the first question, it should be notedthat whereas consumers—not firms—should be blamed forcreating the inelastic demand, these same consumers haveit in their power to reverse the situation and create anelastic demand—simply by sitting on their hands andcurtailing their spending! Therefore, if consumersthink a firm's price and TR are "too high," and reallywant to bring them down, nothing stands in their way buttheir resolve to buy less.A Question of Human RightsAs to the second question—concerning the firm'sright to maximize its profit by increasing its TR—itsuffices to note that it involves a moral issue. Virtuallyall attacks on the firm that concern theirpricing and production policies—e.g., the firm's priceis alternatively "too high" ("extortion"!), "too low"("price warfare"!), or the firm is alternatively producing"too much" (beware of "growth" and "affluence!"),or "too little" ("monopolistic restriction"!)—'theseattacks are not only self-contradictory but also boildown to questions of fundamental human rights. Does aperson have the right to ask any price he wishes for hisgoods and services? Does he have the right to produceas much or as little as he desires? These fundamentalquestions will turn up again in Chapter X, wherein weanalyze the nature of a free-market economy.176

AppendixTHE COEFFICIENT OF ELASTICITYIt is not usual to give the concept of demandelasticitya whole chapter all to itself as we have justdone. Nor is it usual to treat elasticity in "TR"terms, although textbooks are tending more and more todo so. More usual, because it is traditional, is todescribe elasticity in "percentage" terms—that is, tocompare the percentage change in quantity-demanded withthe given percentage change in price. The purpose ofthis appendix is merely to alert the reader to theexistence of this alternative concept, which he canpursue in greater detail in any introductory or intermediatetextbook.Theoretically, there is no basic conflict betweenthe TR approach and the percentage approach; theyare two different ways of looking at the same thing. Inthe percentage approach, the criterion of elasticity isreferred to as the "coefficient of elasticity," which isderived as follows:~ « • • ^n ,-.1 ^ •• ^ /^,«T,V Percentage Change in QdCoefficient Of Elasticity (COE) = —2 ——-—- : —Percentage Change in PThus, the COE turns out to be a number that reflects thenumerical relation or ratio between the rate of changein P and the rate of change in Qd. The plus or minussigns that are involved mathematically can be convenientlydisregarded for the purpose of calculating theCOE.Let us take a simple example. Suppose a pricecut of 15 percent results in a 20 percent increase inQd. The resulting ratio is 20/15, equivalent to 1-1/3,or 1.333. Since any COE that is numerically greaterthan 1.0 is classified as elastic, the above case revealselastic demand. Another simple example: supposea price raise of 20 percent results in Qd dropping only10 percent. Calculation yields a ratio of 10/20, equivalentto 1/2 or .5. Since any COE that is numericallyless than 1.0 is classified as inelastic, we have here acase of inelastic demand. Finally, the unitary casearises where the percent changes in Qd and P are exactlyequal, yielding a COE of 1.0, the standard for unitaryelasticity.177

Notice that both the TR and percentage criteriainvolve the same basic elements: P and Qd. But the TRfigure , compared to the COE, has the advantage of notrequiring any further calculation once the raw TR datahave been statistically adjusted to eliminate the effectof non-price influences on TR—a statistical procedurethat is also required in calculating the COE. In contrast,the COE requires the further calculation of therespective percentage changes in P and Qd, and then theratio of these percentage changes.178

CHAPTER VIIIHOW THE MARKET DETERMINES PRICESPrices, prices everywhere—indeed, prices arethe most widespread aspect of the market place. And themarket place is the preeminent theater of exchangetransactions in our lives—the stage upon which we offereach other the services of our labor power, savings, orother wealth, in order to earn the income with which tobuy the things we want. No wonder it is such a focalpoint of human action.I. Free Markets vs. InterventionismMarket places are found in all modern economicsystems—capitalist, socialist, or otherwise—in which amedium of exchange (money) is used as the means ofpayment for goods and services put on sale. But, althoughdifferent economic systems share more or less theexistence of market places, the specific way in whichprices are established in the respective markets variessignificantly. One of the ways in which price-formationprocesses differ involves the distinction between freemarkets and controlled markets.Only Two Ways to Determine PricesIndeed, throughout history only two principleshave guided the formation of prices in the market place:the free-market principle and the interventionist principleof the "political means" (see Chapter I). Variousfacets of the free market will be examined in detail inChapter X. For the present we concentrate on the marketas a mechanism or process for determining prices, whereasin Chapter X we will examine it broadly, and fundamentally,in terms of its philosophical, institutional,and moral dimensions. A full-blown analysis of interventionismis beyond the scope of the present work.For the present chapter it suffices to note thatfree-market price formation is based on the principle ofexchange of goods and services for money on a totallyvoluntary basis. That is to say, prices are agreed uponby mutual consent of the two exchanging parties, without179

any forcible intervention by an outside third party,such as, for example, a government agency empowered tocontrol prices and wages.II.What Happens When Demand and Supply Meet?We now tackle the key questions: How does themarket determine prices? Toward what price will themarket tend to move for any given product? That is tosay, which of the several prices on the vertical scaleof prices—relevant to the market demand schedule—willthe market settle on?Demand and Supply Determine PricesWithout getting into specifics here, this muchcan be said: the interplay of demand and supply forcesis the crucial mechanism for answering each of thesequestions. Furthermore, despite the fact that the firm(i.e., its management) is responsible for personallysetting the prices of its products, ultimately it is themarket that determines prices, through the demand-andsupplymechanism.Fortunately, it is possible to illustrate, bymeans of simple graphs, how the interplay of demand andsupply manages to determine the market price. ChaptersVI and VII have amply described the demand side of themarket. To understand the supply side, our mainpreparation has been Chapter IV; with that chapter asbackground, we can now understand the supply schedule(S), as shown in Figure 18. There we see the so-calledex-post supply schedule (S), shown in two varieties (inpanels A and B), both of which display thecharacteristic vertical slope.Meeting the Supply ScheduleFirst, we should explain the ex-post aspect ofthis supply schedule. Ex-post simply refers to the factthat once-planned production of a given good has alreadytaken place, and a specified amount X has been offeredfor sale in the market (shown by X along the horizontalscale in Figure 18). Ex-post represents a kind of faitaccompli situation; the firm's planned productionprogram has finally been completed, and the finishedproduct is now offered on the market in the amount X.180

oID Q.2181

Why is the supply schedule so characteristicallyvertical in the ex-post? Because the vertical line isthe only way to illustrate the fact that the totalquantity supplied (Qs) to the market is of a given fixedamount X. (See Appendix for analysis of ex-ante S.)We should also explain the dashed portion belowthe lower end of the S schedule in panel A of Figure 18.This indicates the range of relatively low prices atwhich the firm would not want to sell any of its supply.In contrast, the upper (thickened) portion of the Sschedule indicates the range of prices at which the firmwould be willing to sell.Minimum Reservation PricesNow, what is the difference between the two Sschedules in Figure 18? In panel A, the thick portionof the S schedule (as just explained) correlates withthose prices on the vertical P scale at which the firmis willing to sell. Hence, the lower end of this thickline indicates the minimum reservation price acceptableto the firm, below which it will not sell. Thus, ifmarket demand is disappointingly low, and buyers wouldbe willing to buy only at the relatively low prices(shown by the dashed portion of S), the firm mightdecide to withhold the product from the market ratherthan to sell it at distress prices. In a sense, therefore,the dashed portion shows the prices at which thequantity X would not be offered for sale on the market.In contrast is the S schedule in panel B, whichdoes touch the horizontal Qs axis. This S illustratesthe special but not unusual case where the firm has nominimum reservation price—its goods are placed on salefor whatever price the market will fetch. This includesselling out even at a zero price, which simply meansgiving the stuff away, with no price asked. Hence, theS schedule is drawn to touch the Qs axis, where P iszero. This means that regardless of the price buyersare willing to pay, firms enter the market prepared todispose of their wares at any price they can fetch, fromzero on up.Perishables vs. Non-PerishablesA good example of this totally vertical S schedule,which touches the Qs axis, is the perishable182

commodity (e.g., fish, tomatoes). These commodities maybe too costly to store, or not worth preserving, andtherefore must be disposed of at whatever price. Insuch distress situations, the failure of the firm tosell out its supply by the end of the planned salesperiod puts it under pressure to slash its price sufficientlyuntil it finally does sell out—even if it takesa zero price to get rid of the unsold quantities. Inthe worst case, where the goods become totally rotten,the firm might even decide to pay a garbage collector tocart the stuff away.The more usual case involves non-perishablegoods—goods that can be stored for long periods oftime. Here the seller has an important option: not tosell if the market is not willing to pay his minimumreservation price. This is the case depicted in Panel Aof Figure 18. If prices offered are too low, the firmcan withdraw its supply and place it in storage. Thefirm will select this option if it is confident thatdemand will later pick up sufficiently—sufficiently,that is, to raise prices enough to cover the temporarystorage costs. If this speculation fails—if marketdemand remains weak and the prospect of higher pricesfades—the mounting storage costs could eventually inducethe firm to sell out at whatever price the marketfetches.Price-setting:Market vs. the FirmIn practice, of course, firms do not enter themarket totally ignorant of the prices the market willfetch—without any preconception of the price demandersare willing to pay. On the contrary, firms make appropriateefforts to determine that particular sellingprice which would enable them to sell their given Qs atthe expected profit margin. (This was briefly discussedin Chapter IV, and Chapter IX will deal at length withthe relationship between selling price, profits, andcosts.) But the point is this: Whatever price the firminitially sets on its product, it must do so with itsfingers crossed, because only its eventual confrontationwith market demand will determine whether its best-laidplans are successful or not—that is, whether it will beable to sell out its Qs at the original asking P.In this connection, we shall note that when theS schedule in the graph pertains to the industry as a_whole—and therefore represents the market S schedule183

instead of merely an individual firm's S—we must becareful how we interpret the lower end of the S schedule(for example, see the S schedule in Figure 19). As wesaw above, the bottom tip of the S indicates the minimumreservation price at which the firm is willing to sell.But in the case of the industry or market S schedule,where several firms are involved—each with differentcosts, profit expectations, and selling prices—we cannotpresume to have a single, uniform, minimum reservationprice for every firm. These minimum prices willundoubtedly vary from firm to firm. Hence, the lowertip of the S merely indicates the minimum price of onlythose firms which, for reasons of cost and/or profitmargin, are able to enter the market with the lowestminimum prices.The Marriage of Demand and SupplyWe are now prepared to bring both the demand (D)and supply (S) schedules together in the market place—and examine the outcome, as shown in Figure 19. In thenature of the case, we assume that the firms competingin a given market are offering a similar product—asphysically similar as is possible in the real world, andas similar as the eyes of the beholders (the consumers)make it.The first thing to note about Figure 19 is thepoint E: This marks the intersection of D and S. Thisintersection point is technically referred to as theequilibrium point, but in simpler terms it representsthe market-clearing price ($8 here) at which the total S(the quantity OX) could be sold. That is to say, thepoint E indicates the only price at which the quantitydemanded(Qd) would be just equal to the Qs—at whichthe given Qs of X could be sold out in entirety by theend of the planned sales period. This makes the equilibriumprice a unique price—indeed, any other pricewould not have this fortunate market-clearing result, aswe will see in a moment.First, it should be realized that, since differentfirms are likely to open with somewhat differentinitial prices for the same product, the market-clearingprice of $8 will not necessarily satisfy each firm tothe same degree. Only those firms that opened up withan $8 price would discover they were able to sell outwithin the planned sales period they had set for themselves.On the other hand, those firms that had opened184

DOLLARS1514-s131211\.109Q07-E65--x x\>4-321—[DQ (UNITS)FIGURE 19:DEMAND. SUPPLY, AND MARKET-PRICE185

up with prices higher or lower than $8 would experiencea different result, technically referred to as "surplus"and "shortage," respectively. Let us now see how andwhy.The Case of a Market SurplusAssume that, instead of opening up at the happymarket-clearing price of $8, the firms had all opened ata higher price, say $11, as shown in Figure 20. Clearly,this $11 price is higher than the market-clearing $8price. Now, under the law of demand the Qd at $11 willbe less than at $8—that is, Qd will drop from OX to OA,as seen along the Q axis. But, since total market Soffered is the amount X, the firms now face what istechnically called a surplus or "excess supply": the Qsis of the amount OX, while Qd is only OA. The size ofthe surplus is indicated by the quantity AX, exactly thehorizontal distance by which Qs exceeds Qd at the priceof $11.Let us make sure that we understand why thesurplus has occurred. The reason is that at $11 thegoods are over-priced, that is, what was a happy priceat $8—where Qd was equal to Qs—becomes too high at$11. As a consequence of the too-high price, firms willdiscover that by the end of the planned sales period—during which they had expected to sell out the quantityX—they are still stuck with an unsold quantity AX.Indeed, well before the end of the sales period, firmswill begin to sense that something is going wrong—thattheir goods are not selling as fast as they had planned.This disappointing rate of sales causes the eventualsurplus.The Case of a Market ShortageSo far we have seen two possible pricing outcomes—one,the happy market-clearing price ($8 here),the second, the too-high price ($11) which caused thesurplus. Now we come to a third possibility: the toolowprice which results in what is technically known asthe shortage or "excess demand." This is illustrated bythe $5 price in Figure 20. At this lower price, the Qdwill, of course, be greater than at $8 or $11, but sincethe Qs being offered is still the same amount X, theresult is that Qd exceeds the Qs at the lower $5 price.The size of the shortage is shown by the quantity XB,186

DOLLARS1514s1312111098E7-6543•Ss, '21Q (UNITS)FIGURE 20:SURPLUSES. SHORTAGES. AND SELLING PRICES.187

exactly the horizontal distance by which the Qd exceedsthe Qs at the price of $5.Again, let us be clear why the shortage emerges.The reason is that, at $5, the goods are under-priced—set below the market-clearing level. This is readilyapparent when we compare this outcome with the marketclearingthat occurs at the happy price of $8, and thesurplus caused by the $11 price. Having set a too-lowprice, firms will discover that they will have sold outwell before the end of the planned sales period.Indeed, they would very early have noticed that theirgoods were selling at a faster rate than anticipated,which could even make them confident of selling outtheir supply before the end of the planned sales period."Shortages" vs. "Scarcity"At this point, we should digress to explain theimportant distinction between a "shortage" and"scarcity." In these days of politically-generatedshortages in oil and other major commodities, it isimportant to avoid confusing these two terms. Scarcity,as we saw in Chapters I and II, is and always has been anatural condition of human existence—we live in a worldwhich does not have enough resources to satisfy everyone'swants. As far as economics is concerned, scarcitycan never be eliminated—it can only be alleviated. Andthe only way to alleviate scarcity is to increase production.It is quite otherwise with shortages.When it comes to shortages, we are dealing witha purely man-made mess, which can be caused by either ofthe following actions: (1) by setting a too-low pricefor a given quantity supplied (as we saw in Figure 20,when a price of $5 was set for the quantity X supplied),or (2) by reducing the Qs on the market while keepingprices at former levels. We are already acquainted withthe first case; the latter case is best illustrated bymeans of Figure 21, which is indeed applicable to OPEC'soil embargo or supply restriction.How to Create a ShortageLet us see how Figure 21 illustrates the OPECpolicy of restricting oil supply and raising oil pricesin order to increase their total receipts (TR) andprofits. Assume that the pre-restriction situation is188

DOLLARS1514131210987654s'Is: —1-1\---B-V-l\ \321-^—|\D11Q (BARRELS)FIGURE 21:SUPPLY RESTRICTION AND SHORTAGES.189

depicted by the quantity-supplied (X) and the price($3). Clearly the $3 price had been clearing the marketof the quantity X. Now comes the restriction of oilsupply, indicated by the shift of S to S 1 (i.e., fromquantity X to quantity A). With this also comes theprice increase. But then the question arises: How highcan OPEC raise the P? Our diagram tells us that withthe given D schedule and the new reduced S 1 schedule, Pcan go up to $11, at which there is a new intersectionof D and S 1 , indicating a new market-clearing P. Notonly can P go up to $11, but TR, too, will apparentlyincrease, because (here's the rub!) the D is inelastic.Now, where does the shortage come in? The shortageoccurs as soon as suppliers fail to raise P all theway to $11 at the same time that supply is reduced toS'. That is to say, if P stays at $3 or remains at anyP below $11, a shortage will emerge! How? First let ussee what would happen if the P is held down to $3.Clearly at the $3 price, the Qd will be at X, but sinceQs had been reduced to quantity A, there will emerge anexcess demand (i.e., shortage) amounting to AX. Now,what would happen if suppliers let P rise to, say, $7?At a $7 price, the Qd will drop to quantity C, but sinceQs had been cut back to quantity B, there will still bea shortage amounting to the quantity BC, albeit a smallerone than AX. Only the $11 price would be sufficientlyhigh to erase the shortage and clear the market.To conclude this digression: Regardless ofwhether the shortage is initiated by (1) setting a toolowprice for a given Qs, or by (2) reducing the Qs butkeeping the price below the market-clearing level, theunderlying cause of the shortage is, in effect, thesame: the selling price is below the market-clearinglevel and therefore too low in the given demand andsupply situation. It follows, therefore, that the shortagecould be liquidated in jig time simply by raisingthe price to a new market-clearing level. Conversely,so long as the price is kept below the new marketclearinglevel, the shortage is sure to persist.Surpluses and Shortages are Man-madeNow, to return to our main line. The reader maythink it very curious, indeed, that one and the samequantity X supplied by firms could generate three differentoutcomes—either "shortage," "surplus," or"market-clearing"—simply by setting three different190

prices. But this is precisely the point: for any givenquantity of goods offered on the market there is onlyone market-clearing price—indeed, there never need be a"surplus" or "shortage" so long as price is set at themarket-clearing level.To put it another way: In a world of universalscarcity there is no such thing as an absolute surplus;"surplus" can emerge only relative to a price being settoo high. Similarly, when it comes to shortages; scarcityis something that always exists, but shortagesarise only relative to a price being set too low. Torepeat: For any given Qs on the market, a marketclearingprice is the only thing needed to avoid asurplus or shortage. Whereas "scarcity" is the naturalcondition of human existence, "shortages" and "surpluses"are primarily man-made conditions.The Planned Sales PeriodThis brings us to an important question: Whichof the three possible outcomes—surplus, shortage, ormarket clearing—would the firm prefer to experience?Before we answer this, we should first recall somethingabout decision-making in the ex-ante. In Chapter IV wesaw that the firm faces the prime task of determiningthe selling price and the quantity of production thatwill enable it to realize the desired profit rate—a task made all the more difficult because of the uncertaintyof consumers' demand and the competitiveenvironment. Hence, the firm is incapable of knowing inadvance exactly what the market-clearing price will be.In addition to ex-ante ignorance, we should note a fewthings about our concept, the "planned sales period,"used several times in the preceding analysis.The planned sales period (PSP) is that period oftime by the end of which the firm expects to sell outthe quantity supplied to the market. The PSP will varyfrom product to product, firm to firm, and season toseason. Since no firm has an exact pre-knowledge as toprecisely how long it will take to sell out its supply—let alone whether it will be able to realize its priceand profit expectations—it can only make a best estimateas to the desired length of the sales period andthe rate of sales progress. It can then compare theactual rate of sales with the planned, desired rate, andgauge its sales progress accordingly.191

Indeed, given the firm's natural state of incompleteknowledge of market demand—that is,.its ignoranceof those market parameters affecting selling prices,quantity-demanded, and profit rates—the only alternativeguide for measuring the rate of its sa-les progressis its PSP. The PSP at least enables it to judgewhether or not sales are moving at the desired rate—that is, the rate that reflects the firm's best judgment,inadequate as it may be. From this experience—and this experience alone—the firm will be able tolearn lessons as to what went right and what went wrong,and improve its ability to plan the next round of productionand the next selling program. With this backgroundwe can now undertake the task of evaluating thesurplus, shortage, and market-clearing outcomes.Evaluating the Surplus CaseLet us first evaluate the surplus case. Remember:a surplus is the result of a too-high price, whichreduces the Qd relative to the Qs. Indeed, even beforethe end of the PSP the firm will have noticed that itsgoods are not moving as fast as anticipated. Clearly,the surplus is a disappointing outcome in that the firmmust slash its too-high price sufficiently—for example,to $8 in Figure 20—in order to sell out the unsoldquantities under the given demand condition. This meansthat profits will be less than anticipated, and evenlosses may be incurred.Furthermore, the firm will face a difficultdecision as to how to adjust to the revealed marketcondition. Specifically, for the next time around, itmust either cut its price—and hence its profit rateand/or cost of production—or produce less at the higherprice. Either alternative may involve difficult adjustmentsfor the firm, as we will see below.Evaluating the Shortage CaseWhat about the shortage case? If you recall,this is the case where the Qd exceeds the Qs because thefirm set a too-low price. As a consequence, the firmdiscovers that its goods sell at a faster rate thanexpected, so that its supply sells out even before theend of PSP. At first glance this seems to be a happyoutcome, not marred by any disappointment. After all,the firm manages to sell out its total Qs at the planned192

price—and faster than it expected, to boot. What couldbe better? Upon close examination, however, we findreason for disappointment: the firm could have doneeven better. Let us see how.If we assume firms prefer greater profits tosmaller profits, it is clear from Figure 20 that, otherthings being equal, our firms could have sold out thesame quantity X at a higher price than $5—indeed, atany price up to $8 they would have been able to clearthe market. The reason is that with the given state ofdemand, any price up to, but not including, $8 induces aQd greater than the Qs at that price. That is, anyprice between $5 and $8 would have induced sales to runat a faster clip than expected, and supplies would havesold out before the end of the PSP. Since any pricehigher than $5 (up to $8) would have meant greaterprofits, the firms clearly missed a preferred opportunityby selling out at only $5.The Lack of Advance KnowledgeIt is clear that if the firms had known inadvance that their initial prices were too low, theywould surely have set prices higher than $5 in order toearn higher profits. Having failed to do so, they endup with profits being smaller than otherwise. And thefirms have no one else to blame but themselves; theycould have detected very early that their goods wereselling at a faster rate than anticipated. Then andthere they could have begun to increase their prices andwatch carefully the extent to which the higher pricesslowed down the rate of sales. If worse came to worse,they could always revert back to the $5 price they werehappy to start with. Other things being equal, theirfailure to take advantage of market demand is surely adisappointing experience.Another disappointment stems from the fact thatthe firms could have sold a larger quantity (OB) insteadof the smaller quantity OX originally produced. That isto say, even if the firms had good reason not to raisetheir prices above $5—seeking public goodwill, say, orseeking to break into the market by means of this lowprice—it is clear they underestimated the quantitydemanded at the $5 price. This means their sales periodended with some unsatisfied customers—those who came tobuy only after the bargain-priced supply had alreadybeen snatched up. If only the firms had known jLn advance193

that at the $5 price they could have sold quantity OBinstead of only OX, they would not be as disappointed asthey are now. And who knows if the disappointed customerswill ever come back again to see if a new supplyis available?Guessing the Right PriceCompared to the surplus and shortage cases, themarket-clearing case clearly must be judged as the preferredoutcome: it alone has no disappointment attachedto it. That is to say, things work out just as plannedwhenever firms sell out their supply by the end of thePSP. This is proof they have estimated the marketdemandsituation perfectly—picking exactly the rightprice for selling out the given quantity supplied. Allof this brings us to another key question: If marketclearingis the preferred objective of the firm—becauseit marks the perfect meshing of ex-post sales experiencewith ex-ante pricing and production plans—what preventsthe firm from setting a market-clearing price everytime? What prevents the firm from realizing in the expostits profit-maximizing plans of the ex-ante? Whatkind of knowledge would the firm require in order to beable to avoid the less-preferred outcomes of surplus orshortage?Uncertainty and Market InformationThe answer to this question was, in essence,already given in earlier chapters. In the real world,the perfect or complete information required by the firmin order to realize its maximizing goals is simply notavailable to it. Even trial-and-error experience, wherebythe firm learns the extent to which it has overpricedor underpriced a particular product at a particulartime, does not provide information of a lasting quality.Lessons learned from yesterday's sales experience do notguarantee success for tomorrow's sales. The reason liesin the uncertainty and unpredictability of changinmarket demand: there are continuous shifts in demanschedules (Chapter VI) as well as changes in priceelasticity of demand (Chapter VII).Only in a world in which market demand neverchanges—in which tastes, incomes, and expectations areconstant, and demand schedules do not shift or changetheir degree of elasticity—only in such a purely194

imaginary world would today's demand be the same asyesterday's, and tomorrow's the same as today's. Onlyin such a make-believe world of no change could firmsreasonably expect that tomorrow's P and Qd would be amere repetition of today's. In such a world of repetitionand certainty there would be no obstacles to acquiringperfect knowledge of the market demand—andtrial-and-error search for the right price and quantitywould become unnecessary! But a world of certainty is apure figment of the imagination, useful only for thepurpose of explaining why in the real world perfectknowledge is impossible.Market as a Feedback MechanismIt follows, therefore, that in the face ofchanging market demand, it is not logical to assume thatfirmis it logical to believe that any other group ofpeople possesses such complete information, be theyeconomists, consumer advisers, or politicians. The bestthat the firm can do is to arrive at approximateknowledge of the market—knowledge that reduces theareas and degrees of its ignorance. Approximateknowledge is the only kind of knowledge available toman—obtainable only from daily trial-and-error in themarket—and trial-and-error experience is the only kindavailable.Thus we can now see that the occurrence ofsurpluses and shortages is precisely the market's way ofinforming the firm that its plan has fallen short of themark, and that it must henceforth make adjustments inprice and/or quantities the next time around. In amoment, we will analyze these adjustments to marketsurpluses or shortages. Suffice it to emphasize herethat the market is the only feedback instrumentavailable for signalling to the firm that its price isnot right, and that it had better change it.Guessing the Right Quantity to SupplyThis brings us to another crucial aspect. Notonly does the market provide feedback signals to thefirm when the selling price is not right, but it alsosends up signals when the quantity supplied is not right—signals that likewise take the form of surpluses orshortages. Decisions by firms can result in surplus or195

shortage not only when they set prices too high or toolow, but when they produce quantities that are too largeor too small, relative to the selling price. This canbe readily seen with the aid of Figure 22.Now, in Figure 22, it is assumed that all firmsare selling the same product at the same price of $8.On the other hand, it is assumed that different firmsmay produce different quantities. For instance, themarket outcome is vastly different when firms produceexcessive amounts—on the "surplus" scale OB, say—compared to when they produce the relatively modestquantities on the "shortage" scale OA. There is also athird possibility—when firms produce on the scale ofOX, which we will see is the market-clearing case. Letus examine each of these cases in detail.When Firms Produce "Too Much"First, why does the supply schedule Sb in Figure22 represent a surplus case? Because the firms haveproduced a quantity (OB) that exceeds the quantitydemanded(OX) at the common $8 price—clearly they haveoverestimated the Qd at this price. As a consequence,they discover fairly early that their product is notselling as fast as expected, and at the end of theirplanned selling period they are stuck with a pile ofunsold goods.Had the firms been equipped with perfect knowledgeof the demand situation, this surplus could havebeen avoided in either of two ways. First, the firmscould have offered the smaller quantity OX (ScheduleSx). The OX quantity would have cleared the market,since at the $8 price the Qd and Qs are exactly equal,as indicated by the intersection of demand (D) andsupply (Sx). Alternatively, the firms could haveavoided surpluses by selling the quantity \0B at thelower price of $5, which, indeed, is a market-clearingprice for the given quantity supplied: at this pricethe Qd (OB) is exactly equal to the Qs (OB). In theabsence of perfect knowledge, however, the firms wereignorant of both the market-clearing price (given theQs) and the market-clearing quantity supplied (given the196

DOLLARSP151413121110987654321Sa- \[:NIIISx|! \IIISbIQ (UNITS)FIGURE 22:SURPLUS. SHORTAGE. AND QUANTITIES SUPPLIED.197

When Firms Produce "Too Little"Next, why does the supply schedule Sa in Figure22 represent a shortage case? Because while the firmsare producing quantity OA, the Qd at the price of $8exceeds the quantity being supplied by the amount AX.It is apparent that the firms undershot the mark: theyunderestimated the demand at the $8 price. And theycould very early have spotted signs of the impendingshortage : they could have noticed that the actualrate of sales was exceeding the expected rate of sales.Had firms known in advance exactly where themarket demand schedule was located, they could haveresorted to more profitable alternatives. For onething, they could have planned to produce the largerquantity OX (instead of OA), which would have clearedthe market at the original $8 price. (This can be seenby the intersection of the Sx schedule and the Dschedule at the $8 price.) On the other hand, theoriginal output of OA (schedule Sa) could have beenreleased at the higher price of $11 (instead of $8), andstill clear the market, since at $11 the Qs would havebeen exactly matched by the Qd.A Backward GlanceBefore we proceed to examine how firms canadjust to the market's feedback signals—that is, tosurpluses, shortages, or market clearings—we shouldbriefly review the ground we have covered.For any given quantity supplied by the firm, theproblem becomes one of setting the right price—theprice that will clear the market within the plannedsales period (PSP). Otherwise, if it sets the P toohigh or too low, the result will be either a surplus ora shortage, respectively. Similarly, for any givenprice at which the firm wants to sell, the problembecomes one of gauging the right quantity to produce inorder to clear the market. Otherwise, if it producestoo much or too little, it will end up facing a surplusor shortage, respectively.Also, for convenience, we will hereafter referto a surplus or a shortage as a disequilibrium type ofoutcome. A "disequilibrium" simply means that, for thetime being, the firm has failed to achieve its marketclearingor equilibrium objective within its PSP, and198

that it therefore faces a decision: What to do aboutdisequilibrium?III.How Firms Adjust to Market ConditionsBy now it should be obvious that the firm'sadjustments to market disequilibria can involve changesin its selling price (P) and/or quantity-supplied (Qs).Altogether, the firm can make three possible adjustments:(1) change its selling P, or (2) change its Qs,or (3) make a combination of changes in both P and Qs.Thus, in response to disequilibrium, the firm mightinstitute a cut (or increase) in P, or a reduction (orincrease) in Qs, or some combination of changes in bothP and Qs.Current Adjustments vs. the Next Time AroundNow, all of these adjustments can take place ineither of two different time phases. One type of adjustmentmay be termed a current adjustment. As soon asthe firm senses that its current sales are deviatingfrom the planned path—that they are progressing at afaster or slower rate than planned—the firm can immediatelychange its P and/or Qs in order to improvesales or minimize disappointment before the end of thecurrent PSP.The second type of adjustment is not made currentlybut is delayed until the next time phase—the onefollowing the current sales period—which we can termthe next-time-around (NTA) adjustment. In this case thefirm does not make any current adjustments: for onereason or another, the firm decides to do nothing nowabout the discrepancy between the actual rate of salesand the planned rate. Instead, it rides out the currentperiod and reserves its P and Qs adjustments for theNTA.Firms Cannot Rest on Their LaurelsNone of this implies that an NTA adjustment in Pand Qs is required only in response to a disequilibriumoutcome. That is, it does not imply that a happy marketclearingexperience will never induce the firm to make asubsequent NTA adjustment. In free competitive marketsno firm can afford to rest on its laurels—even when it199

enjoys a market-clearing experience. Market conditionsare in constant flux, and changing demand is a constantsource of uncertainty. Yesterday's success cannot guaranteetomorrow's success. Successful market-clearing isdue more to good fortune—a happy coincidence of objectivemarket conditions and entrepreneurial plans made bythe firm—than to any precise foreknowledge of marketconditions.For example, if a firm succeeds in clearing themarket as planned, should it merely repeat by producingthe same Qs at the same P as before? Can it simply relyon market demand remaining the same as before? Or mustthe firm be alert to any possible shift in D, or changein elasticity of D? Clearly, in a dynamic changingmarket, the firm must be on constant alert. Thus itmakes no difference whether the firm ends its PSP with asurplus, shortage, or market-clearing—it will alwayshave to face the important entrepreneurial decision forthe NTA: What should it decide for its next P and Qs?Making Adjustments to a SurplusWe are now ready to examine the types of adjustmentsthe firm can make in response to a surplus orshortage. In the case of a surplus, it makes no differencewhether it was caused by (a) overpricing a givensupply, or (b) overproducing at a given price—theanalysis runs along similar lines. For the overpricingcase, refer to Figure 20: there we see that the $11price is too high for the given supply OX, hence thesurplus of AX. For the overproduction case, see Figure22: there it turns out that the $8 price is too highfor the supply OB, hence the surplus of XB. In bothinstances, the basic cause of the surplus may be viewedas overpricing the given supply, or overproducing atthe given price. Both instances turn out to be merelytwo sides of the same coin—an overpriced supply. Withthis understanding, let us focus on Figure 22 forconvenience.Now, what can the firm do in response to thesurplus XB in Figure 22? If the firm spots the surplusin its incipient stages, during the current sales period—as soon as sales fail to progress at the expectedrate—it can decide then and there to slash its currentP from $8 in order to step up the rate of sales. However,so long as the reduced P remains above the marketclearingP of $5, some surplus would remain at the endof the PSP. In order to sell out the last unsold unit,200

the P would eventually have to be cut to the $5 level.On the other hand, if the firm decides to avoid any P-cutting until the bitter end of the PSP, even then thesame truth holds: P must at last be cut to $5 in orderto clear out the remaining unsold units.Next-Time-Around AdjustmentsSo much for current adjustments to the unfoldingsurplus. What about next-time-around adjustments? Whatlessons can the firm learn from its bitter experienceand apply to its NTA production and pricing programs?One option is to produce the same quantity as before,which means a repetition of supply schedule Sb. However,this would call for a lower price of $5 as againstthe former opening P of $8.This raises the relevant question: Can the firmmanage to cut P to $5 without squeezing its profitmargin? That is to say, can it also cut its costs aswell as its P? This brings up a touchy practical problem:since wages are usually the major component ofcosts, can labor resistance to cuts in wage-rates preventfirms from cutting costs? If costs cannot be cut,will the firm be willing to accept a cut in profitmargin?Cutbacks in ProductionA second option is for the firm to retain itsformer opening P of $8 but, instead, reduce its Qs to OX(schedule Sx), which, too, would be a market-clearingprogram. This would obviously call for a reduced rateof production and supply. Assuming that the reducedrate of production does not significantly affect thecost-per-unit of product, this cutback in output wouldnot affect the margin of profit between selling P andcost-per-unit of product. Nevertheless, cutbacks inproduction could also mean layoffs and reduced employment,which may be as distasteful to workers as cuts inwage-rates.The first two options give rise to a thirdoption—a combination of both price and production adjustmentsin the appropriate direction—that is, a combinationof price-cut and production cutback. Morespecifically, P could be cut to somewhere between $8 and$5, while Qs would be cut to somewhere between OX and OB201

(i.e., between schedules OX and OB). Technically speaking,any "dot" on the demand schedule in the segmentlocated between the $5 and $8 P would yield a P and Qscombination capable of satisfying this adjustment.Withholding Supply and SpeculationSince price-cutting can be bitter medicine, thefirm may prefer a more palatable alternative: avoid anyP-cuts but, instead, withdraw the unsold quantities fromthe market and withhold them until demand increasessufficiently to clear the market at the original priceof $8. (Technically speaking, the expected increase indemand would be depicted in Figure 22 by a shift of D tothe right, to the point where it intersects Sb at the $8price.) However, withholding of supply from the marketinvolves speculation; it is based on the expectationthat the future holds a desirable market change instore. In the present case, the firm speculates thatfuture demand will be sufficiently greater than today's;this would make it preferable to sell tomorrow at thedesired $8 price rather than to sell out today at alower price.However, the withholding of supply for speculativepurposes is not without cost. One speculative costis the cost of warehousing the withheld quantities.Second, there is the uncertainty of how long the firmwill have to wait until demand increases sufficiently.In the worst case, demand may not increase at all. Inany event, the fact remains that withheld supplies constituteunsold products, and until demand increasessufficiently, the firm is haunted by a dilemma: towithhold or to sell out at slashed prices. Which willminimize its losses?Which of these options should the firm resortto? Only the firm itself can decide which course isbest. Economics as such is not capable of foretellingwhich course of action would be taken by any particularfirm in a given circumstance. All it can say is thatwhatever adjustment the firm decides upon will be amaximizing decision, albeit in the given circumstancesdesigned to minimize losses resulting from the surplus.Making Adjustments to a ShortageWe now turn from the surplus case to the case of202

shortages. How can the firm adjust to a shortage outcome?(The shortage is depicted in Figure 22 by the Saschedule and the $8 price, which together yield ashortage amounting to AX.) In contrast to the surpluscase, the shortage generally poses fewer difficulties ordilemmas for the firm. Other things being equal, a firmwould rather sell its product at a faster rate than at aslower rate. Nevertheless, the firm does face atantalizing decision as soon as it notices that itssales are moving at a faster rate than planned. It thenrealizes that its goods will be sold out well before theend of its PSP—and that there will remain unsatisfiedcustomers as long as the price is kept at $8 while Qs isnot increased. Clearly, the firm had underestimatedmarket demand, which turned out to be OX, whereas it hadproduced only OA. What type of current adjustmentshould it now make?For one thing, firms could decide to immediatelyraise their current price—indeed, according to Figure22, they could raise P to $11 and still sell out theirtotal supply of Sa. But would they feel entirely atease raising the P in order to take advantage of marketdemand being greater than anticipated? Would they feeluneasy or hesitant about bucking widespread socialpressures and taboos against "charging what the trafficwould bear"?On the other hand, if they decide not to raisetheir P—in order to curry public goodwill, say—theywould be foregoing an opportunity to increase theirprofits. Could they nevertheless compensate by steppingup the rate of supply by dipping into inventories intheir warehouses? In this way they could release increasedQs to the market, reduce the number of unsatisfiedcustomers, and increase their total profits. Butwould this dipping into inventories be enough to quenchthe unsatisfied demand?Utilization of Existing FacilitiesIf firms do not raise prices, and inventoriesare depleted before the shortage is eliminated, they maystill have an ace up their sleeves: more intensiveutilization of their existing productive facilities.It is not at all unusual for plants to be operatingat less than "full capacity." Indeed, by design,most plants are built to scales larger than would be203

equired by the average rate of sales anticipated by thefirm. This oversizing of plant provides elbow room forthe firm—a margin of extra productive capacity—whichit can lean on if and when demand proves to be largerthan anticipated. The shortage case here calls forthsuch an instance. If a shortage arises while firms areoperating at, say, only 75 or 80 percent of rated capacity,then they have a margin of capacity that can beutilized to increase their Qs in the NTA.The problem here, however, involves a crucialeconomic fact: if the plant is already at a high rateof utilization (say, 85 percent or more), a furtherincrease in the rate of plant utilization would beassociated with an increased cost for each unit produced.The reasons for this increase in unit or averagecost (AC) are multifold.For one thing, the extra production load mayinvolve overtime labor at extra overtime rates of pay.Also, there may be additional expenses due to breakdownsin overworked equipment and the resultant bottlenecks.Then, additional workers may have to be hired, but sincethey are not likely to be as efficient as the regularlabor force, their labor will not be as productive andtheir output will cost more per unit. All this adds tothe average cost of the product, with the consequencethat the firm has to ask for a higher price for itsproduct.Price Inducement and ImportsEven with a more intensive utilization ofexisting productive capacity, the stepped-up rate ofoutput may not be enough to overcome the shortage. Thatis to say, the industry supply schedule may not be ableto shift enough to the right, to where it coincides withSx in Figure 22. If so, as long as the Qd continues toexceed the Qs and the shortage persists at the existingselling price of $8, this price would be under pressureto rise.As a matter of fact, this rise in P is preciselywhat the doctor would order: it induces firms to stepup their rate of plant utilization since it compensatesfor the increase in average cost of output. Otherwise,the necessary margin of relief might have to come fromimports of goods from other countries. But the flow ofimports depends essentially on the ability of foreign204

producers to sell at prices competitive with domesticproducers, unimpeded by legal trade barriers such astariffs and quotas.The Next-Time Around ProblemWhatever the firms decide to do by way of currentadjustment, they are still faced with a next-timearoundadjustment. Here the problem facing the firm isno less ticklish than in the previous case. One optionwe have already seen: raise the price next time to $11while producing the same amounts as before. Assumingthat demand will stay the same, the total supply willstill clear the market even at the higher P. After all,that's what the D schedule in Figure 22 says: at anyprice less than $11 the Qd will exceed the Qs. Hence,as long as P is not raised to $11, the firms will befostering a shortage. Now, the main problem with raisingprice is whether firms can either (a) suppress theircollective fear of the public wrath against chargingwhat the traffic will bear, or (b) make public opinionmore hospitable to the idea that firms have a right tocharge whatever price the public is evidently willing topay.Increasing Supply by Capital InvestmentIf firms prefer to leave the price as is, at $8,they can resort to another NTA adjustment: increase theQs_ from schedule Sa to Sx. This would enable firms toeliminate the shortage by an expansion of supply. Theincreased number of units sold would result in increasedtotal profits even though the profit rate per unit soldwould remain the same as before: since the P remainsunchanged at $8—and we are assuming the cost per unitof output is also unchanged despite the higher rate ofproduction—the price spread between P and average costsremains the same as before. (Review Chapter IV on the"price spread.")The main problem with increasing the Qs whileholding P the same is that the expansion of output willinvolve capital investment of the type discussed inChapter IV. As we saw there, expansion of output mightrequire increased scale of plant operations, which, inturn, involves acquisition of additional machinery andspace as well as hiring more labor. These expenditures,in turn, would require additional financing from205

internal sources—such as profits and depreciation allowances—and/orexternal funds from the money andcapital markets.Once Again:Uncertainty and RiskUnderlying the investment decision, of course,is the assumption that the firms know exactly by howmuch their Qs should be increased. But such an assumptionis too glib. It is one thing to play around withdiagrams like Figure 22, from which it is readily seenthat Qs should be increased from OA to OX, which wouldstill clear the market. But in the real world it is notso easy to discover where the new market-clearing supplyschedule lies. Uncertainty of demand makes it virtuallyimpossible for firms to predict the location and slopeof D in the NTA period, and therefore creates considerablerisk in the investment in enlarged productive capacity.In any event, the fact remains that as long asthe Qs is not increased sufficiently, the shortage willpersist—which is, again, the market's way of informingfirms that sales opportunities still remain.As we conclude this portion of the chapter, letus pause once again to see how we can reach some simpleconclusions despite the possibly confusing details ofthe complex analysis. After all is said and done, thefollowing simple truth remains: however the firmdecides to adjust to uncertainty of market demand, thisadjustment always boils down to determining, as best itcan, that particular combination of P and Qs that willclear the market. Still, so long as the market fitfullyturns up surpluses or shortages, the firm's adjustmentproblems remain. Indeed, even when it succeeds inclearing the market as planned, such success is but afleeting fortunate outcome—the firm has no cause torest on its laurels in a world of seething uncertainty.IV.The Law of Market PriceWe are now at the point where we can assert thekey proposition of this chapter, the Law of MarketPrice: in a free market unhampered by government pricefixingor other market interventions, the selling pricesset by firms will tend to move toward the marketclearing("equilibrium") level, where the quantity suppliedequals the quantity demanded at that price.206

As a corollary to the law of market price weshould add: any other price, higher or lower than themarket-clearing price, would cause disequilibriumsituations such as surpluses and shortages. Since theseoutcomes would be considered by firms as less thanoptimal compared with market-clearing prices, firms inthe free, competitive market will be motivated to avoidor minimize them by appropriate price and quantityadjustments.More on the Free MarketThe free market will be discussed in detail inChapters X and XI. Here it will suffice to note thefollowing. In addition to the introductory remarks atthe start of this chapter, the term "free market"includes the following two characteristics about firms.One is that firms are motivated primarily to makeprofits (and avoid losses), and to increase their totalwealth in the interests of stockholders, while keepingnon-monetary goals to a minimum. Thus, we exclude nonprofitorganizations from this context.The second feature is this: firms have to makeit strictly on their own—without paternalistic protectionfrom government in the form of minimum prices,subsidies, bailouts, tariffs, or guaranteed markets.This implies that firms must earn their profits purelyby their own ability to cater successfully to consumers,and that they will suffer losses for failure to meetconsumers demands satisfactorily. As a consequence,firms will be strongly motivated to maximize profits andminimize losses."Supply Equals Demand"?Next, let us be technically clear about themeaning of market-clearing price: it is the price atwhich "Qs equals Qd"—which is not the same as saying"supply equals demand." These are two totally differentexpressions. The latter expression is unquestionablythe more popular, especially among people who are notsophisticated in economics. Yet, it is simply not correctto say, "S equals D" in the present context.To be precise, "S equals D" literally is anabsurdity. As stated, it implies that both S and Dschedules are superimposed upon each other, which in207

turn means that at every price the Qs equals the Qd.This is an impossibility: ex-post supply schedules arevertical, whereas demand schedules slope downward fromleft to right; this permits only one point (i.e., theintersection point) at which the Qs equals Qd. That is,there is only one price at which there can be equalityof Qs and Qd and market-clearing; at all other pricesthere is discrepancy between Qs and Qd, not equality.In contrast, the statement "S equals D" implies that,since Qs equals Qd at every price, there is marketclearing at every price! Clearly an impossibility.The Tendency to Market-ClearingAlso notable above is our statement that sellingprices will tend toward the market-clearing level, andneed not hit the mark every time the firm sets it price.Despite the firms' lack of perfect knowledge of D and Sconditions, they are motivated to seek market-clearingoutcomes and avoid disequilibrium outcomes.For one thing, there is the economic incentiveto maximize profits. As we have seen, surplus andshortage outcomes cause the firm less profit than otherwiseunder the given D and S conditions. Thus, in thecase of a surplus, the firm will have to slash its Pbelow the planned level, whereas in the case of a shortagethe firm has missed an opportunity for greaterprofits by setting its P too low or producing less thanthe market was ready to absorb.On the other side of this coin is the fact that,of the three possible market outcomes—market-clearing,surplus, or shortage—only market-clearing outcomesvalidate the firm's expectations and strengthen itsconfidence in its ability to judge market conditions.In contrast, surpluses and shortages are truly disappointments—sourcesof regret and diminished confidence.What About Disequilibrium?This brings us to the word optimal, which characterizesthe market-clearing outcome. "Optimal" signifiesthat the firm's ex-post experience most nearlyapproximates its ex-ante expectations, and, hence, minimizesdisappointment and regret. In effect, therefore,the law of market price says that, as long as firms aremotivated to optimize the relation between ex-post208

experience and ex-ante plans, selling prices will tendto be market-clearing rather than disequilibrating.Before we proceed, we should note that not alldisegulibrium outcomes can be blamed on the incompleteknowledge of the firm and its planners. As we will seein the next part, surpluses and shortages also occur asa result of independent shifts in market demand andsupply—that is, demand shifts caused by changes intastes, income, population, or price expectations (seeChapter VI), and supply shifts caused by the vagaries ofnature (e.g., bad crops caused by bad weather) or governmentpolicies (e.g., wheat price-fixing or oil supplyrestriction). While such disequilibria are not thedirect result of decisions by the firm, they neverthelessexert significant impacts on profits and salesopportunities, and the manner in which the firm respondsto them can determine its prosperity and growth.Government Interventions andNon-Profit PricingAs we have indicated, because of uncertainty andignorance, firms will experience shortages and surplusesabout as often as market-clearing. In a free market,such disequilibrium outcomes would tend to be shortlivedor temporary. However, if and when the surplusesand shortages become persistent or long-lasting—a situationthoroughly inconsistent with free-market conditions—thecause must be sought elsewhere: (1) ingovernment price-fixing or other interventions, and (2)non-profit pricing policies. This is not the place fora detailed analysis of government policies affecting thefree market; they will be briefly discussed in ChapterX. "Non-profit" pricing by private organizations suchas colleges, theater companies, and civic groups will bediscussed here briefly.Non-profit organizations include groups like theRose Festival Association—which, with its affiliatedcolleges, produces the annual Rose Parade and Rose Bowlgame—as well as opera associations, and virtually allfraternal and religious organizations. These organizationsdiffer basically from profit-seeking corporationsin that they, for various reasons, do not seek to selltheir products or services at market-clearing prices—prices that would maximize their profits and wealth.Indeed, they characteristically underprice their goodsand services, causing inevitable shortages.209

Why Blame the Ticket Scalper?How can non-profit underpricing by a group likethe Rose Bowl Association cause a shortage? Imagine, asin Figure 23, that there is a given supply of footballtickets (S) for seats at mid-field, and that the demandfor these tickets is great enough to clear the supply(OX) at an $8 price. Now, if the Rose Bowl peopledecide to sell these tickets at $5 instead, knowing fullwell they could easily sell out at a much higher price,they are clearly inviting a shortage—shown by the excessdemand XB—with all of its familiar symptoms: excessivelyrapid rate of sales, long waiting lines ofcustomers (queues), and black-market sales by ticketscalpers (since it is illegal to resell tickets at aprice higher than paid for). By design, the Rose Bowlpeople had underpriced their product and, of their ownaccount, brought on the shortage.Indeed, the much maligned ticket scalper ismerely rushing into a good thing when he sees it. Theprofits that he siphons off for himself could as easilyhave gone to the Rose Bowl group. Ironically, so-called"non-profit" pricing turns out to be an excellent sourceof profits for the speculators! Would our imaginaryRose Bowl people but realize that they—by their policyof underpricing—and not the ticket scalper, are responsiblefor inducing illegal speculation in tickets, theymight question the wisdom of their "non-profit" pricingpolicies. It is proverbial in economics that wheneveryou spot illegal ticket-scalping or black-market activities,you can smell an underpriced product. It shouldalso be noted that government rent controls and similarprice-fixing policies, that characteristically underpricethe product, are a prime cause of illegal blackmarkets.Ticket Scalpers on BroadwayOne more example of non-profit underpricingsuffices to reinforce our point. For a long time,tickets to Broadway shows had been priced according toarbitrary, traditional, or inflexible formulas ratherthan by flexible adjustment to demand and supply conditions.As a consequence, it was not unusual to seetickets for different shows selling at about the sameprice, even though some of the shows were smash hitswhile others were duds. In a truly free market, pricesfor the former shows should have been significantly210

DOLLARS151413S1211109Qo7DCD4321--\-X- ! XD \1 jQ (UNITS)FIGURE 23:NON-PROFIT UNDERPRICING211

higher than for the latter. In practice, however, eventickets to such classic Broadway smash hits as SouthPacific and My Fair Lady were invariably underpriced. 1The results were inevitable. Induced shortagesfound ticket buyers scrambling for available tickets,while ticket scalpers, seeing a good thing in the underpricedtickets, moved in to make their profits. In somecases, dollar receipts of scalpers were about two tothree times as great as box-office receipts! Indeed,even some of the managers and their box-office peoplewere enticed by the situation and connived with scalpersfor part of the latter's profits!The bitter irony is that the theaters' hideboundadherence to underpricing, and their refusal to chargewhat the traffic would bear, constituted an open invitationto the ticket scalper to play his "evil" role. Asa consequence, the profits that were diverted to ticketscalpers could have gone instead to the creative performersand professionals who made the hit show possible inthe first place—the actors, musicians, authors, composers,lyricists, directors, and stage hands!V. When Market Conditions Undergo ChangeThis final section of the chapter shows howdemand-and-supply analysis helps us answer such importantquestions as: What kind of demand-and-supply conditionscause changes in prices? For instance, what Dand S conditions enable or induce P to rise, or pressureP to drop? A related question is: If prices have beenrising or declining for some time, what could havecaused these price trends? Another group of questionsfocuses not directly on prices but on the underlyingdemand and supply conditions as possible cause of futureprice changes. For example, what will happen to pricesand quantities if and when demand and/or supply increaseor decrease?This section is based on Hobe Morrison, "Scalpers Gyp LegitTalent," Variety, Jan. 16, 1957, as reprinted in Paul A. Samuelson,Robert L. Bishop and John R. Coleman (eds.), Readings in Economics(3rd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1958), pp. 184-188.212

First, Some Diagrammatic AspectsThe analysis will be greatly facilitated by theuse of diagrams showing how demand (D) and supply (S)schedules shift—that is, increase or decrease—and howthese shifts cause prices to change. We have alreadyseen in Chapter VI (Figure 10) how demand schedules canshift. Now, for the first time, we see (in Figure 24)how supply schedules can shift. Panel A shows a shiftof S to the right (from Si to S2 ), indicating an increasein S and Qs. Panel B shows the reverse happening,a decrease in S (from Si to S2) and Qs.We can now turn to the first set of questionsraised above, specifically: Under which D and S conditionscould prices rise? We are using the word "could"in the sense of "be able to." Thus, our question reallyis: Under which D and S conditions would P be able toincrease? This kind of question is typical in thephysical sciences, i.e., what conditions would be requiredin order to enable some particular event totranspire?Enabling Prices to RiseImagine a market that has, up to now, been in astate of equilibrium, with supplies being cleared at thecurrent $6 price (Figure 25). Now, along comes anincrease in demand, while supply conditions remain thesame as before. The increase in D in Figure 25 is shownby the rightward shift from Di to D2, while the stationarysupply schedule is shown by S at X. Why did demandincrease? It could have been a general increase inwages and other incomes, or more intensive tastes, orsome other non-price determinant of demand (see ChapterVI). For the sake of illustration, it makes no differencewhich it was.Our diagram tells us immediately that the increasein D from Di to D2 induces an increase in price(P) from $6 to $9. This is indicated by the new(higher) intersection point of the increased D2 with thegiven S. At the $9 price the market would achieve a newmarket-clearing situation, in which the Qs once againequals the Qd, albeit it takes a higher price to accomplishit. Thus, higher prices will be associated withan increase in D, as long as S remains the same.213

(A IS)CA« •214

DOLLARS15141312--S1110g87654321\ \= 1 \-\\Q (UNITS)FIGURE 25:INCREASE IN DEMAND WHILE SUPPLYIS FIXED.215

We are now able to start answering our first setof questions. For example, under which conditions wouldsellers be able to increase P? Figure 25 provides atleast one answer: whenever D increases relative to S, Pwill be able to rise. Why? Because, with the increaseddemand, but unchanged supply condition, the ensuingshortage finds buyers are willing and able to buy theexisting quantities X at any P between $6 and $9. Thatis, any P up to $9 still leaves the market unsatisfied:the Qd remains in excess of the Qs (i.e., a shortage).So long as there are demanders who, under the new scheduleD2, are willing and able to pay up to $9, sellerswill obviously be able to ask and get the higher P.A Decrease in SupplyAnother situation in which a rise in priceswould occur is presented in Figure 26. Here we see anincrease in P that results from a decrease in supply—while demand conditions remain the same as before. Thedecrease in S is shown by the leftward shift in S fromoutput X to A, while the D schedule remains fixed.Again, it is not necessary to know the specific cause ofthe drop in S—whether it is due to, say, work stoppagesby labor unions, or the withholding of supply byproducers (e.g., the OPEC oil embargo); it makes nodifference for illustration purposes.It is apparent from the diagram that the drop insupply from X to A induces an increase in P from $7 to$12. The higher P is indicated by the new (higher)intersection point of fixed D with the reduced Sa.Thus, a new market-clearing situation has been reachedby means of the increase in P which reduces the Qd toequality with the reduced Qs (OA). Hence, a higher Pwould be associated with a reduction in S, so long as Dremains unchanged.Why are sellers able to raise P in the case of areduced S? It is essentially the same shortage conditionthat arises in the case of increased D—except thatnow, with the reduced S but unchanged D, there aredemanders who are still willing to buy the scarcerquantities (OA) at any P between $7 and $12. That is,any P below $12 would still leave Qd in excess of theQs, hence shortage. As a consequence, sellers willclearly be able to ask and get higher prices—on up to$12—so long as the reduced S condition prevails and Dis fixed in the previous position.216

DOLLARS151413121110Q (UNITS)FIGURE 26:DECREASE IN SUPPLY WHILEDEMAND IS FIXED.217

Edging Prices DownwardLet us now skip to the opposite side of theledger and ask: Under which D and S conditions wouldprices be under pressure to decline? To answer thisquestion, we go to Figure 27. Here we see that thedecrease in P from $8 to $5 is spurred by a decrease indemand, while supply remains unchanged. The decrease inD is illustrated by the leftward shift from D^ to D2rwhile S remains fixed at output X. The cause of thedrop in D might have been a decline in people's incomesor some other appropriate change in non-price determinantsof demand, but it does not matter for our presentpurpose.It is readily seen in Figure 27 that the declinein demand calls for a decrease in P from $8 to $5. Thelower P, which corresponds to the new (lower) intersectionpoint of fixed S with D2, precisely enables thenecessary market-clearing—the equality of Qd with Qs—even though D has dropped while S remains fixed. Thus,the decrease in D is associated with a lower P, so longas the S that needs to be cleared remains fixed.How do we explain the reduction in P associatedwith the drop in D? By the fact that if P were not cut,but kept at $8, the result would be an unsold surplusamounting to AX. That is, at the original $8 price, Qsexceeds the reduced Qd. Only the drop in P whittlesaway the initial surplus, and only when P has fallen to$5 will the surplus be entirely eliminated. If sellersreally wish to clear the market of the given S, only thecut in P will do it.An Increase in SupplyWhat else could cause prices to be under pressureto decline? Figure 28 tells us that an increase insupply would bring on a decrease in P. The increase inS is indicated by the rightward shift in S from quantityX to A, while the demand schedule (D) remains the sameas before. The increase in S could have been caused byan expansion of productive capacity by existing firms,or by the entry of new firms.Our diagram reveals, furthermore, that associatedwith the increase in S is a drop in P from $11 to$6. The lower P is indicated by the new (lower) intersectionpoint between the fixed D and the increased Sa.218

DOLLARS1514131211-S1098: I7654321\\\\1 (Q (UNITS)FIGURE 27:DECREASE IN DEMAND WHILE SUPPLY IS FIXED.219

DOLLARSSxSaQ (UNITS)FIGURE 28:INCREASE IN SUPPLY WHILE DEMAND IS FIXED.220

It is the reduction in P which induces the Qd to increaseenough to absorb the increased Qs (OA). Thus,the reduced P is associated with the increase in S,while demand remains the same.By now it should be easy to explain the connectionbetween the increase in S and the drop in P. It isthe same condition of surplus that occurs in the case ofreduced D. If P had been locked at the original $11 andnot allowed to fall, an unsold surplus (amounting to XA)would have ensued. The $11 price would have left theold Qd far short of the expanded Qs. Only the drop in Pinduces the increase of Qd that absorbs the initialsurplus. Only when P eventually descends to $6 will Qdbe equal to the expanded Qs. Clearly, so long as supplierswish to clear the market of the increased S, onlythe reduction of P will enable them to do so.A Brief SummaryBy way of review, we can state in general thatchanges in prices result from changes in demand orsupply—from shifts in the D or S schedules. Furthermore,the preceding analysis enabled us to kill twobirds with one stone. It not only showed how changes indemand and supply conditions affect market prices, butit also revealed a new source of disequilibrium. Inearlier parts of this chapter we saw how firms themselvescould cause surpluses or shortages by overpricingor underpricing, and by overproducing or underproducing.Now we see that changes in the market—shifts in D orS—can initiate surpluses or shortages.Long-Run Decline in PricesWe are now prepared to see how demand-and-supplyanalysis enables us to locate the basic forces behindhistorical price trends. For instance, we know from thehistory of the 19th century that the U.S. experienced ageneral downward trend in prices through most of thecentury. The only exceptions to the secular decline inprices came during periods of war and economic boom.Compared to the almost uninterrupted inflationary pricetrend since World War II—in the U.S. as well as inmajor Western countries—the 19th century deflationarytrend looms as a truly remarkable event. And yet it canbe readily explained by economics. How?221

For clues to what could have caused the overalldecline in prices, we can refer to our preceding analysis.One possible clue, diagrammed in Figure 27, isdecreasing demand, which by itself could cause P todrop. But such a decrease in D cannot really serve asan explanation because D actually increased on a vastscale during the 19th century—and an increase in Ditself would cause P to rise. However, since we alsoknow that supply increased greatly during the 19th century,a more likely explanation is to be found in Figure28: this shows prices crumbling under the pressure ofexpanding supply, a fact that obviously corresponds muchmore with 19th century experience than declining D.Indeed, the expansion of S was so great, especiallyafter the Civil War, that it must have more than offsetthe effects of the long-run expansion of D. By itself,an increase in D would induce an increase in prices, butwhen it is accompanied by an even greater increase in S,the net effect is to cause a downward trend in P. Thiscombination of forces is depicted in our new Figure 29.Diagrammatic AspectsFirst, notice the overall decline in prices overthe long run, as indicated by the dashed line. Alsonotice the faster rate at which the S schedules increasecompared with the increase in D schedules. For example,by the end of the second period, supply has reached theS2 position, whereas demand has only increased to the D 2position, so that D 2 intersects with S 2 only at a lowerP. And so on. As a result of S generally running aheadof D, the successive intersection points between themcome at lower and lower levels of market-clearing P.The reason is that, at previous prices, Qs exceeds Qd;hence, the faster-increasing S could be absorbed only atfalling prices. Alternatively, the increased productivecapacity and efficiency of the economy enable successivecuts in prices.In Figure 29 we also have a diagrammatic novelty.For the first time, we show both demand and supplyschedules shifting simultaneously. This is the morerealistic case compared with the above cases in whichonly one schedule shifted while the other schedulestayed fixed. Indeed, this diagram illustrates a generalproposition that follows from our preceding analysis:whenever the rate of expansion in S exceeds therate of increase in D—based on increased productivity222

CN UJUJ ?OC oD uiOQcc6 zo223

and lower costs—prices will decline because of thepressure of excess S relative to D.Long-Run Rise in PricesSupply-and-demand analysis is also useful inexplaining the long-run upward trend in prices, popularlyreferred to as inflation. For instance, ours hasbeen called the "Age of Inflation," denoting the factthat prices have been rising more or less steadily inthe U.S. and other major industrial countries since the1930's. Indeed, inflation has become the predominantlong-term problem of our times, which makes it an importantsubject for analysis. However, inflation wouldtake us beyond the scope of the present work. Sufficeit to say that, in spite of protestations to the contraryby many people who claim that modern inflation issomething "new," and as yet without a solution—asthough it were a mysterious visitation from a remoteplanet—the fact remains that the cause of inflation canbe described simply in demand-and-supply terms. Let usnow see how.First, let us check out one possible explanationfor rising prices in the U.S.—a reduction in the supplyof goods. (This was diagrammed in Figure 26.) True, acontinuous drop in S in the face of sustained D would,by itself, cause P to increase. But this possibility isdisqualified as an explanation of modern inflation because,at least for the period since World War II, theU.S. enjoyed undoubted expansion of S (not contraction).And as we know, an increase in S by itself will cause Pto drop. A more likely explanation is illustrated inFigure 25, which shows an increase of demand as theforce that enabled P to increase. Indeed, demand inpostwar U.S. must have increased on a scale sufficientlygreat as to offset the accompanying expansion of S.That is to say, D must have increased faster than Sincreased in order to enable or induce the overall risein P. This combination of forces is depicted in the newFigure 30.Diagrammatic AspectsAgain, notice first the overall rise in pricesover the long run, as indicated by the dashed line.Also notice the faster rate at which the D schedulesincrease relative to the S schedule. Thus, by the end224

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5PRICE TRENDQUANTITIES OVER THE LONG-RUNFIGURE 30:LONG-RUN RISE IN PRICES.225

of the second period demand has reached the D2 position,whereas supply has increased only to the S2 position.As a result, D2 interacts with S2 only at a higher P.By stringing out the succession of intersection pointsbetween a surging D situation and the lagging S, wediscover that market-clearing P emerges at higher andhigher levels. In this picture, Qd is generally exceedingQs at previous P levels, so that sellers are able toask (and get) higher prices.How can the present inflation in the U.S. beanalyzed in terms of Figure 30? Here, as in Figure 29,we show both D and S schedules shifting simultaneouslyin their historical directions and proportions. D isseen to be increasing at a faster rate than S—andexactly the same juxtaposition of events took place inpostwar U.S. Details on why and how this inflationaryprocess transpired, and the crucial role played by governmentexpansion of the money supply would take usbeyond the scope of this book. Suffice it to say thatthe following general proposition emerges: whenever therate of increase in D exceeds the rate of increase in S,prices will be able to increase because the "excessdemand" enables sellers to ask for and get higherprices.Shortages Caused by Increased DemandBefore we end this chapter, we should note somepossible exceptions to the preceding analysis. Whatwill be true for the long run need not always be truefor the short run. For example, it is possible that, atany given time, in a given situation, selling prices maynot be increased when D increases faster than S. Thatis to say, sellers may decide for some peculiar reasonnot to take advantage of the excess demand situation andcharge what the traffic will bear. This hesitancy ofsellers to raise prices was noted in our chapter onelasticity of demand; we now can analyze it again in thepresent context.Imagine the following scenario. It is the firstfull peace-time year of car production following theKorean War and the post-Korean recession of 1953-54.The auto industry had expanded output by the customary10 percent. This proportion of increase in S was supposedto be sufficient to satisfy the expected averageincrease in demand of 10 percent, and would enableprices to remain stable. But the best-laid plans of the226

auto firms were upset by what actually took place.Whereas S was increased 10 percent, D increased some 30percent as a result of wartime pent-up demand. Clearly,sales were running ahead of expectations. What effectdid this excess demand have on selling prices at theretail level?The first sign that D had increased relative toS was the acceleration in car sales at a rate fasterthan expected. It was apparent that producers hadunderestimated demand. There was little question thatlong before the end of the selling period the stock ofcars on hand would have been sold out at the originalselling prices, resulting in shortages. Plainly,dealers had a grand opportunity to immediately raisetheir prices, charge what the traffic would bear, andincrease the profit margin per unit sold. What did theyactually do?Non-Price RationingAlthough selling tactics varied, dealers generallyadhered to similar practices: they did notovertly increase their selling prices. How, then, didthey ration the scarce cars among their scrambling customers?As follows: Those customers who did not wantto wait in line for cars offered bribes to the dealersby paying above list-price, and dealers were disposed toaccept. Thus, dealers did covertly what they feared todo openly: raise prices in line with the excess D andcharge what the traffic would bear, bargaining with eachcustomer.In most cases, however, customers who did notwant to pay the higher price in the form of a bribe paidit in another way: they waited in line on a first-come,first-served basis. Although queueing up on thedealer's waiting list does not incur a monetary cost, itdoes involve a psychic cost—the cost of waiting forsomething that one wants to enjoy sooner rather thanlater. (This time-preference will be discussed inChapter IX.)Now for the main question: Why didn't sellers,faced by an obvious excess-demand shortage, behave exactlyas expected under the law of market price andraise their prices? One possible answer is: As notedon previous occasions, sellers may be fearful of the227

social taboo against charging what the traffic wouldbear. By not raising prices when it was economicallyfeasible to do so, they were apparently currying thepublic's favor, foregoing short-term monetary gains infavor of long-run goodwill.Connected with this possibility may have beenthe dealers' belief that the unexpected surge in D wasabnormal, purely temporary—that next season's saleswould return to normal—so why bother to raise pricesand alienate customers for a purely short-term gain?Thus, it is not unusual for firms to forego short-termprofit opportunities in favor of possibly greater profitopportunities in the long run.Price Controls and Precautionary PricingWe have seen that social taboos against sellerscharging what the traffic would bear may exert a deterrenteffect on price increases during periods of increasingdemand. Social forces can also work in theopposite direction: they may induce firms to increaseprices sooner than otherwise. In the early 19 70's,government wage and price controls induced firms toabandon their policy of not raising prices until theircosts had increased.In the past there were fewer social taboosagainst firms raising prices in response to risingcosts. This is why firms had, for a long time, avoidedraising prices during periods of increasing demand untilsuch time as their costs began to increase. In this waythey could blame rising costs (not rising demand) fortheir price increases. Today it is a different story.Government wage-price controls—real or threatened—haveintroduced a new source of uncertainty—a stop/go tendencyof first imposing controls, then relaxing andterminating them. During the 1970's this induced firmsto resort to precautionary price increases.Reliance on precautionary price-raising can beexplained by the excess-demand environment created byinflationary policies of government. These inflationarypolicies have consisted of vastly expanded Federalspending, on the one hand, and deficit financing by theTreasury and the Federal Reserve monetary authorities,on the other hand. As a result, total purchasing powerin the economy had exploded at a faster rate than the228

supply of consumers' goods. This inflationary environmentis very hospitable to the raising of prices byfirms—indeed, it is the prime factor that enablesprices to rise in the first place.When selling prices are eventually raised, andcontinue to rise as long as excess-demand conditionspermit, government threatens to move in with wage-pricecontrols. Since these controls freeze selling pricesfor an indefinite period, firms realize that it may beprofitable to rush to raise their prices and beat theanticipated price freeze before it is too late. Thus,we have the bitter irony of government inflationarypolicies, on the one hand, and the expected wage-pricecontrols, on the other hand, working in tandem to inducefirms to raise prices sooner than otherwise.ConclusionIt is market demand that ultimately determinesprices. True, in practice it is the firm that establishesthe selling prices and determines how much tosupply the market. But in the final analysis, this isabout all the firm can do; in all cases it ultimatelyhas to reckon with the market. It is market demand thatultimately ratifies or vetoes the firm's price and quantitydecisions. Will the firm set P too high or toolow? Will its Qs be too high or too low? Or will therebe market-clearing? Only the market can tell.AppendixWILL THE REAL SUPPLY STAND UP?The point of this Appendix is simply this: thereader should be alerted to the fact that the treatmentof the supply concept in this chapter is radicallydifferent from the usual treatment in other books.Thus, the reader should know that in contrast to thischapter, which treats supply as an ex-post concept, the229

standard text treats supply mainly as an ex-ante concept.2 The distinction between ex-ante and ex-post wasused in Chapter V to analyze the nature of decisionmakingand to state the maximizing principle. However,it also applies directly to the present analysis of thefirm's supply decisions concerning how much to produceand at what price to sell. Let us see how.We have already seen that, in the case of supply,the ex-post concept is relevant only to the actualprovision by the firm of goods for sale in the market.For this reason, ex-post supply is graphically depictedas a vertical line or curve, indicating that a giventotal quantity is being offered by firms at variedprices. It is, indeed, the only way to properly depictthe actual supply situation in any given market, for anygiven type of product. Furthermore, for the purpose ofgraphically depicting the market, with its array ofdemand and supply sides, only the ex-post supply curveshould be used to intersect the demand curve, as inFigure 20 above.In stark contrast, the typical textbook depictsthe market as an intersection of the familiar demandcurve with an upward-sloping ex-ante supply curve (asshown in the following Figure B). The ex-ante supplycurve looks essentially different (see the followingFigure A) from the vertical ex-post supply curve for thesimple reason that it is relevant only to the preproductionphase, when the firm is still contemplatingor planning its production program, in preparing todecide: How many units should be produced? What priceshould be set?In the ex-ante phase of its decision-making, thefirm has not yet produced anything—it has not evenlaunched any production and it surely has not yet put asingle unit of its product for sale on the market.Thus, in the ex-ante state, there exists no such thingas a "supply" of any sort; at this point, "supply" isnothing more than a gleam in the firm's eye; the firm ismerely preparing to produce varying quantities, dependingon which of various possible prices it thinks islikely to prevail.A noteworthy exception is the treatment by Armen A. Alchianand William R. Allen in University Economics (3rd ed., Belmont,Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1972), Chapter 6.230

EXPECTEDFUTUREPRICEFIGURE A:EX-ANTESUPPLYQUANTITIES OFFEREDFIGURE B:EXPECTEDFUTUREPRICEEX-ANTEDEMAND surp|u8 SUPPLYW X YQUANTITIESEX-ANTE SUPPLY AND MARKET PRICE.231

The mind set of the firm in the ex-ante planningstage is illustrated in Figure A. As a first approximation,it says: If firms expect prices to be highertomorrow, they will be willing and able to produce moreand, vice versa, if they expect prices to be lower, theywill produce less.The reasoning behind this upward-sloping ex-anteS involves considerations of costs and profit margins.With respect to costs, we will see in Chapter XI thathigher rates of production (i.e., at higher rates ofproductive capacity) involve higher unit costs, whereasat somewhat lower rates of output unit costs are less.Thus, expectations of higher prices are supposed toinduce firms to produce more, either because profitmargins will be higher or, at least, the higher costswill be covered by the expected higher prices. Conversely,expectation of falling prices puts a damper onthe firm's plans: lower prices threaten expected profitmargins, which can be preserved only by falling back tolower rates of production and lower unit costs.So far, so good. We return now to the mainpoint of this Appendix. My argument is not with theidea of the ex-ante S curve itself: it is a usefulsnapshot of how firms feel about producing varying quantitiesat various expected prices. Rather, what I finddisturbing is the textbook tradition of using the exanteS curve for the purpose of describing the marketprocess (as in Figure B), a procedure that contrastssharply with use of the vertical ex-post S curve in thischapter (see Figure 20 above).True, both of these figures are similar in beingdiagrams of demand-and-supply concepts; both have intersectionsof D and and S to indicate the market-clearing(equilibrium) price which the market will tend to reach;and, in both cases, surpluses will occur when prices areset too high, while shortages will emerge when pricesare set too low. But there the similarities end.Whereas the vertical ex-post S curve of Figure 20 is arealistic, appropriate depiction of actual market supply,the ex-ante S curve is a pure phantom, having noreal existence except in the ex-ante minds of thoseplanning future quantities to be produced by the firm.To be sure, textbooks find it useful to rely ondiagrams like Figure B for the purpose of outlining thepotential causes of surpluses and shortages, for whichmodest purpose such figures may be suitable. Thus,232

Figure B is able to show that surpluses would arise ifex-ante plans set prices and supply in excess of demand(at level 1) and that shortages would emerge if pricesand supply are set too low (at level 2). In contrast,the vertical ex-post supply curve is not only morerealistic and correct, but, no less significant, it alsoenables a more complete analysis, as already shown inthis chapter.It is in this latter respect that the ex-ante Scurve suffers a serious and embarrassing lapse, specificallyin attempting to analyze the case of a surplus.First, let us assume that firms set their prices toohigh (at level 1) and produce quantities Y; but at thathigh price the quantity demanded falls back to onlyquantity W, creating a surplus of WY. Then the argumentgoes, firms begin to slash prices to get rid of surpluses,and they also cut back on production until, atprice E (equilibrium level) they produce only quantityX, and thereby are able to clear the market. However,what is usually overlooked by texts is the followingcurious lapse in analysis.What is overlooked is the fact that, in order todispose of the surplus WY, the firms must slash pricesfrom level 1 all the way down to level 2 in order toclear the market of the quantity Y they had produced atthe expected price (level 1). Thus, the market-clearingprice in this case is at level 2, not level E as FigureB would have us believel That is, price-level E couldserve as a market-clearing price only if the firms hadinitially produced only quantity X to sell at price E;since they, instead, produced the larger quantity Y tosell at price-level 1, there is simply no way they canclear the market of the total quantity except by slashingprices all the way down to level 2.In fact, if they had cut prices only down tolevel E, there would still remain some surplus—theamount XY! Clearly, there is no market-clearing here—not until prices are slashed to level 2. In this priceslashingbinge firms would be gliding right past priceE, precisely because it would not clear the market.Thus, in this first go-around there is no way the firmscan discover the market-clearing price E—somethingwhich they would be able to discover in Figure 20 above,with its ex-post curve. To repeat, use of the ex-antesupply curve prevents realistic analysis of the marketas a feedback mechanism and of the price adjustmentsfirms must make to achieve market equilibrium.233

234

CHAPTER IXPROFITS—AND OTHER INCOMESThis chapter is mostly about profits. Wages andother incomes are briefly touched upon, but the spotlightis on profits. The importance of profits shouldbe clear: the firm which earns profits is also theprime generator of other incomes, including wages andsalaries, as we saw in Chapter IV. In that chapter wealso saw how profits can be increased by improved technologyand cost reduction. In Chapter VIII we saw howchanging market conditions affect selling prices andprofits. In the upcoming Chapter X we will see howprofits serve as the central motivating force of freemarketfirms. In the present chapter, our primary purposeis to explain the nature of profit itself—why thefirm necessarily seeks profits and why profits are ajustified return.Controversy over profits—their justificationand morality—has raged since the ancient and medievaltaboos against the taking of interest on loans("usury"). People did not understand why the moneylendershould get back more than he lends. In moderntimes, Marxists and other socialists have maintainedthat profits are the result of "exploitation" of workersby capitalist owners of the means of production. ForMarxists, profits belong to the workers in the firstplace, and are taken from workers only through capitalistic"monopoly" ownership of the means of production.Hence, for Marxists, profits are no more a deserved orearned income than is interest. In the following pageswe will see why the taboos and attacks on profits arewide of the mark.I. IntroductoryFirst of all, production takes time. This factis obvious, and may even seem trivial, but for economicsthe element of time is crucial. Why? Before we answerthis question, we should briefly describe why productionis not an instantaneous process but takes time to unfoldand materialize.235

Phases of the Production ProcessAs we have already seen, the entire productionprocess involved at least three time phases. Firstcomes the ex-ante phase during which the firm is engagedin estimating, speculating, planning, and investingactivities—all centered around its decision as to whatto produce, how much, and at what price. This is followedby the actual physical production phase. Duringthis period, means of production are combined accordingto appropriate techniques that bring the product throughstages of maturation until it is made ready for market.Finally comes the ex-post phase during which the productis supplied to the market, and the firm is able to seewhether the sale of its product proceeds as planned.Thus the entire production process embraces morethan a physical-technical coordination of productionresources in some appropriate technical combination. Itincludes also the ex-ante planning period and the expostor after-the-dust-has-settled period of reckoning.Even if physical production were somehow magicallyinstantaneous, it still takes time to plan it (especiallyprices and quantities) and to assess results in theaftermath of market sales.Moneylender vs. EntrepreneurOverall, then, the production process involvesnot only the acquisition and use of means but also aprolonged waiting period until the product is completed,marketed, and hopefully sold. Seen from another viewpoint,when the firm undertakes production, it is makingcurrent outlays on factors of production in anticipationof future sales or payoff. To paraphrase a once popularcommercial, the firm typically pays out now in order tofly later. In a general sense, therefore, the firm isessentially in the same position as the moneylender;both make a current outlay of money in exchange for afuture payoff.True, there is a technical difference betweenmoneylending and entrepreneurial production by the firm.The moneylender makes his current outlay of money to theborrower in one lump sum, whereas the firm makes itscurrent outlays mostly in the form of a series of regularpayments to workers (wages), landlords (rent),power companies, and other resource, owners from whom itpurchases or hires the necessary means of production.236

But this is merely a superficial technical or institutionaldifference, and does not alter the essentialsimilarity between moneylending and production: bothprocesses are inter-temporal in that they span a periodof time from the present into the future. Furthermore,they are similar because the future payoff is characteristicallyexpected to be greater than total currentoutlays. In the one case this increment is calledinterest; in the other it is profit.To be sure, profits earned by firms consist ofmore than the equivalent of interest. As we will see,total profits earned by the firm include not only (a) apure interest component but also (b) an entrepreneurialcomponent due to uncertainty and risk, and (c) a purchasing-powercomponent to compensate for changes in thevalue of money associated with changing price levels.Each of these components plays a vital role in determiningthe size of the firm's price spread (profitmargin) between the expected selling price and the unitcosts incurred in production. Let us first examine theinterest-rate component.II.Time-Preference and Pure InterestThe first question we must ask is: What exactlyis the connection between the interest rate earned inmoneylending and the profit rate earned by the firm?The answer given by economics is straightforward: Thecommon basis for both the interest rate and the profitrate is man's natural time-preference. But what is"time preference"? Briefly, and somewhat crudely, itmeans that man prefers the present time to the future,other things being equal.Meaning of Time-PreferenceTo be more precise, the time-preference axiomrefers to the deeply-rooted and widely observed factthat, other things being equal, people prefer to enjoyany given satisfaction or good in the present ratherthan to enjoy the same good in the future. To put itanother way: For any given goal set by a person, hewould prefer to realize it sooner rather than later.The less the waiting time, the better. As one writerhas put it, a bird in the hand is worth more than a birdin the bush. It makes no difference whether the goal ismaterial or spiritual, tangible or intangible—man237

prefers to achieve his goals in the shortest possibletime, ceteris paribus. Conversely, the more distant thefuture achievement of any given goal, the less valuabledoes the goal become. Man attaches a "disutility"to waiting; postponement of consumption involvessacrifice.It is important to stress the sameness of theobject of satisfaction whose present availability ispreferred to its future availability. Unless it is thesame satisfaction that is being time-compared, it wouldbe possible to raise the following objection: In wintertime,why would anyone prefer ice delivered then to icedelivered in the following summer when the weather isvery hot? The fallacy here is the assumption thatsummer ice is literally the same good or satisfaction aswinter ice. To be sure, ice is ice when regarded purelyin terms of its physical-material properties. But thefact that cooling ice-in-summer provides significantlygreater, and hence different, satisfactions than ice-inwintercompels us to regard the two ices as differentgoods rather than the same good.Life Is Not ForeverWhy is time-preference so deeply rooted in thenature of man? Some writers explain it in terms of anobvious physiological fact: Man does not live forever.Alas, man is mortal! The life he enjoys must someday beended. Nothing is more certain in life than death—unless it be taxes, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker.Furthermore, although death may be as certain astaxes, uncertain is the duration of the life-span of anygiven person. The mortality tables have it all clearlylaid out—the variability of individual life-spans.This only compounds the time-scarcity problem for theindividual. How much time does one have left? How muchtime does one need to accomplish his goals? Is theretime enough? If not, which time priorities are to beassigned to one's goals? Can one tailor any given goalin order to fit the cloth of time available? Can oneafford to postpone any given goal?Time a Scarce ResourceAs Bohm-Bawerk once put it: "[We] humans liveout our lives in a temporal world ... our Today, with238

its needs and cares, comes before our Tomorrow, and ...our Day-After-Tomorrow may perhaps not be assured as atall." There it is. Finite but indeterminate lifetimemakes it even more uncertain that we can satisfy all ourwants, regardless of other means available. So long astomorrow is "not assured," any satisfaction postponedtoday may never be realized.1In this connection we can also invoke the maximizingprinciple (Chapter V) according to which manalways acts in the expectation that his action willleave him better off than otherwise. This implies that,other things being equal, man will want to accomplishmore rather than less within his given lifetime. Givenman's mortality, it becomes clear that time is thescarcest of means at man's disposal. No matter how anygiven person manages his own time-scarcity, the factremains that the only way to assure fulfillment of agiven goal is to realize it sooner rather than later,ceteris paribus. Postponement of a goal only courts thelikelihood it will never be fulfilled.Time-Preference AxiomaticBest of all, however, the validity of the timepreferencetheorem does not need to rest on psychologyor physiology as above (e.g., the temporal limitationsof human life, impatience, the disutility of waiting).As L. von Mises has put it, time preference is simply a"categorical requisite" of human action:[E]ach individual in each of his actions isforced to choose between satisfaction invarious periods of time.... The very act ofgratifying a desire implies that gratificationat the present instant is preferred tothat at a later instant. He who consumes anonperishable good instead of postponingconsumption for an indefinite later momentthereby reveals a higher valuation of presentsatisfaction as compared with later satisfaction....If he were not to prefer satisfactionin a nearer period of the future to thatin a remoter period, he would never consumeEugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest (South Holland,111.: Libertarian Press, 1959), Vol. I, p. 266.239

and so satisfy wants.... The knowledge providedby this insight ... refers to everykind of want-satisfaction, not only to thesatisfaction of the vital necessities of meresurvival. 2Present Goods vs. Future GoodsAt this juncture, we should introduce the importantdistinction between "present goods" and "futuregoods." This distinction is based on the fact that anygiven good can be made available for consumption eitherin the "present" or the "future." Present goods, then,are simply goods which are presently available forpresent consumption. This category embraces all consumers' goods that are ready at hand for direct orimmediate consumption, including leisure and money.Money, to be sure, is not directly consumable itself,but since it is readily exchangeable for consumers 1goods, it is a present good par excellence. Forexample, the money lent by the moneylender or paid outcurrently to workers and other resource-owners by thefirm is classified as a present good.In contrast to present goods are future goods.As the term suggests, these embrace all goods that onlyin the future can be regarded as present goods. Thus,this category includes future product—goods that willbe completed only at a future date. It also includesgoods-in-progress that are expected to emerge as consumers1 goods at some future date, as well as capitalgoods that enable production of consumers' goods forconsumption only in the future. They also include anyclaim on present goods in the future, such as money tobe repaid by borrowers to moneylenders; hence, thepromissory note (IOU) given by the borrower at the timeof the loan is a future good. Similarly classified asfuture goods are securities such as stocks and bonds,which constitute claims to future income.Inter-temporal ExchangesWe can now readily describe the activities ofboth the money-lender and the firm in terms of presentLudwig von Mises, Human Action (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1949), pp. 480-485.240

goods and future goods: both are essentially engaged inexchanges of present goods for future goods. The moneylendertypically exchanges a lump sum of money (presentgoods) for the borrower's promissory note or IOU (futuregoods). Since the IOU promises repayment to the lenderat a future date, it constitutes a future claim againstthe borrower. All loan transactions therefore are inessence an exchange of present goods (creditor's money)for a future good (the debtor's IOU).Productive activities by the firm can be similarlydescribed as involving essentially inter-temporalexchanges of present goods for future goods. The firm'scurrent outlays of money on wages, rent, materials, andutilities can be classified as present goods. Thesecurrent outlays are made in exchange for an ownershipclaim or title to the future product turned out with thehelp of workers, landlord, suppliers, and utility companies.Thus, all employment transactions between firmand worker involve an exchange in which the firm makes aseries of present payments to the workers in exchangefor rightful title to the product. Furthermore, thefirm's outlays of money for factors of production alsoconstitute an investment made in the present in expectationof profits at a future date (Chapter IV).Premium vs. DiscountWe can now restate the time-preference theoremin terms of present goods versus future goods. Manattaches a greater subjective value to present goodspresently available to him than to the same goods availableonly in the future. For example, a person wouldrather hold a $100 bill now than hold it, say, fiveyears from now, other things being the same—that is,disregarding the possible risk of not getting it backlater from a borrower, and disregarding possible changesin the value of money due to a changing price level.Conversely, man attaches a lower subjective value tofuture goods, available only in the future, compared tothe same goods available in the present. Thus, a moneylenderwho is promised a $100 bill in future repaymentby a borrower (future goods) will now lend the borrowerless than $100 (present goods) in exchange for the IOUof $100.In effect, we have just described the differencebetween "premium" and "discount." Even though these twoterms are actually two sides of the same coin, there is241

a difference. Premium reflects the higher subjectivevalue we attach to present goods that are presentlyavailable rather than in the future—the greater valueattached to the convenience of earlier availability ascompared to deferred availability. In the market place,present goods always command a premium or higher priceover future goods.In contrast, discount reflects the lower ("discounted")subjective value that we attach to futuregoods because they suffer from deferred availability—they are characteristically available only after aperiod of waiting. That is to say, discounting reflectsthe sacrifice involved in postponing present consumptionand in waiting for its future availability. Hence, themarket attaches a lower price to future goods comparedto present goods that are presently available.A Loan TransactionFor example, assume A possesses a given stock ofwealth, say, ten barrels of sugar. Along comes B andasks to borrow the 10 barrels for one year. To this Areplies: Okay, but I request repayment of 11 barrels.B agrees, and it's a deal—a deal that reflects a premiumof one barrel of sugar, or 10 percent attached by Ato the one-year loan. This case is one possibility. Analternative scenario could run as follows: B offers torepay A 10 barrels of sugar one year from now in returnfor 10 barrels borrowed today. But A protests, andsuggests instead that he lend B only 9.1 barrels inexchange for the deferred repayment of 10 barrels. If Bagrees, it's a deal—in effect, the same kind of deal asabove, except that it reflects the other side of thecoin, the discount: 10 barrels available a year fromnow is today worth only 9.1 barrels to A, revealing apresent discount rate of 0.9 barrels, or about 10 percentof the 9.1 barrels lent.Thus, premium and discount turn out to be merelytwo sides of the same coin. These two different ways ofexpressing valuations always refer to the same goods orobject. They differ only with respect to which end ofthe time-span of goods availability one happens to focuson—on whether the goods availability is present orfuture. The premium emphasizes the greater value attachedto presently available goods, whereas the discountemphasizes the lower value attached to the samegoods available only at a later date.242

Firm Discounts the FutureJust as we can describe loan transactions interms of "premium" and "discount," so can we describeproduction and selling by the firm as involving a premiumor a discount. As we saw in Chapter IV, the firm"works back from price" whenever it plans its currentproduction. That is to say, it peers into the future toestimate its future market demand—its expected sellingprice and the quantities to be produced at that price.It then determines the profit rate it would like to earnon each unit to be sold (the unit profit rate). Theresidual obtained by subtracting the unit profit marginfrom the unit selling price represents the self-imposedlimit on how much the firm can profitably spend currentlyon factors of production for each unit of output.Now, where does the premium or discount element enterinto these calculations?Let us assume a firm that is making product Xand expects to sell it at some future date—say, a yearfrom now, for $100. At this price it expects to sellits entire future output of X, which is currently in theworks. Thus, there is a time-spread between currentfactor outlays and future selling of its product. Thefirm will have to wait until some future date before itcan sell its output and reap the harvest of its currentoutlays on production. For the firm, therefore, thefuture selling price of $100 constitutes a future good.Like any future good, which is naturally handicapped byits deferred availability, this potential future $100for each unit sold will have a lower present valuecompared to the same $100 were they presently available.That is to say, the future $100 is translated into apresent discounted value.The rate at which the future $100 is discountedis, of course, a subjective matter, depending on thesubjective valuations of the firm's executives. Forinstance, if the firm is willing to expend only $90 nowon factors of production on each unit produced, inexchange for the future $100, the $10 difference representsthe rate of discount. Conversely, the future $100price represents a $10 premium attached to the currenttotal outlay of $90.243

Pure Interest RateThis brings us to a crucial point. Implicit inthe concepts of "premium" and "discount" is the pureinterest rate, which is actually the subjective timepreferencerate. Hence, the "pure" interest rate shouldnot be confused with the actual market or "loan" rate ofinterest, of which the pure rate is but one component.The other two components of the market rate allow for(a) uncertainty and risk factors attached to the loan,and for (b) changes in the purchasing power of thedollar. (More on this in Section III.) Thus, theactual rate of interest paid on loans in the marketcomprises all three components: subjective timepreference,uncertainty and risk, and changes in thevalue of money. In our present discussion we will focuson the time-preference or "pure" rate of interest,unless otherwise specified.In our sugar-loan illustration, the premium rateof 10 percent actually represents a pure interest rate;so does the discount rate. Both of these rates alsoreflect Mr. A's subjective time-preference rate at thetime of the loan. For example, if A had felt otherwise,and either (a) had asked a premium of 1.5 barrels forthe 10 loaned, or (b) offered only 8.7 barrels in returnfor repayment of 10 barrels, both of these cases wouldhave reflected a 15 percent rate of time preference: inthe first case this rate is reflected in the 1.5 barrelpremium, and in the second case the rate is reflected bythe discount of 1.3 barrels. In both events the timepreferencerate is the same 15 percent, which is alsoA's interest rate.We can now also see why the pure interest ortime-preference rate can be described as the intertemporalexchange rate between (a) present goods presentlyavailable and (b) future goods available only at alater date. In our sugar illustration the 10 percentpremium rate of interest was derived from the ratio of11/10, while the 10 percent discount rate of interestwas obtained from the ratio 10/9.1.The "Price of Money"The reader should not be misled by the customarynotion that interest rates are related only to moneyloans. We have just seen, in our sugar illustration,that a loan transaction between creditor and debtor can244

take the form of non-money goods. Indeed, history tellsus that as far back as the Babylonian King Hammurabi,more than 2,000 years B.C., people were making loans innon-money commodities. The only difference between asugar loan and a money loan is that the former is transactedin barrel units of sugar, whereas the latterinvolves units of money (e.g., dollars).For this reason it is also misleading to definethe interest rate merely as the price of money, ratherthan in the basic universal terms of time - preference.First of all, interest-bearing loans can be made in nonmoneygoods as well as money units, as we have justnoted. True, in the modern economy, interest is usuallypaid in the form of money, but this does not make interesta purely monetary phenomenon. Indeed, at heart,interest is a reflection of universal time-preference.For another thing, the word "price" is literallymisused. A money "price" represents the full number ofmoney-units asked by the seller in exchange for a unitof his goods. In contrast, an interest payment is onlya fractional payment, only a part of the total sum ofmoney-units being exchanged. For example, an interestpayment of $10 on a loan of $100 is only part of thetotal value of the transaction.Furthermore, the present "price" of $100 issimply another batch of 100 dollar-bills—no more, noless. That is to say, anyone who wants to "buy" somemoney can go to the bank and buy, say a $100 bill bypaying with a check or 100 dollar-bills, the "price" ofmoney here being simply $1 for $1.Additionally, and more precisely, the "price" ofany good—say, X, be it money or a non-money good—isequal to the amount of other goods that this good X canbe exchanged for in the market. For example, if themarket price of X is $5, it means that one unit of X isexchangeable for five dollar-units. (The "exchangerate" is 1:5.) On the other hand, from the point ofview of one dollar bill, the "price" of that dollar ishow much it can be exchanged for in terms of X (which isone-fifth of X). For this reason, the "price" of adollar is not the interest rate but rather how much thedollar can be exchanged for in terms of the full arrayof alternative goods. Technically speaking, it isapproximately the inverse or reciprocal of the general"price level" of all non-money goods. Thus, the higher245

the price level, the lower the "price of money," andvice versa.Saving and InvestingFinally, and most fundamentally, the "price ofmoney" concept mistakenly implies that the naturalphenomenon of the interest rate arises only in loantransactions between parties A and B. This misconceptiongives rise to the expression that interest is "theprice of a loan," which implies that a loan necessarilyinvolves two separate parties, the lender and the borrower.However, a person can "lend to himself" as wellas to others. For example, individual savers or groupsof savers can "borrow" their own accumulated savings andinvest these savings, without resorting to loans fromother parties. Indeed, the classical concept of the"capitalist-entrepreneur," who was a central figure inspearheading the Industrial Revolution, was based onthis notion of the saver and capital accumulator investinghis own wealth without recourse to borrowing fromothers.In all such cases, where people indicate a relativelylower time-preference by saving and investing inproductive ventures—whether their own or others'—thepresumption is that the saver-investor believes hisinvestment in production will yield him a future consumptionthat will be greater than otherwise. This doesnot mean that savers-investors value the future absolutelyover the present, but merely that they prefer afuture consumption that would be greater than otherwise.In working to make for themselves a "better future" thanotherwise, they in effect hasten the realization oftheir future.Interest-Rate TablesWe have now seen that inter-temporal exchangetransactions can involve money and non-money goods, andcan also involve an investment of one's own accumulatedsavings rather than a loan transaction. We should alsonote that loans can be made for consumption purposes(consumer loans) as well as for production purposes(commercial loans). In any case, the various possiblerates of exchange between present goods and future goods—that is, the various rates of subjective time preferenceas well as premium and discount—can be numerically246

expressed in the form of interest tables, such as TablesIII and IV, which are condensed versions.For example, Table III can illustrate the termsof a premium-type loan transaction. Imagine a currentloan of $1,000 to be repaid in 5 years at 15 percentinterest per annum. Table III tells us that the premiumrate attached to each dollar borrowed is 2.01 (see thefirst column for the year 5, then across to the 15percent column). We then multiply 2.01 by $1,000 andget $2,010. This is the total to be repaid by theborrower: it consists of $1,000 principal plus $1,010premium interest.TABLE IIICompound Interest on One DollarEnd of Year3%5%10%15%20%123451015203040501.031.061.091.131.161.341.561.812.433.264.381.051.101.161.221.281.632.082.654.327.0411.51.101.211.331.461.612.594.176.7217.445.31171.151.321.521.742.014.058.1316.166.226710801.201.441.732.072.496.1915.438.323714709100In contrast, we can use Table IV to illustratethe terms of a discount interest loan. Imagine a borrowerwho offers to repay the lender $1,000 at 15 percentinterest, at the end of 5 years. Table IV tells usthat the rate at which the future $1,000 should bediscounted by the lender is .497 (see the first columnfor year 5, and then across to the 15 percent column).We then multiply .497 by $1,000 and get $497. Hence, ina 15 percent loan, $497 is the present discounted valueof $1,000 to be repaid 5 years from now; that is, the247

lender who wants to receive $1,000 in a 5-year, 15-percent loan should lend out no more than $497.TABLE IVPresent Discounted Value of a Future DollarEnd of Year123451015203040503%.971.943.915.889.863.744.642.554.412.307.2285%.952.907.864.823.784.614.481.377.231.142.08710%.909.826.751.683.620.385.239.148.0573.0221.008515%.870.75.6.658.572.497.247.122.0611.0151.0037.000920%.833.694.578.482.402.162.0649.0261.0042.0007.0001Some PropositionsWhile we have these two interest tables at hand,we should examine them for several important propositionsimplied in their numerical structure. The firstimplied proposition should be familiar by now: thegreater is the time-preference rate, the greater is thenumerical rate of interest, or the lower is the presentdiscounted value. This can be seen by scanning eachyear-line from left to right. In Table III, for example,the numbers increase in value to reflect the highertime-preference or interest rates. Similarly, Table IVtells us, as we scan from left to right, that lower andlower present discounted values apply to the increasingrates of time-preference or interest.We now come to a second proposition implied inthese interest tables: the longer the time-span involvedin the inter-temporal transaction, the greater isthe premium rate of interst, or the lower is the presentdiscounted value. This can be seen by scanning each248

percent column from the top down. In Table III, forexample, the numbers increase in value, reflecting thegreater premium attached to transactions of longer duration.In Table IV they drop in value, reflecting theincreased rates of discount applied to such transactionsA third proposition implied in our tables runsas follows: the time-preference or interest rate isalways positive, never zero or negative. In otherwords, inter-temporal exchanges will always be transactedat a premium or discount rate of interest. Forinstance, A will never lend B 100 units of X now foronly 100 units or less to be repaid at a later date,other things being equal. This assumes A's timepreferencerate is the only determining factor in theterms of exchange, excluding personal considerationssuch a friendship or blood relationship with B.Time-Preference:Relative vs. AbsoluteIn this connection it is important to note thatpositive time-preference is relative, not absolute. Anabsolute time preference means that a person providesonly for present consumption or acquires only presentgoods, and never saves any current income for futureconsumption (those "rainy days") nor acquires any futuregoods (such as IOU's or securities).Such absolute time-preference is conceivableonly under two unlikely conditions. One would be acatastrophe-ridden world, where everything was going to"come to an end" at any moment, and there would truly be"no tomorrow." With catastrophe hanging overhead like aDamocles' sword, no one could be blamed for living it uptoday, with nary a care for the morrow. The othercondition would be a non-scarcity world of absoluteabundance, like the Garden of Eden. Here everyone couldtruly be a pure consumer (a pure non-saver), neverhaving to worry about saving something for future consumption.At the opposite extreme is the case of absolutelyno time preference. This means that peoplehave no desire to live "in the present"—to do anyconsuming now—but prefer to save everything for thefuture. At this extreme rate of abstinence, the humanspecies clearly could not survive; it would simplyperish!—which makes this condition totally unrealistic.Furthermore, if people literally never consume anything,249

including the things they might buy with their savings,there is obviously no point in doing any saving in thefirst place.However, there are people who have relativelylow time-preference rates and, therefore, tend to besavers as well as consumers. That is to say, even whilethey consume significant portions of their current income,they also set aside significant amounts for futureconsumption by saving for those rainy days, retirement,or other future goals. Savers characteristically havelonger time horizons than non-savers: for them thefuture stretches over a greater span of years than fornon-savers; the latter care more about "living it up"today, care less about future consumption. Yet, evenamong savers, the rate of saving will vary according toone's age, circumstances, and preferences.Time-Preference:High and LowClearly, then, real-world rates of time-preferencemust lie mostly between the one extreme of absolutetime preference and the other extreme of absolutely notime preference. Real people are characterized by relativerates of time-preference, ranging from relatively"high" to relatively "low" time-preference rates, andvarying from individual to individual and from age toage. That is to say, even though people prefer toconsume now rather than later—other things being thesame—they do save some of their income and allocate ittoward future consumption. By saving varying proportionsof their income, they divert varying amounts ofcurrent consumption toward future consumption.People with relatively high time preference tendto use most or practically all of their income forpresent consumption, and save very little, if anything.Indeed, some people may consume more than their currentincome ("live beyond one's means," so to speak) eitherby living off their accumulated savings, or by borrowingthe savings of others whose time-preference rate islower and who, therefore, save more.On the other hand, people with relatively lowtime preference tend to postpone present consumption ata greater rate than people with high time preference.They are the people who defer much consumption by savingsignificant parts of their current income. These arethe savings that are usually channelled into investment250

—via the financial system (e.g., the stock and bondmarkets)—in the growth of productive capacity of firms.Firms depend on these savings to supplement their owninternal saving or cash flow, and invest them in newcapital goods (see Chapter IV).Because investment by firms in capital goodstends to increase productivity and reduce unit costs ofproduction, thereby increasing profits, savers are reasonablyinduced to share in these profits by investing infirms. Thus, people are always tending to balance theirtime-preference and the disutility of postponed consumptionagainst the advantages of investing in the higherproductivity of expanded capital structure. Hence, itis the saver-investor, possessed of relatively lowertime preference, who provides the capital for ever moreelaborate ("longer") processes of production which, inturn, increase the productivity and standard of livingof the community. In other words, the saver-investorprovides the present goods that enable the firm toproduce future goods, in return for which he acquires aclaim to a share of the profits.Calculation of Profits and CostsWe can now see how Table IV, on present discountedvalues, can help illustrate the profit calculationsof the firm. Since the firm is a discounter of futurevalues—seeking to keep its present costs below itsexpected future selling price—Table IV becomes therelevant table. On the one hand, this table deals withpresent discount factors, while on the other hand, thefirm must necessarily attach a discounted value to itscurrent factor outlays—a value calculated on the basisof its expected future selling price.Assume, for example, that the firm is producinga computer to sell at $100,000 a unit, each of whichtakes two years to produce. The firm wants to earn a 15percent profit as its pure interest rate. Working backfrom its future price of $100,000, the firm knows itmust limit its unit costs to something less than$100,000. The question now is: What is this costceilingthat will allow the firm to earn 15 percent pureinterest over two years on each unit produced?If we were, instead, involved in a loan transaction,the calculation would be fairly simple. Atwo-year loan at 15 percent, repayable in the sum of251

$100,000, would call for a present cash outlay by thelender of only $75,600 (obtained by multiplying thediscount factor .756 by $100,000). That is to say,$75,600 represents the present discounted value of$100,000 repayable at the end of two years. The firm,too, like the moneylender, makes a present discountedpayment in exchange for a greater payoff in the future.But there the resemblance ends. For practical reasons,the firm does not make its present discounted outlay toworkers and other owners of production-factors in onelump sum as does the moneylender. In practice, the firmbreaks its total outlays down into a series of regularweekly or monthly income payments, which enable wageearners,rent receivers and materials suppliers to maketheir own current expenditures for consumption andproduction purposes.Discounting Current Factor OutlaysThus, the difference between making a series ofcurrent payments to factor-owners, stretching over twoyears, as compared to a mere lump-sum loan of cash,introduces an insignificant complication in the calculationof present discounted values of current cash outlays.Whereas the lender makes only one lump-sum outlayat the start of the two-year period, and then waits afull two years for repayment of every dollar of principal,it is otherwise with the firm.The firm does not have to wait a full two yearsfor a payoff on each of its currently paid-out dollarsto factor-owners. Indeed, the first month's outlayswait 23 months for their payoff; the second month'soutlays wait 22 months for their payoff; the thirdmonth's outlays wait 21 months; and so on, until thefinal monthly outlay waits no longer.Over the two-year period as a whole, therefore,each of the firm's current monthly outlays to factorownersinvolves not one present discount factor (e.g.,0.756) but rather a series of them, each numericallylower than the preceding one. Theoretically this impliesthat each month's outlays would have to be determined byuse of lower and lower discount factors, and thereforepayments to workers and others would be larger eachsuccessive month. In practice, however, it is more convenientfor both the firms and factor-owners to have thepayments made in uniform, unchanged amounts. How canthis practical institutional complication be handled?252

Making Regular PaymentsSince the firm will be making twenty-four identicalmonthly outlays, the firm can calculate an approximatepresent discount factor by using the twelfth ormid-point month as its guide. In Table IV we see thatthe discount factor for the end of the twelfth month, at15 percent interest, is 0.870. This implies that theaverage of all monthly discount factors is 0.870, andthat the sum of the different present discounted valueswill total about $87,000 over the two-year period. Thatis to say, the firm must limit its current outlays to$87,000 per unit produced, yielding a profit margin of$13,000 for each unit sold at $100,000.In practice, of course, there is no assurancethat the firm will be able to hire or purchase factorsof production at market prices (wage rates, rents, etc.)that will be low enough—that is, low enough to keepunit costs from exceeding the $87,000 limit which thefirm will be willing to spend for each unit produced.The firm's inducement to employ labor and other resourcesdepends crucially on the current market price ofthe resources. Thus, if one or more of the resourcesneeded is overpriced, the firm may have to cancel theventure altogether—unless it finds a way to economizeon some inputs, or decides to accept a reduced profitmargin.Relevant Costs of ProductionThis brings us to a vital consideration: Whichcosts should the firm include in its calculation of thecost of production? First of all, costs can be calculatedeither as a marginal cost (MC) or as a per unit oraverage cost (AC). The MC is simply the total cost thatwill be involved in producing a given quantity or batchof products. The AC is simply the total cost (or MC)divided by the number of units to be produced, yieldinga per-unit cost. Now, to return to our question: Whichtypes of costs should be included in the calculation ofMC or AC?It helps to realize, at the start, that not allexpenditures by the firm are to be regarded as relevantcosts—costs that will necessarily be incurred by theforthcoming production. For example, as we will seebelow, not every dollar expended for plant and equipmentis a relevant cost. Furthermore, relevant costs must be253

oken down into (a) explicit costs, and (b) implicitcosts. Leading examples of each category are asfollows:Typical explicit costs include:Wages and salaries,Rent,Interest,Materials,Power,Repairs and maintenance.In contrast, implicit costs include such items as:Depreciation of plant and equipment,Implicit wages and salaries of owner,Implicit rent on owners land and factory facilities.What is the real difference between explicit andimplicit costs? Explicit costs, usually referred toas "out of pocket" expenditures, always involve an outlayof money for goods and services purchased or hiredfor the given production program. They can be measuredstrictly on the basis of the purchase price of the givenfactor. Also, these factors are usually "short-lived"and therefore "expire" in the process of production:the factor is either technically transformed (e.g.,materials) or is "embodied" in the product (e.g., labor,power). They are readily measurable or calculable.Implicit costs, in contrast, usually involve one oranother complication when it comes to their calculation.Implicit EarningsFor instance, in cases where the owner of thefirm provides professional services (managerial, legal,etc.) so that the firm does not have to hire theseservices on the market, resources are being used eventhough no specific money expenditures are involved.Thus costs of production are incurred which are equivalentto the wages and salaries that the owner could haveearned by selling his services to other firms. Theseforegone earnings constitute an opportunity cost whosevalue is imputed from the market value of the owner'sservices to his own firm.254

Similar reasoning applies to the use of land andfactory facilities that are owned by the firm but whichare used in production instead of being rented to themarket. Here the rent that could have been earned byselling these resources directly to the market aredefinitely an opportunity cost. Therefore their use inproduction by the firm involves a cost of productionwhose value is imputed from the rent that could havebeen earned on the market.Depreciation and InterestWhy is depreciation of plant and equipmentplaced under implicit costs rather than explicit costs?Does not the acquisition of equipment, for instance,involve an outlay of money and, therefore, should betreated as an explicit cost? Well, equipment usage iscomplicated by the fact that it is durable or "longlived,"and therefore does not get used up ("consumed")in a single act of production. This has two importantimplications. First, the value of the equipment used upin a single act of production is usually only a fractionof the total purchase price. Second, at any givenmoment, equipment commands a resale value—either asproductive equipment that still is useful, or as merescrap. How does this help us calculate the economiccost of using equipment in production?From the above it should be clear that the costof equipment used in production—and the same goes forthe physical plant—is measured not by its originalpurchase price but only by the portion of it that isactually used in the current production program. Thisportion is measured by the difference between theequipment's current resale value (at the start of thecurrent production period) and its prospective resalevalue (at the termination of the production period).This difference in resale values is called depreciation,and reflects the economic cost of the wear-and-tear ofthe equipment used in production.A final note about interest costs listed amongexplicit costs above. On loans received by the firm,only the interest portion of the obligation—not theprincipal—is included as an explicit cost. Inclusionof the principal would involve double-counting, sincethe proceeds of loans typically become embodied inexplicit expenditure items such as wages and salaries,materials, etc.255

Specifically, the funds could have been investedin stocks and bonds, and could have earned dividends andinterest for their owners. When owners of the firminvest in production instead of stocks and bonds, theyare foregoing an opportunity to earn income elsewhere.The interest and dividends they could have earned on thefinancial markets they now want to exceed by investingin production instead—for earnings that are expected inthe form of profits.Profits as Opportunity CostsWe have now completed the first, and main, legin our journey to uncover the nature of the profitmargin. It is time, also, to briefly survey our results.Our first goal has been to link the basic componentof the profit margin to the pure interest (timepreference)rate. Both moneylender and firm are engagedin the inter-temporal exchange of present goods forfuture goods. Since the present value of future goodsis typically discounted, both moneylender and firmnaturally attach a discount to their future payoffs.Here lies the reason for both the interest on moneyloans and the profit margin earned by firms.We can now also see why the profit margin reflectsan opportunity cost—the equivalent of what thefirm could have earned elsewhere, by investing in financialassets instead of in production. Owners of thefirm always have the option of investing their savingsin the purchase of securities that yield interest ordividends and capital gains. By investing, instead, inproduction, they expect to earn at least the equivalentof what they could earn in the foregone investmentopportunities. In effect, the owners of firms aremerely lending their capital funds to themselves insteadof to others. Furthermore, it makes no difference ifthe firm, in addition to investing its owners 1 savings,also borrows the savings of others via the financialmarkets: in both cases it will want to earn at leastthe equivalent of alternative earning possibilities.III.Uncertainty and InflationWe said at the start that the profit marginconsists not only of a time-preference or pure interestcomponent, but also of "entrepreneurial" and "purchasingpower" components. The entrepreneurial component is256

included because of the hazards and risks faced by thefirm due to the uncertainty of selling successfully inthe market. The purchasing-power component is includedbecause of changes in the value of money that arerelated to changes in the money supply and general pricelevel.Uncertainty and Changing PPMIf we were living in an imaginary world devoidof any uncertainty and risk, and in which the purchasingpower of money ("PPM" hereafter) was perfectly stable,the profit margin could then consist only of pure interest.In the real world, however, there are no risklessmarkets or stable PPM.Instead, there is constant uncertainty of marketdemand and selling conditions, and the PPM is subject todepreciation due to government monetary inflation andrising price levels. Both market uncertainty and changesin PPM affect ex-ante planning and ex-post salesexperience in unpredictable ways and, therefore, compelthe firm to provide against adverse effects by appropriateprovision for both entrepreneurial and PPM componentsin the planned profit margin.Impact of Uncertain DemandHow does market uncertainty influence the firm'sex-ante planning of its profit margin? In our precedingillustration we had the firm earning a $13,000 profit oneach unit sold at $100,000, representing a 15 percentreturn on a two-year production project. But this assumedcertainty of sales—that the firm would actuallysell every unit produced (say, 2 00 units) at the expectedselling price of $100,000. Such certainty ofsales is possible only in the unreal world of static,unchanging market conditions in which the firm has completeknowledge of market demand and exactly how manyunits to produce.However, unchanging market conditions do notexist in the real world, where demand and supply are inconstant dynamic flux and market-clearing prices becomeunpredictable. In a world of market uncertainty andunpredictability, ex-post realized sales may or may notturn out as planned in the ex-ante. How does thisuncertainty prospect affect ex-ante profit planning?257

Impact of Reduced SalesSuppose, for instance, that the firm wants tohedge against the possibility that it will not sell allof its 200 units, in which case it would have to slashits price in order to sell out the remaining unsoldunits. Such a prospect would, of course, also reducethe expected profit rate of $13,000 per unit. In orderto minimize the effects of these adverse prospects onprofits, the firm can, say, add a five percent marginfor uncertainty and thereby enlarge its ex-ante plannedprofit rate from 15 to 20 percent. In principle, thisincrease in profit rate can be sought in two ways: (a)by lowering the ceiling on its unit costs from $87,000to $83,000 (discount factor 0.833 multiplied by$100,000), or (b) by raising its expected selling priceto about $103,700. Or it could plan a combination of(a) and (b). Its final choice will, of course, dependon whether it can effectively reduce its unit costs orwhether, in its judgment, the market demand is inelasticagainst a price increase. In any case, the greater theuncertainty and risk attached to a given project, thelarger will be the entrepreneurial component of the exanteprofit margin.If market demand is seriously disappointing,quantities sold will be less than expected, sellingprices will have to be slashed, and profits will be lessthan expected. The drop in profits may either be slightor so great as to wipe out the profit margin or evenprevent the firm from recouping some of its factoroutlays.Impact of Excess DemandOf course, the market could throw a pleasantsurprise by having demand exceed the firm's expectations.For example, assume demand increases at the sametime that product is being released to the market,resulting in an excess demand for the product. As wesaw in Chapter VIII, the firm might be able to spot thisincipient shortage fairly early in the selling period,and decide to raise its price to take advantage of theunanticipated bulge in demand for its product. If so,its ex-post profit margin would surely exceed its exanteplanned margin due to the emergence of entrepreneurialprofit.258

Thus, we see that the entrepreneurial profitcomponent enters into the picture only after the firmmakes due allowance for pure interest or time — preference.It can emerge both in the ex-ante planning phaseand in the ex-post selling phase. In view of inevitableand pervasive market uncertainty, the entrepreneurialcomponent must be regarded as a categorical element ofthe firm's profit margin. But whereas the pure-interestcomponent is always positive, the entrepreneurial componentcan be either positive or negative.Impact of InflationFinally, the firm's profit margin must make dueallowance for prospective changes in the purchasingpower of money (PPM), especially in periods of rising orfalling prices. Since we are living in an "age ofinflation" marked by rising prices and shrinking PPM, itis reasonable for the firm to anticipate a decline inPPM by the time its product is selling on the market.Rising prices and declining PPM, in turn, mean that thedollar buys less and less as time goes by. Failure toallow for this inflation effect in the profit marginwill, other things being equal, yield profits whose realpurchasing power is less than planned.In order to minimize the inflation impact on thepurchasing power of its ex-post profits, the firm willinclude an inflation component in its ex-ante profitmargin. The size of this PPM component will vary, ofcourse, with the anticipated rate of inflation: thehigher the rate of price inflation anticipated, thelarger will be the inflation component, and the largerwill be the ex-ante profit margin. So long as inflationis anticipated, the firm will hedge against it by inflatingits profit margin.But this can be a hazardous game. There is noguarantee that the anticipated market demand will increasesufficiently to absorb the inflated profitmargin. As we saw in Chapter VIII, increases in sellingprices can be realized only when market demand is increasingfaster than market supply. If for any reasonsuch buoyant demand is checked, or even slowed down, theroof can cave in; market demand will resist the inflatedselling prices and the firm will fail to realize anticipatedsales.259

Market Rates of InterestAt this point we should note that market ratesof interest charged in the loan market will tend toreflect entrepreneurial risk and PPM considerations aswell as pure interest rates. Thus, market rates ofinterest will tend to increase not only when subjectivetime - preference increases, but also when investmentsbecome riskier and when price-inflation intensifies.For this reason the loan-market rate of interest willtend to reflect gross profit margins in the economy.IV.The Tail That Wags the DogIn a sense, the preceding is merely prelude. Inthe present section we draw a variety of implications ofboth economic and general significance that follow fromthe preceding sections. Human action in the "economic"spheres of production and exchange is merely aparticular expression of principles of human action ingeneral. We have already argued this with respect tothe maximizing principle and self-interest. We nowargue similarly with respect to the implications of thepreceding discussion of time - preference and profitplanning.Futurity of Human ActionA moment's reflection should make us realize howextensively man's goals and actions—be they centered onconsumption or production—apply to the future, near orremote. We have seen again and again that the firm'sproduction decisions are always made in the present withan eye to the future. But this principle applies as wellto virtually the entire realm of human decisions, notonly to economic affairs. Other things being equal, theonly difference among goals is how far each one reachesinto the future. Many goals pertain to the very nearfuture, while others are posted in the remote future.By contrast to the future, the present permits man timeto do but two things: (a) make choices of future goals,and (b) apply means for the accomplishment of thosegoals.Economics as such cannot tell us anything aboutthe making of ex-ante choices, except that they areindividual or subjective and that, except where man hasfull knowledge of the data related to his decisions,choices cannot be made with certainty of outcome in a260

world universally subject to changing conditions anduncertainty. Thus, economists as such are no more qualifiedthan anyone else to advise people on what decisionsto make in their personal or business affairs.However, with respect to the application of means forthe achieving of goals or ends, economics is qualifiedto assert certain principles of universal relevance.Imputation Process;Ends and MeansThe first significant implication is the existenceof an imputation process, a general process bywhich value is ascribed from one source to another.More precisely, the imputation process describes howmeans or resources acquire value from the value attachedto the product they help produce or the goals they helprealize. As a general principle, people value the meansat their disposal strictly according to the value theyattach to the given end which the means can achieve.In the case of the firm, the discounted presentvalue attached to current outlays on factors of productionis an example of an "imputed" value—a valuederived from a prime source, the expected future sellingprice of the product to be produced by labor and otherfactors. For example, the value of a bricklayer's labor(e.g., his hourly wage rate) is imputed from the valueof the building he helps build. Similarly, the value ofmachinery in a factory depends on the value of the steelor automobiles it helps produce. As a general principle,the greater the value attached to a future productor other goal, the greater the value that can be imputedto the means employed in achieving the given end.Capital ValueThis helps us understand the technical conceptof capital value. "Capital values" are involved wheneveryou hear questions like these: What is the valueof a given piece of land? What is the value of a givenbuilding that consists of office-space or residentialapartments? What is the value of a given piece ofmachinery? In each case, the general answer is thesame: The value of these capital goods depends on thevalue of the product or service they can help produce.Thus, land that is sitting on major oil deposits will bevalued more than land suitable only for cattle-grazing.Machinery that is useful for producing automobiles will261

e valued more than machinery useful only for makingmotorcycles. In the case of buildings, let us imaginethe following case.Assume an office building has been put up forsale. What price can its owner expect to get for it?What price should the potential buyer be willing to payfor it? In both cases, Table V can help. Basically, weneed to know the following: (a) the physical durabilityof the building, specifically the years of "life" leftin it; (b) the estimated total rent (income) expectedfrom occupants of the building during the remaininglifetime of the building; and (c) the rate of profit thebuyer seeks to earn on the funds invested in the building.For illustrative purposes let us assume that (a)is 20 years, (b) is $40 million, and (c) is 10 percent.(Let us also assume there are no risk and PPM elementsinvolved in the deal.) Given this basic information,the following Table V helps us derive the capital valueof the building, which then can serve as the price to benegotiated between seller and buyer.TABLE VPresent Discounted Value of a One-Dollar AnnuityEnd of Year3%5%10%15%20%123451015203040500.971.912.833.724.588.5311.914.919.623.125.70.951.862.723.554.337.7210.412.515.417.218.30.911.732.483.163.796.147.608.519.439.789.910.871.632.282.863.355.025.876.236.576.646.660.831.532.112.592.994.194.684.874.985.005.00262

An IllustrationIn consulting Table V, we locate the desiredinformation by scanning across the 20-year line until wespot the factor 8.51 in the 10 percent column. Thisfactor is a present discounted value, compounded annually.It tells us that it is worth paying $8.51 today foran annuity that promises to pay one dollar annually forthe next 20 years, that is, a total income of $20,stretched out evenly over 20 years (i.e., $1 each year,hence called "annuity").How do we apply this tabular information to ourproblem? Since the estimated expected total income is$40 million, and assuming this income will be evenlydistributed over the 20-year period, we therefore havean investment that promises to yield $2 million a year(equivalent to 2 million one-dollar annuities). Bymultiplying the factor of 8.51 and 2 million, we arriveat a capital value of $17,020,000. This means that aninvestment today of $17,020,000 (a) would yield a 10percent return when taken in the form of $2 million ayear over 20 years, totalling $40 million, and (b)$17,020,000 is the top price the buyer should offer forthe building. Of course, less should be offered ifthere is any risk attached to the investment.A DefinitionWe can now define capital value without too muchdifficulty: it is the present discounted value imputedto a stock of productive assets or factors that isexpected to yield its owner a stream of earnings over agiven future period. The concept applies to any durablegood whose future earnings can be estimated. It alsoapplies to securities, such as stock, which representshares of ownership in the capital assets of a firm,and, hence, are a claim to a share of its earnings(i.e., profits) in the form of dividends.Capital Losses, Capital GainsWhat would happen to capital values if estimatesof future earnings of the asset increased or decreased?This question is very relevant in a dynamic real worldof perpetual flux in prices and earnings. This bringsus to the twin concepts of "capital gains" and "capitallosses." Suppose that, in the case of our 20-year263

uilding, while negotiations for sale/purchase areunderway, the earnings prospects suddenly drop becauseof the construction of new competitive buildings in thesame neighborhood? Say, instead of the expected $40million, prospective income is revised downward to only$32 million.Given the same desired 10 percent rate of return,we now apply the 8.51 factor to 1.6 million (i.e.,$32 million divided by 20 years) and come up with acapital value that has, to no one's surprise, dropped to$13,616,000. This drop in capital value from$17,020,000 to $13,616,000 constitutes a capital lossfor the owner of the building. He would now have toshave the price of his building in order to inducesomeone to buy it.Just as a drop in prospective earnings resultsin a lower capital value or capital loss, so does a risein prospective earnings mean a capital gain. Thus, ifthere is an increased demand for office space thatappears long-lasting, and earnings prospects increase to$50 million, say, this would bring a rise in capitalvalue to $21,275,000 and enable the owner to ask for ahigher price on the market.Share Prices and Wealth EffectsThe stock market is notorious for its dailyfluctuations in the earnings prospects of traded sharesof common stock. For this reason, the daily quotationsof share prices undergo echoing changes. When theearnings prospects of Company X spurt upward—due to avery promising new product, say—you can expect an immediateupward surge in the market price of its shares.And vice versa, if this company's earnings face a downturn,you can expect a dip in its share price. Onceagain, prospective future values determine currentvalues.Furthermore, capital losses and gains also signifycorresponding changes in one's wealth status. Evenwhen one is not actually buying or selling productiveassets or securities, it is possible to undergo a changein wealth status; so long as one owns such assets, he isvulnerable to fluctuations in their capital value.To go one step further, an increase in thecapital value and wealth of any firm represents, in264

effect, an increase in its profit rate as well. Andvice versa, an increase in its profit rate brings withit an increase in capital value and wealth. The threechange in related fashion. In any case, such are thehazards of the market: constant change in prospectiveearnings, and related changes in capital values andwealth, place a premium on being able to read theuncertain future.Imputation and MR vs. MCAlthough our illustrations of the imputationprocess have come mostly from economics and business,imputation processes apply in a general way to all humanaction. In making choices and in applying means towardachieving given ends, future value always determinespresent value; that is, the value attached to one'sgoal, purpose, or object of future enjoyment determinesthe present (albeit discounted) value of the means thatcan be applied toward achieving the given end.In our present context, a corollary implicationruns as follows: man will apply means toward the satisfactionof a goal only when the value attached to thegoal exceeds or at least equals the value attached tothe means of achieving that goal, depending on howdistant in time is the goal. Colloquially put, man willput out effort so long as the eventual payoff seemsworthwhile, or the benefit exceeds the cost. Or, conversely,man acts because the goal is sufficientlyworthwhile to warrant the cost.In the language of economics, man will act on agoal only when its marginal revenue (MR)—that is, thetotal amount of gain or benefit expected from the goal—promises to exceed or at least equal the marginal cost(MC)—that is, the total costs involved in achievingthat goal. Since MC represents current outlays, it iscalculated as a present discounted value. Therefore,the more distant the goal, the more must MR exceed MC.Also, in the case of the firm, since MR and MC consistof "batches" or "lumps" of dollars, these dollar totalsmust be divided by the number of units produced in orderto yield a unit profit margin comparable to the conceptof unit profits hitherto used.265

Derived Demand for FactorsAnother fairly obvious implication is that thefirm's demand for factors of production (labor, etc.) isa derived demand—derived from the anticipated demandfor its product. As we saw in Chapter II (Figure 4),the firm is essentially a go-between between people asdemanders of products (consumers) and people as ownersof resources (workers, etc.). In this intermediary rolethe firm relies on its estimate of future market demandas a guide to its current demand for labor and otherresources.In the case of consumers' goods, the demand forfactors is derived from the anticipated consumers' demand;in the case of producers' or capital goods, thedemand for factors is derived from other firms' demandfor capital goods. In both cases, the firm will nothire or buy services, supplies, or equipment before ithas estimated the market demand for its product. Theseestimates of market demand can be optimistic, pessimistic,or merely moderate, but in all cases the firm canbe either right or wrong, due to market uncertainty.The significance of this is that anticipatedmarket demand emerges as the ultimate determinant notonly of the quantity and selling price of the firm'sproduct but also of the quantity of resources the firmuses and the factor prices (wage rates, rent, etc.) itpays to resource owners. The quantity of resourcesused, multiplied by the prices paid to resource owners,constitutes the total cost of production as well as theincome earned by resource owners. The total costdivided by the number of units produced yields the unitor average cost (AC). It is this AC which representsthe present discounted value that the firm derives whenit "works back from price," to determine the profitablelimit to costs."Cost-of-Production" Theory of PriceA still further significant implication of theimputation principle is that it undermines the cost-ofproductiontheory of price. This popular concept wasgiven authority by classical economists of the early19th century, and was converted into the "labor theoryof value" by Marxists for partisan purposes. In responseto the traditional question in economics, "What determinesprice?", this theory has alleged that it is the266

cost of production that determines selling price. Ineffect, it is a "cost-plus" theory of pricing.With a bit of simplification, the cost theoryruns as follows: First, the firm calculates its cost ofproduction per unit of output; it then adds on a profitmargin, and voila!, it arrives at the market sellingprice. In the Marxist version, all costs boil down tobut one: labor effort expended by workers. Labor alonecreates the "value" of products that is the basis oftheir "exchange-value" in the market place. Thus marketprice is supposed to reflect the number of man-hours oflabor embodied in the product.Marxist vs. Non-Marxist VersionsMarxist proponents of the labor-value theory ofprice claim that the firm's profits represent "exploitation"because their source is the "value" created byworkers. On the other hand, non-Marxist proponents ofthe cost-theory of price allege that firms in the marketeconomy can earn profits at will. For them, profits aremerely an addendum to the costs of production, and theirsize is determined entirely at the discretion of thefirm.More precisely, firms are alleged to have thepower to "administer" prices—to raise prices wheneverthey wish to increase profit margins. This power to"administer" prices is also the core of the "cost-push"theory of price inflation, which holds that firms causeinflation merely by raising prices. The fallacy of the"administered price" concept will be discussed in ChapterXI. Here it suffices to assert that, in the realworld, firms in no way possess the magical power toincrease profit margins at will merely by raisingprices.Market Determines PricesThe general cost-of-production theory of priceruns smack against the theory of price presented in thisbook. As we have maintained all along, it is themarket, with its forces of demand and supply—and notthe firm—that is the ultimate determinant of sellingprices. In Chapters X and XI we will see even moreforcefully that it is not of ultimate importance that inpractice it is firms who post selling prices. No firm267

can regard its posted price as the ultimate sellingprice—the price at which the demander actually decidesto buy. The final selling price is entirely up to thestate of market demand and supply. And, after all, itis this final market price that really matters; theinitial price posted by the firm in the ex-ante phaseis, by the nature of the case, no more than a tentativeprice, subject to final validation by the marketplace.In no way can the firm be consoled by its ability topost a price that straightaway must face the markettest."Working Back from Price"Furthermore, we have seen in the present chapterthat far from costs determining prices—as is commonlyassumed—it is just the reverse: market price determinescosts! Before the firm can profitably decide howmuch to spend on labor, materials, rent and other costs,it must estimate the price at which it can sell itsproduct. Only after the firm has made its best estimateof the future price can it then profitably work backfrom price—that is, subtract its unit profit marginfrom the price and determine the limit to its currentoutlays or AC.This is not the place to get bogged down in thedoctrinal history of the controversy over the cost-ofproductiontheory of price and the Marxist labor theoryof value. It suffices to note that the cost theory wasmassively challenged by economists of the late 19thcentury such as W. Jevons, C. Menger, and E. von Bohm-Bawerk. By 1913, P. H. Wicksteed could confidentlyassert the victory of the "marginalist" revolutionagainst the cost-of-production theory as follows:"[T]he idea that cost of production already incurreddetermines exchange value [i.e., price] turns out to bea reversal of the true relation. It is the anticipatedvalue in exchange [i.e., expected selling price] thatdetermines what cost of production the producer will bewilling to encounter...." (underlining and bracketsmine). 33 Philip H. Wicksteed, "The Scope and Method of PoliticalEconomy in the Light of the 'Marginal' Theory of Distribution"(1913), reprinted in R. L. Smyth (ed.), Essays In Economic Method(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963), p. 249.268

Labor's Claim to ProductLet us discuss some further drawbacks of theMarxist "labor" theory of price. After this will come acritique of the more general "cost" theory of price.First of all, in the modern division of laborthere is no way that workers can legitimately claim thefull market value of the product. The reason is simple:labor is not the only resource used in production.Alongside workers are landlords, moneylenders, materialssuppliers, and equipment owners, among others. As itis, workers account for the bulk (more than 70 percent)of the national income; the remaining 30 percent goes toseveral other groups. Unincorporated business—e.g.,self-employed professionals, farmers—gets about 10 percent,while earners of profits, rent, and interest accountfor the other 2 0 percent.There is an even more important reason thatlabor cannot lay claim to the full product. On thebasis of what we said in Section II, in the case of ourcomputer firm, it is clear that the final product—the200 computers—belongs to the firm and not the workers.This is based on the nature of the exchange embodied inthe employment contract: the workers agree to offer 40hours, say, of labor in exchange for $5 per hour wages.That is to say, their only claim on the firm is $5 foreach hour worked. Therefore, since the product is ownedby the firm, the full proceeds from their sale on themarket, including the profits, belong to the firm andnot the workers. Hence, there can be no "exploitation"in the sense of taking from the workers what belongs tothe workers.True Source of ProfitsFurthermore, the true source of the profitsthemselves is the market demand for computers; moreprecisely, the expenditures made by final customers. Itis physically impossible for the firm to earn profitsfrom any other source except the customers in the marketwho like the computer enough to buy it. In no way canworkers be the source of profits when it is entirely upto the market to yield them. That is, the product mustsell out in the market place before the firm can earnprofits ^s_ expected.269

Imagine, for example, what would happen to profitsif planned sales of the computer fail to materialize.Indeed, let us assume the worst of all possibleoutcomes: not one unit is sold—the firm loses out incompetition with a rival's cheaper, superior model. Inthis extreme case, we get an interesting result:workers and other resource-owners have already gottentheir $87,000 income (in wages, rent, etc.) from thefirm's previous outlays for each unit produced—but thefirm, alas, gets no profits at all!It should be evident, therefore, that it is notthe workers' labor that is the source of profits but themarket demand. Indeed, since the market determineswhether there are profits, and how much, it is themarket that also determines whether there is "exploitation"in the Marxist sense!For example, assume that our computer firm soldall 200 units at $13,000 profit for each unit afterresource-owners had earned their $87,000 (with workersgetting $60,000, say) for each unit produced. The emergenceof profits makes this a case of "exploitation" inthe Marxist sense. But if, on the other hand, none ofthe computers was sold, yielding zero profits to thefirm, we would have to conclude that the same $60,000received by workers for each unit produced was not an"exploitation" wage after all! We thus arrive at thecurious conclusion that the deciding factor as towhether there is "exploitation" is the market! That isto say, it is the customers who, every time they like aproduct and buy it, thereby validate the firm's profitexpectations and thereby cause the workers to be"exploited"!"Labor" Unit a FictionThis brings us to the critical point: There isno such thing as a standard unit of "labor value" in thefirst place. There is no such entity that is supposedlyproduced by the worker. There are only man-hours oflabor expended on the product, the wage-rate for which—in a market economy—depends ultimately on the marketdemand for the product. The best way to see why the"labor value" unit is a fiction is to visualize thefollowing case.Imagine a self-employed worker who has no "boss"to "exploit" him, but who makes his living by producing270

and selling leather shoes for barter-exchange withothers in the market. He works some 60 hours a week,say, and produces 10 pairs per week. Thus, each pair ofshoes takes six hours of labor. On the market, he seeksto sell the shoes in exchange for sugar, candles, oils,and other consumers' goods.Theoretically, in order to give his labor auniform market value over time, our shoe craftsmanshould seek in exchange the same amount of other goodsfor each pair of shoes. That is to say, he should seekthe same "price" for each hour of labor expended on hisshoes. For example, he expects that one pair willalways fetch ten pounds of sugar, or one gallon of oil,or three dozen candles, and so on. But in practice,this expectation is rarely fulfilled. Sometimes he getsmore sugar, oil, or candles for a pair of shoes, sometimesless. In effect, the "purchasing" power of hisshoes—that is, of hours of his labor—is not stable butfluctuates from day to day.Labor's Fluctuating ValueWhat is it that causes this fluctuation in the"value" of our shoemaker's hour of labor? How is itpossible for the product of an hour of labor to fluctuatein its exchange-rate with an hour's product ofanother worker?Let us first rule out changes in the quality ofproduct; we assume the quality is uniform over time.Given this uniformity of quality in product, the shoemakerreasonably expects the same, constant exchangerate between his pair of shoes and other goods. Let usalso rule out changes in the shoemaker's subjectivevaluation of his shoes, which might induce him to sellthem at higher or lower exchange-rates because of ahigher or lower subjective value attached to his shoescompared with other goods.We will also rule out any changes in productivityor "efficiency"—in the number of shoes producedper man-hour. We assume productivity is constant: onepair produced every six hours. For example, if hisproductivity somehow increases—say, to one pair everyfive hours—his total weekly output also increases andhe can offer more pairs for each unit of other goods"purchased" in the market. Thus, his increased supplywould compel him to reduce the "price" of his shoes.271

Conversely, if his productivity declines, and he producesonly one pair every ten hours, each hour of hislabor now exchanges for less of other goods. It is asthough he had raised the "price" of his shoes relativeto that of other goods. All this we assume away.Role of Market Demand and SupplyThere remains only one possible answer as to whyhis hour of labor fluctuates in exchange-rate with othergoods: fluctuations in market conditions of demand andsupply. And we do not mean changing conditions in theshoe market alone, but in all other goods markets aswell. As we saw in the preceding chapter, shiftingdemand and supply conditions bring on changes in price.It makes no difference whether it is a barter economy ora money economy: shifting D and S conditions will causechanges in exchange-values or "price relationships"between one good and another.For example, in a monetary economy, the changesin "price" occur in the changed exchange-rates betweenunits of money and units of other goods—for example,the exchange-rate or price of beer can go from one canfor 20 cents to one can for 30 cents. Similarly, in thebarter economy, the exchange-rate or price commanded bya pair of shoes can go from one pair for one gallon ofoil to one pair for a half-galIon of oil.Thus, the market emerges as the primary cause ofchanges in the exchange-value of an hour of labor and,hence, is the ultimate determinant of the market valueof a labor hour. And, as far as the market is concerned,it makes no difference whether the worker is"his own boss" or works for a firm; it is the marketthat determines the "price" commanded by any given productand, indirectly, determines the value attached tolabor (or any other factor input) as well as the size ofthe profit rate.Workers' Control of FirmsOtherwise, in the free-market economy—whichwill be further analyzed in detail in the next chapter—workers are totally free to abandon their role ofalleged "wage-slaves" and themselves undertake theentrepreneurial role of the firm. This they can do byorganizing their own firm under so-called workers'272

control; they can pool their savings, or borrow thesavings of others through the financial institutions,and invest these savings in their own firm. But evenso, they would themselves then have to make currentoutlays for wages and other factor payments, and to waituntil their product is completed and sold before theycould recoup their expenditures and earn profits forthemselves.Since, in fact, workers do not generally rush tobuy out existing firms or establish new onesthemselves—in order to specialize as entrepreneursthemselves—we can conclude that they prefer the existingdivision of labor between themselves as "workers"and others as "firms." Whereas the firm must wait forits returns (profits), the worker gets his payoff now,without waiting. He prefers to take his money and run,as the saying goes. Thus, those who have relativelyhigh time preference will tend to be attracted to therole of the "worker," whereas those with relatively lowtime preference will tend to be the savers and"capitalists" who invest their own wealth in production.That is, the latter look upon their investment in firmsas the means of achieving a future consumption that isgreater than if they had not saved and invested.Costs Are "Prices"Now, as for the general cost theory of price, ittoo is heir to all the objections levelled against theMarxist labor-theory of value. In addition, it is embarrassedby an economic truth: costs are themselves"prices." A wage-rate for labor is a price; so is renta price; materials costs, too, resolve themselves intoprices. And in every case these factor prices aredetermined by the same market forces of demand andsupply that determine consumers' goods prices. Thus, itis circular reasoning to argue that factor costs explainmarket price when these costs are themselves determinedby the very same market forces they are supposed toexplain in the first place!Market Determines Wage-RatesThe dependence of factor prices and costs onmarket demand and supply can be exemplified by the wagerate—theprice paid for labor. In Figure 31 we see howthe hourly wage-rate would be determined by marketD and S.273

WAGE 8RATEPERHOUR 7NUMBER OF WORKERSFIGURE 31:MARKET DETERMINATION OF WAGE-RATE.274

To simplify the exposition, let us assume a 40-hour work week. The demand schedule relates to thefirms; it reflects their demand for workers—the numberof jobs they would offer at various wage-rates. Itpossesses the characteristic slope downward from left toright, which means that, other things being equal, moreworkers would be employed only at lower wage-rates, andfewer workers would be employed at higher rates of pay.On the other hand, the supply schedule relatesto the workers: its verticality indicates that, at thegiven moment, there is a fixed number of workers who areseeking to work a 40-hour work week. But each workerhas his own minimum "reservation price"—the minimumwage-rate below which he will not accept work. Thus,the hourly wage-rates acceptable to workers run from aslow as $1.50 on up.Cause of "Unemployment"How does the market determine the wage-rate in agiven field? Figure 31 says that any worker seeking ajob can find one if he limits his wage demand to $5 anhour or less. The $5 rate would exactly clear themarket: at this wage, the number of workers seekingjobs (X) is just equal to the number of jobs beingoffered (X). But at any higher wage-rate, say $7,workers would be inviting some unemployment: while thenumber of workers seeking jobs remains X, the number ofworkers being sought by firms has dropped to A, causingunemployment for AX workers. Clearly, at $7 the workerswould be overpricing themselves, and as we saw in ChapterVIII, overpricing leads to unsold surplus which, inthe case of workers, means "unemployment." Unemploymentis the market's way of penalizing the overpricing oflabor—the way it limits wage demands made by workers.At first glance, it is the demander—the individualfirm—which decides the highest wage-rate it iswilling to pay, a limit it establishes as a result of"working back" from the expected selling price of itsproduct. All firms together, therefore, comprise themarket demand for labor. But, since firms are merelyintermediaries between consumers and resource-owners,they come to realize sooner or later that it is theconsumer who ultimately determines the limit to thewage-rate payable to workers.275

Factor Costs Are Opportunity CostsThe cost-theory of price is mired in circularreasoning for another reason. The "costs" of producinga given good X are essentially opportunity costs; theyreflect foregone opportunities, i.e., the other thingsthat the given resources could produce if they were notused in producing X. Where technology permits, resourcesare generally useful in the production of avariety of goods. Labor, indeed, is the most nonspecificresource of all, since it can be applied inproducing an infinite variety of goods and services. Inlesser degrees, the same is true for land, materials,and many types of equipment. They are all more or lesscapable of serving diverse production purposes. Forthis reason, their utilization in producing any givengood necessarily involves an opportunity cost. Indeed,the "opportunity cost" concept is made relevant preciselybecause of the diverse or non-specific uses towhich resources can be applied.Furthermore, the opportunity cost itself ismeasurable in terms of the earnings which the firm—orthe resource-owners themselves—could have earned fromusing their resources in alternative uses. The marketenables us to place a market value ("price") on thealternative goods and services that could have beenrendered with the given resources. Hence, for the firm,the "costs" of producing X merely reflect the potentialprofits from foregone opportunities to produce and sellother things. For the resource-owner, the "cost" ofoffering his resource to the producer of X reflects theearnings he could have received in some alternativeproduction program.To be more precise, the firm will employresources for producing X only when it expects to earnmore this way than using the resources to produce Y, Z,etc. Similarly, the resource-owner will offer his goodsor services to the firm producing X only when he canreceive more from this firm than he can receive fromproducers of Y, Z, etc. Thus, a producer of motorcycleswill stick to producing them rather than motorized bicyclesso long as—other things being equal—earningsfrom the former exceed potential earnings from the latter.Similarly, a design engineer will stick to his jobat General Motors rather than switch to Ford so longas—other things being equal—his salary at GM exceedsthe salary offered by Ford.276

What Determines Opportunity Costs?Although the concept of "opportunity cost" isvalid as far as it goes, it nevertheless prompts us toask: Doesn't this concept itself beg the question?Indeed, there are several additional questions that begfor answers.First, what determines the value of the givenresources in their alternative, foregone uses? Forexample, if the value of resources used in making motorcyclesis related to their value in making motorizedbikes, it is proper to ask: What, then, determinestheir value in making motor bikes? This raises a secondquestion: Why is the producer of X induced to use thegiven resources in making X rather than in making Y, Z,etc. Also, a third question: What induces GeneralMotors to pay its design engineer a higher salary thanhe can get at Ford?To the first question, the answer could verywell be as follows: The present discounted value ofresources used in making motor bikes is, as we have seenabove, determined by the market price that demanders arewilling to pay. Essentially the same answer pertains tothe second question: The market demand and price forproduct X are presumably more attractive than in thecase of product Y, Z, etc. An additional answer couldbe this: The firm is more efficient—is able to achievelower unit costs—in making X than in making otherproducts. This increased efficiency enables it to earna higher profit margin. Both of these answers are alsorelevant to the third question: Either the greaterdemand and price for GM automobiles enables GM to payits design engineer a higher salary than can Ford, orGM's greater efficiency and profit margin enable it todo so.ConclusionWhat could have been a relatively narrow discussionof profits has turned into an economic Odysseythrough the world of time and time - preference, pureinterest, risk, and inflation—to say nothing ofimputation processes, capital values, opportunity costsand the labor theory of value. From the simple conceptof "production takes time" we went a long way to showthat present values mirror future values. But this is277

in the nature of things. It is the "tail" of the futurethat wags the "dog" of today; tomorrow's expected benefitsinduce or warrant the incurring of today's costs.The "future" and "today," it turns out, are linkedinextricably in terms of benefit and cost.278

CHAPTER XTHE CONSUMERS 1SOVEREIGNTY PROBLEMConsumers' sovereignty may be the centralpolitical-economic issue facing people in modern society.The question of consumers' sovereignty is notmerely an empirical one—a question of whether the consumeris actually "king" in the market place, or to whatextent the consumer exercizes any "sovereignty." Themore important question is the normative one: Shouldthe consumer be "sovereign" in the market? In thischapter we will understand why the consumer should be"sovereign," and how this "sovereignty" could be madeoptimal. We will then see why consumers' sovereignty isnot only crucial in a free society but may also be oneof the central issues facing all of modern society.The "Matching" ProblemTwo basic facts lie at the root of moderneconomic systems. One fact is essentially natural andeconomic: the primary purpose of production is consumption.Man engages in production primarily or ultimatelyonly for the purpose of producing the consumers'goods he wants, including the capital goods with whichto produce the consumers' goods. As Adam Smith put itin The Wealth of Nations, "Consumption is the sole andend purpose of all production...." 1Alongside this, however, is a great sociological-historicalfact: man has become predominantlydependent on specialization and the social division oflabor (hereafter termed POL, for short) characterized byits elaborate system of exchange transactions amongspecialists of all types (recall the analysis above inChapters II-IV).Since man's primary purpose in production is thecreation of desired consumers' goods, the logical arrangementwould be one in which people, as producers,are producing or helping to produce things that theyAdam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library,1937), p. 625.279

themselves want to consume. That is to say, it wouldseem reasonable that there should be a correspondence ormatching between people's demands and the quantity,variety, and quality of goods that get produced.Wherein, then, lies the modern problem? It lies in thefact that people are, by and large, no longer engaged inproducing directly for themselves; instead, they dependon others to organize the sphere of production and sellgoods to them. As a consequence, there arises thematching problem.Households vs. FirmsThe modern social DOL, as we saw in Chapter IV,characteristically created a functional separation withrespect to production. The functional separationemerged historically when households relinquished tofirms the special task of organizing production so thatfirms became the "producers" while household membersspecialized both as owners of resources (labor, land,etc.) and as "consumers." The advantages were unquestionable:Firms have been better able than householdsto take advantage of the immense economies accruing tolarge-scale productive methods, and these gains werethen shared with households in the form of tremendousoutput at lower costs and prices.However, the overwhelming consequence of theseparation of production from households under the DOLis the matching problem, whose outlines are drawn inFigure 32. (This is a duplicate of Figure 2 in ChapterII.) Formerly households combined all three economicfunctions within a single social unit—that is, thefunctions of owning the means to produce, production,and consumption. Now, in the DOL, we find productionconcentrated, by and large, within the framework offirms who have become the "producers," while the othertwo functions, naturally, still reside with the households.Since households by definition include everyonein society, they naturally include all the owners ofresources and consumers. This gives rise to a problemof the first magnitude: How can households influencefirms to produce what households want as consumers—inthe quantities, variety, and quality they want?Interdependent RelationshipsOnce again, what are the primary relations280

1igs281

etween households and firms, as shown in Figure 32?For one thing, firms are necessarily dependent on householdsfor the supply of labor, loanable funds, and otherresources. Without these resources, firms simply cannotproduce the consumers' goods they want to sell to households.This brings us to a second dependent relationship:the firms' dependence on consumers' demand as themarket for their consumers' goods output. These twolines of dependence are shown by the two inner lines inFigure 32. Vitally related to these two inner lines arethe two outer (dashed) lines, which represent monetarycounterparts—the upper dashed line being the wages,interest and other income payments made to resourcesowners, while the lower dashed line is the consumers'payments for goods purchased from firms.On the other hand, in what ways are householdsdependent on firms? Clearly, since households no longerserve as the locus of production, they now must look tothe firms to produce for them the things they onceproduced themselves. Thus, there emerges in the DOL amutual interdependence between households and firms.But beneath it all smolders the basic matching problem:How can households influence firms in producing thethings that households want but which they no longerproduce for themselves?Optimizing the MatchThere is another way of viewing the matchingproblem: How can society minimize the likelihood ofmismatch between what consumers want and what firmsactually produce? In the modern DOL, the likelihood ofsuch mismatch is ever-present. Let us briefly reviewthe argument.As abundantly described in earlier chapters,firms naturally cannot possess perfect knowledge ofmarket demand in a world of constant change. They haveto chart their way in the market with varying degrees ofignorance and uncertainty. Thus there can be no guaranteethat what firms produce at any given time matchesexactly what consumers want. Thus it would seem to bedesirable to create social arrangements that would beable to minimize the likelihood of mismatch—or, conversely,to optimize the correspondence between whatconsumers want and what firms actually produce. Whatwould these optimal social arrangements look like? Thisis the central question which this chapter addresses.282

When Mismatch Is RareIt is ironic that the matching problem simplycould not exist in Crusoe-like self-subsistence with itssmall-scale peasant families, clans, or tribes. True,such economies were characterized by primitive technology,low productivity, and low living standards, withtheir poverty, disease, and misery. But as to modernproblems of "mismatch" between households and firms—between what people want and what actually getsproduced? None of those! In the world of self-subsistence,what the people wanted they produced for themselves.The variety of goods produced may have beennarrow and quantity meager, but at least there was adirect correspondence between goods produced and goodsdesired. How could it be otherwise when product was fordirect use of producers themselves and not for sale inthe market place.Nor does the matching problem pertain when goodsare made to custom-order. Whether it is a suit ofclothing, a house, an automobile, or an industrial product—components,equipment, or buildings—the customer'sspecifications and instructions to the producerminimize the likelihood of mismatch between what isordered and what is actually produced. Even though theproducer here is not the same person as the consumer,customized production can, by mutual agreement, achieveminimal or zero mismatch.Similarly, in the area of services provided bydoctors, lawyers, mechanics, and other professionals andartisans, the direct arrangements between consumer andproducer enable a minimizing of mismatch. Finally, doit-yourselfactivities by the householder who does hisown repairs, maintenance, building, or other productiveactivities for his own direct use, permit a like degreeof correspondence.High Price of Self-SubsistenceNevertheless, Crusoe and other self-subsistenceor direct-use modes of economy come at a very high cost—isolated existence, primitive science and technology,low levels of production, and impoverished living standards.Man working with only primitive tools facesnature almost alone with bare hands. The existence heekes out is meager in quantity and variety. So, whilehe suffers no correspondence problem, he suffers the283

threat of infertile soil and poor crops. And his technologicalbackwardness narrows his scope of adjustmentto alternative varieties of product and methods ofproduction.Yet, in contrast, the modern social division oflabor (DOL)—with its ever-expanding exchange andproduction, application of science and technology, anduse of money—inherently posits the matching problem.Therefore, to the extent that people become involved inthe modern DOL, to that extent will the matching problemaffect their interpersonal transactions, and to that extentdoes the crucial question become: How can people,as consumers, exert optimal influence over firms toproduce the things they want? How can firms be mademost responsive to consumers' preferences?The State and Planners' PreferencesIn this connection it is important to note thatunder socialism--especially in highly centralized modelslike the U.S.S.R.—the matching problem becomes irrelevantas far as the ruling party is concerned, eventhough such systems rely more or less on extensivedivision of labor. In the rulers' eyes, the state mustmaintain a total monopoly of production, includingownership of all physical resources used in production,and power to control all incomes and prices. In contrast,householders, shorn of property rights in themeans of production, are not permitted access to ownsuch means in order to produce for themselves what thestate's enterprises fail to provide. As far as thestate is concerned, the only recourse left to the consumeris simply not to buy—to do without.True, the consumer living under socialism canexercise more or less freedom of choice in his marketpurchases—freedom to choose from among the existingarray of goods produced for him by the state. Butthat's all. His "freedom" is limited in the most confinedsense: He has no alternative but to buy or not tobuy what the state proffers.In this connection it should be noted that evenin so-called free-market countries such as the UnitedStates, there are areas in which the matching problemalso becomes irrelevant. For example, to the extentthat the government intervenes into the economy to provideso-called public goods, such statist production284

necessarily competes for scarce resources and divertsthem from the free-market sector that is consumer oriented.Since consumers are taxed and thereby forced topay for public goods—goods that are by definition notsubject to the free-market test of voluntary purchase—they are denied effective influence over what getsproduced.Optimizing Consumers' InfluenceThus far we have mainly described the nature ofthe matching problem and why it is peculiar to themodern DOL. We have also indicated why it is a cruciallyimportant problem: because of the natural primacy ofconsumption as the purpose of production. Thus, to theextent that people are concerned about the primacy ofconsumption and in optimizing their influence over producersas to what ultimately gets produced, to thatextent it becomes relevant to find an answer to thecentral intellectual problem imbedded in the matchingproblem: Under which conditions would it be possible tooptimize the influence of consumers over what ultimatelygets produced by the firms? That is, what socialpoliticalconditions—philosophy and ideals, on the onehand, and institutions and practices, on the other—would enable consumers to exert optimal influence overthe assortment of goods ultimately produced? Alternatively,what conditions are required to make firms mostresponsive to consumers' wishes?Information and MotivationGiven the nature of the problem, some basicmethodological considerations are in order. For onething, required is some efficient mechanism for thetransmission of information to firms about consumers'preferences—as to what consumers want and as to whethertheir wants are being satisfied. Required is a vehiclethat will reveal consumers' preferences to the firms, sothat the latter are guided as to what to produce, howmuch, and at what price. In other words, there mustbe an efficient method for "getting the message" fromconsumers to firms. Let us call this the informationrequirement. 2A major work on the vital interdependence of the marketpricesystem, information generation, and freedom, is by ThomasSowell, Knowledge and Decisions (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,1980).285

The second basic consideration involves incentives—themotivation of firms to produce according torevealed consumers' preferences. Specifically requiredis an incentive system that, on the one hand, providesrewards to firms that cater successfully to consumers'wishes and, on the other hand, penalizes them for failureto do so. The rewards must be sufficiently great inthe long run to induce the firm to persevere despiteshort-term fumblings and setbacks. Initial difficultiesare sure to confront the firm in its entrepreneurialventures in the seas of competition and uncertaindemand. The rewards must be large enough to justify thefirms' plans to survive and prosper.On the other hand, punishment for failure tocater successfully to consumers must be severe enough todeter firms from ever believing that they could get awaywith putting out less than their best effort at alltimes. No matter how successful in the past, firms mustbe deterred from resting on their laurels; they must bekept on their toes. Good reputations must be deserved,not guaranteed. We will call this system of rewards andpenalties the incentive requirement.The Meaning of "Optimum"Before proceeding, the meaning of "optimum"consumers' influence should be explained. Above all,"optimum" calls for the listing of as many conditions asnecessary to satisfy the requirements for optimal consumers' influence.Second, "optimum" does not mean that firms mustproduce exactly what people want. Not even in the bestof real worlds would such optimality be possible in thesocial DOL. We can only define an "optimum" for therealm of the possible. Real-world firms cannot escapemaking decisions under conditions of uncertain demand.Thus we must allow for the likelihood that there will besome mismatch between what consumers want and what firmsactually produce.Nor does "optimum" mean maximum quantity ofoutput. The matching problem is not about quantities ofgoods produced. Rather, it is concerned with theproblems faced by firms seeking to produce whatconsumers want under conditions of the modern divisionof labor.286

Consumers' Dollar BallotsThe first step in our journey to discover theoptimal conditions for consumers' influence over firmsis realization of the key role played by the so-calledconsumers' dollar ballot—the dollar votes cast by consumersevery time they buy something in the market. (Itis represented by the bottom dashed line in Figure 32.)At first glance, it might seem reasonable to beskeptical about the ultimate significance of the consumers'dollar ballots. After all, consumers typicallyspend their money on goods that have already been producedby the firm. Typically, consumers come into themarket only to find that producers have already anticipatedtheir desires by proffering products for the consumers'inspection and purchase. That is, firms do notwait for direct orders by consumers to tell them what toproduce, how much, and at what price. They go ahead andproduce in advance what they in their entrepreneurialjudgment think people will want to buy. As we saw inChapter IV, it is a system of "production first...buying later," so to speak. So, how can consumers'dollar ballots make for consumers' sovereignty after thefact, so to speak?The fact remains that firms, precisely becausethey "produce first," are in a sense sticking theircollective necks out for inspection by consumers, thelatter being placed in the role of a final judge who hasthe power to accept or turn down what the firms proffer—to ratify and validate, or to veto and condemn. Ifconsumers like what firms offer them, they will buy;otherwise they will not buy. In the modern DOL itcannot be otherwise. No matter whether it is capitalismor socialism, this is the predominant economic-sociologicalfact. To paraphrase Alchian and Allen, firmstypically "proffer" goods, but it is the consumer whodecides which goods to "prefer." 3 That is to say,consumers, after all, do have the final say. It remainsfor the consumer to decide whether the output of firmspasses muster.Armen A. Alchian and William R. Allen, Exchange andProduction (Belmont, Ca.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1969), pp. 142,143.287

Dimensions of CompetitionOn what basis do consumers vote aye or nay onthe goods proffered in the market? Primarily on thebasis of price, quality, and variety. For any givenquality of product, consumers prefer to buy at thelowest price. For any given price line, consumersprefer to obtain the highest quality. Finally, consumerslook with favor upon firms that anticipate consumers' tastes by producing an increasing variety ofgoods. In this way, price, quality, and variety are notonly the main yardsticks by which consumers measure thepopularity of firms, but they are also the main dimensionsof competition among firms. That is, the abilityof firms to survive and grow depends vitally on theircompeting successfully in terms of lower prices, betterquality, and differentiation of product.Economic Democracy andProportional RepresentationThus, consumers 1 voting with dollar ballots convertsthe market place, in effect, into a kind of economicdemocracy. Consumers 1 ballots are the means bywhich consumers indicate whether they like the job beingdone by firms and whether firms are catering successfullyto their preferences. It is presumed that so longas consumers buy a firm's product, to that extent theyshow satisfaction with the firm's efforts. Conversely,when they do not buy its product, they are indicatingdissatisfaction.Thus, consumers' dollar ballots serve as the informationmechanism through which consumers' preferencesare transmitted to firms. It follows that output byfirms will increase where consumers' dollars flow, andwill decrease where consumers' spending dries up. Inthis way the array of goods and services produced forthe market will constitute a kind of "proportional representation"of consumers' preferences.In its working as an "economic democracy," themarket is not to be judged by the subjective standardsof any one arbiter, be they aesthetic, philosophical, orreligious. The issue is not whether the market producestoo much or too little of "culture," "material" goods,or rock music. So long as people buy what they thinksatisfies them, to that extent firms are producing whatthe people want.288

Profit-and-Loss SystemFurthermore, consumers' dollar ballots play asecond vital role: They directly determine the profitsand losses of firms! When consumers buy, firms willearn profits, and when they sit on their hands, firmswill suffer losses. More precisely, only when peoplebuy at the price and in the quantities initially set byfirms will firms earn the expected profit rate. Otherwise,profit rates will be squeezed, or even losses maybe incurred—that is, firms may fail to cover theiraverage cost-per-unit of product. In this way consumers'dollar votes directly determine the economic fate offirms.Seen from the individual firm's point of view,consumer dollar ballots determine whether the firm reapsprofits or losses. However, from the point of view ofthe market system as a. whole, the casting of consumerballots creates a profit-and-loss system. While somefirms succeed in reaping the expected profits, otherssuffer disappointing earnings or losses. Although allfirms seek profits, not all succeed. As long as it ispossible for any given firm to suffer losses, there isno guarantee of profits."Consumers' Sovereignty"This brings us to the crux. To the extent thatthe very survival and growth of the firm depend vitallyon its ability to earn profits and avoid losses, to thatextent does the consumers' dollar ballot determine thevery fate of the firm. Indeed, to the extent that theonly way for the firm to survive is by earning profits,to that extent does the consumer achieve "sovereignty"in the market place."Sovereignty" is really not the best word forwhat is meant here; the dictionary defines it as rule ordominion over others, whereas what is meant here isoptimal influence by means of the consumers' dollarballots over what firms produce. Nevertheless,sovereignty is the term customarily used in economics,and we will hereafter use it, Sor convenience, to standfor the consumers' ability to determine ultimately whatfirms produce. Thus, our original task can be restatedas a search for those conditions that will optimizeconsumers' sovereignty in the market.289

Production for Use...for ProfitAt this point it is appropriate to lay at restan old cliche that the free market is inferior to thesocialist economy because the former is merely a systemof production for profit whereas socialism is productionfor use. The implication is that firms in the freemarket, being primarily motivated by profits, try tomake profits by any means possible, by hook or crook,and the consumer be damned. In contrast, socialistfirms are allegedly motivated primarily by the desire toproduce useful commodities, with profits being a secondaryor non-existent consideration. Yet it doesn't takemuch to realize that the cliche "production for profit"versus "production for use" involves a fallaciousdichotomy, to wit.There is no doubt the free market is productionfor profit, but it does not necessarily follow that itcannot, in the same breath, be a system of productionfor use. Indeed, history has amply shown that only byproducing goods that consumers think are useful canfirms earn profits and stay in business. Clearly, itwould be inconceivable that firms could survive byproducing shoddy goods or anything less than usefulcommodities. Furthermore, history reveals that onlypaternalistic protection by the state—in the form oftariffs, subsidies and bailouts—has enabled firms tosurvive even though consumers themselves had alreadyrejected the firms for failing to compete successfullyfor their dollars.Profits Under SocialismIn this connection we should note that profitsexist under socialism, too—both in theory and inpractice—although they are called something else.Marx's vision of socialism distinctly called for aprofit margin to be earned by state enterprises. In theU.S.S.R., Soviet economists even boast that socialistprofits are native to socialism and not an imitation ofcapitalism. Nevertheless, a profit margin by any othername is still a profit margin—a price spread betweenselling price and cost per unit of product. Socialistshave variously called it a "common fund," "turnovertax," or "enterprise tax," terms which vainly disguisethe fact that each constitutes a price spread or profitmargin.290

There is a key difference—not in the name givento profits but in the way the profits originate. In freecompetitive markets, profits are earned from the voluntarypurchases of consumers. Under socialism, however,profits derive primarily from the monopoly position ofthe state. The Soviet state, for example, is the onlyproducer—without any competition. It uses the pricespread as a tax margin: prices of products are set on acost-plus basis and are adjusted up or down, dependingon the state's revenue requirements. Given the monopolyposition of the state as producer, the pricing systemused is, in effect, a tax mechanism.Socialist Monopoly ProfitsAnother key difference between socialism and thefree market is the way profits are used—that is, theextent to which profits are used for producingconsumers' goods. Firms in the free market are virtuallycompelled to reinvest their profits in the sameuseful way that they were earned in the first place, bycatering successfully to consumers. Socialist firms,however, are under no such compulsion. To start with,socialist profits are practically guaranteed: All firmsare monopoly agents of the state, facing virtually nocompetition. Their selling prices, as we have noted,are a form of tax. Profits, therefore, are not a measureof performance but of extortion; consumers have noalternative but to buy from a monopoly source.In contrast, the free market, as we will amplysee, is by definition predicated on unrestricted competition—onoptimum access to alternative sources ofconsumers' goods. Compared to the free market,socialism or any other system of controlled productionby the state constitutes a drastic constriction ofproduction opportunities; thus under socialism, firmsare inherently incapable of optimizing consumers'sovereignty.The Meaning of "Free Competition"This brings us to the next requirement for optimalconsumers' sovereignty. We have already discussedthe need to make the earning of profits the only meansby which the firm can survive. Now it is necessary toadd another stringent condition: the fostering ofmaximum competition among firms. Availability of291

competition is one of the crucial differences betweenthe free-market economy and socialism. The free marketis "free" primarily in the sense of freedom to compete:"free competition" means precisely the liberty foranyone to enter into production. Let there be noartificial barrier or restriction on competition. Letall comers be free to compete—all for the purpose ofoptimizing consumers' sovereignty.Thus, if for any reason consumers become dissatisfiedwith the products of firms, the market mustalways be open for the entry of another firm that thinksit can do better. And if anyone thinks he can do abetter job than the existing firms, but merely remainson the sidelines—ranting, raving or complaining aboutthe disappointing performance of those firms—such mockingbehavior in no way serves the consumer. Talk ischeap. To really serve the consumer, mere bystanderswould have to roll up their sleeves and get into thecompetition to prove that they can truly do a better jobthan existing firms. Indeed, the condition of freecompetition constitutes the only true test of optimalcatering to consumers. Any artificial restriction ofcompetition or barrier to entry results in a less-thanoptimaldegree of competition.Government Monopoly GrantsRestrictions on entry into production can take avariety of forms. Historically, the predominant sourceof obstruction to entry has been government regulation;The state possesses the monopoly power to determine whoshall and who shall not produce by its requirement ofcharters and licenses and similar controls. In somefields government itself runs the enterprise, as is thecase with first-class mail. In other fields—forexample, so-called public utilities such as water, electricity,and gas—government assigns only one firm toprovide the given service, thereby granting a monopolyprivilege to the selected firm.If we use the word monopoly in its correctliteral sense, it simply means: one single seller—theonly seller. Traditionally, governments alone have beenable to grant monopoly privileges in trade and production.In creating public utilities, the rationale isthat water, electricity, and gas are "natural" monopoliesdue to the peculiar economic nature of their product.In fields where production is on a smaller scale292

(such a taxicabs, barbershops, beauty parlors, plumbing,medicine, law, teaching... you name it!) governmentusually requires a special permit, license, or certificatein order to practice the given service.Whether or not the doctrine of "naturalmonopoly" has any validity, the fact remains that it—orany other form of state-granted monopoly—is essentiallya restriction of competition. By granting a legalprivilege to one firm to be the only producer in itsfield, the government is blocking entry to any otherfirm, thereby protecting the monopoly firm against anycompetition. The legal muscle of the state preventsevery potential competitor from getting a chance to outperformthe monopolist and take his business away bydriving rates (prices) down or by giving better service.In this respect, government protects the privilegedmonopolist from having to perform for the consumer interms of price and quality. Far from being "natural,"the state-granted monopoly privilege is an unnatural,arbitrary restriction of the natural freedom to produce.Monopolies in the Free Market?In a true free market, by contrast, a monopolyposition could emerge—and properly so—only by the firmoutstripping its rivals in behalf of the consumer.Under open, unrestricted competition, no firm—whetherit produces electricity or milk or drives taxicabs—could expect to become a monopoly except by excellentperformance in terms of price and quality, by outperformingother firms in open competition for the consumers'dollars.Nor could this hard-earned monopoly ever be considereda privilege guaranteeing the firm protectionagainst any potential competition. The free-marketmonopolist would daily have to prove himself the bestagainst all comers; as "King of the Hill," he could wearhis crown only so long as he outperformed everyone else.And so long as the market remained open to one and all,his crown could not rest easily upon his head. Therewould never be respite from the threat of new competition.Without the state to protect him against potentialrivals, his only shield against invasion of his marketby competitors would be his low price and high quality.293

Natural Obstacles to EntryIt follows then that in a free, open market theonly obstacles to competition would be the truly naturalones that exist in any society at any time: scarcity ofproductive resources and the limited size of marketdemand.For instance, not everyone can himself own allthe necessary resources (of land, labor, capital) requiredto enter production. Nor does "free" competitionmean costless entry—not requiring resources or sacrifice.Any new competitor would have to purchase, hire,or borrow resources from others for which he will haveto pay a price, wage, or interest rate. Furthermore,individual differences in managerial and entrepreneurialskill will enable some potential competitors to be moresuccessful than others.Can Investors Be Attracted?In this connection it is important to note thecrucial financial role played by the money and capitalmarkets—the former consisting primarily of commercialbanks, and the latter consisting of financial intermediaries,such as the stock and bond markets, savingsbanks, and managers of trust and pension funds. It isthrough this vast, complex array of financial institutionsthat the owners of savings and other liquid wealthultimately determine the availability and cost of theirinvestment funds and, hence, the firm's access toresources and production. However, the essential criterionfor investors, in deciding whether or not toinvest in a given firm, is the ability of the borrowingfirm to succeed in market competition. Investors'estimates of a firm's competitive ability are, in thenature of the case, necessarily subjective, resting onintangibles such as the quality of the firm's personnel,the morale and efficiency of its labor force, and thepotential size of market demand.Demand Cannot Be GuaranteedOn the demand side, as indicated, the obstacleto entry will be uncertainty about the size of marketdemand. Such uncertainty will usually be a problem inthe case of a new product to which the market has yet tobecome accustomed. This does not necessarily mean that294

the market is foreclosed forever. Indeed, experiencetells us that there is no way to foretell whether or nota new product will click upon introduction to themarket. This is precisely what entrepreneurship is allabout: the undertaking of projects in the face ofuncertain market demand.To be sure, market research and related investigationsof market demand can help reduce the degree ofuncertainty as to whether a new product will succeed.Otherwise, the only ultimate test as to whether themarket is ready to welcome a new product and shower thefirm with profits is for the firm to take the plungeinto the cold waters and see for itself. There is trulyno other way to find out if the demand is there or not,at least initially. If the demand is not there at thestart, it may develop eventually if and when the productfinally catches on. But this requires persistence andperseverance to wait it out—yet even then success cannotbe guaranteed.Competing Against IncumbentsAnother reason to doubt the adequacy of marketdemand for the newcomer may be the apparently entrenchedposition of the firms already established in the market,each of which has already won for itself a seeminglyimpregnable share of the market which no upstart entrantdare think of capturing. But such incumbency of firmsis, in the nature of things, a fact of life. The newcomerin the market must nearly always expect to competeagainst incumbents no less than does a presidentialaspirant who has to decide whether or not to throw hishat into the ring.Even if a new product were involved—one notproduced by any existing firm—it would still notguarantee clear sailing. Its producer would still haveto face an incumbency problem, one that takes a specialform. Say the new product is a "smidget," which itspromoters regard as a sure-fire bet to catch on. Neverthelessthe fact remains that, initially at least,consumers' purchases of the new smidgets could only bemade by their buying less of other things. (Think oftelevision's first days.)Let us briefly expand on this. In practice,competition exists not only between different brands ofa given product but also between different products295

themselves. Since all consumer wants are "competitive"with each other, it follows that all products are alsoin competition with each other—and no less than all thebrands that compete with each other. In other words, adollar spent on smidgets means, other things beingequal, a dollar less spent on something else. Even ifthere were only one firm producing all products, therewould still be this product competition, and the monopolistwould not necessarily have a guaranteed market forhis new product.Competition of All Against AllUp to now we have described free competitionmostly in terms of the absence of legal or other artificialrestrictions on entry into production. New we mustmeet the other face of free competition—the variety ofsources of competition from which new firms and newproducts can be expected to flow. Indeed, once weremove all barriers to competition, sources from whencewill come the new competitors are unlimited.To start with, existing firms in industry Acould decide to invade industry B, and vice versa. Itwould be competition of all against all, regardless ofthe industry with which a particular firm is normallyidentified. For instance, a firm in industry A coulddecide to invade industry B. That is to say, it maydecide to produce, in addition to its old product A, anew product B. Furthermore, it may be a fairly bigfirm, well-heeled and capable of giving firms inindustry B a run for their money. No longer could thesuccessful fat cats in B rest on their laurels, evenafter they have attained major shares of the market fromthe smaller firms in B. The reason is that wellestablishedproducers in industry A, as well as in C, D,and so on, stand as a constant threat to enter B andcompete in it. And the same threats constantly face A,too, and C, and D, and so on!This possibility of inter-industry competitionopens up vistas of a vastly expanded arena of competition.Not only would firms in the same industry competewith each other, but so would firms in differentindustries compete with firms in other industries.Thus, competition would be pervasive—product againstproduct, firm against firm. It is therefore reasonableto expect the emergence of conglomerates—firms that296

would be grandly diversified, so much so that some wouldbe hard to classify in terms of the particular "industry"to which they belonged.In Numbers There Is StrengthThus it is appropriate to question the traditionalnotion that "bigness is bad"—that "giant" firmsare "bad" because they are so big and efficient thatsmall firms are too weak to compete against them. Suchpopular notions turn out to be fallacious; real-worldexperience is not so neatly stacked in favor of the bigfirm.For one thing, there are those giant firms inthe other industries (mentioned above) who often constitutethe truly fearsome rivals of any big firm. Foranother, let us not underestimate the power of even thesmall firm. After all, smaller firms may be able toproduce a given product as cheaply and capably as thelarge firm. Examples abound: toasters, radios, and avariety of other appliances. True, in any given marketlocation, it would seem that a giant General Electric,for example, could easily muster all of its resources todrown out any one small competitor. But in practice itcannot actually do so, for GE faces not one but numeroussmall competitors in any given locale, as well as inmany other locales throughout the country. Taken together,all these many small competitors add up, ineffect, to a pretty big-size firm.Consumer's Last ResortLast but not least, truly free competition wouldenable consumers themselves to take up the cudgels andcompete in the market place. That is, if existing firmsdared to disdain the consumers' dollar ballot, and persistentlyfailed to respond to consumers' preferences,then the consumer would have the ultimate recourse: thefreedom to undertake himself the production of what hewants. In the free market, the consumer himself—a"sovereign" in search of a crown—would also have freedomof access to the sphere of production. Since we areall consumers—each and every one of us—this meansthat, in the nature of things, each of us should be freeto enter into production, unobstructed and unhampered byanyone.297

Herein lies one of the truly vital differencesbetween the free-market economy and socialism. Undersocialism, because of its state monopoly of the means ofproduction, the individual is prohibited from access tosuch property and hence to the sphere of production. Inthe free market, however, he is free to set up an individualproprietorship or a partnership, or form acorporation of stockholders or cooperative owners—itmakes little difference which, at this point. The organizationof production can take whatever form isdeemed appropriate by the owner or owners of the firm.It is therefore not surprising to learn that,almost from the very inception of the Industrial Revolution,ordinary people from all walks of life—given theenvironment of a relatively free market—were able toabandon their roles as workers, tinkerers, professionals,or peddlers and undertake the role of entrepreneurs.Their individual "success stories" abound in thepages of economic and business history of the Westernworld. 4 These success stories are testimony to thereadiness and ability of the "vital few" to ventureforth with ideas for a new or improved product. Notsatisfied with merely standing on the sidelines, theythemselves seized the opportunity to undertake whatothers were not undertaking. It is this constant flowof new products which prompts the rest of us to remark,when we see them offered in the market for the firsttime: "Gee, why didn't I think of that?"Foreign CompetitionAs if all of this were not enough, free competitionmust also invite competition from still anothersource—from producers in foreign countries. So far wehave considered only domestic sources of competition,but if we are talking about optimizing the conditions ofconsumers' sovereignty, we must look to the world as awhole as our oyster, as far as sources of consumers'goods is concerned.See John Chamberlain, The Enterprising AmericansHarper Colophon Books, 1963).(New York:298

One has only to point to recent economic history,particularly to the invasion of U.S. markets byforeign producers of automobiles, cameras, optical products,electronic appliances, textiles and a host ofother commodities to see how important this foreignsource of competition can be. So, on top of interindustrycompetition and competition from consumersentering production, we now must add the crusher: theforeign producer. Truly, there would be no rest for theweary in the world of free competition.Free Trade vs. NationalismThis brings us, therefore, to the related requirement,free trade—freedom of exchange. Thisfreedom is accepted as a matter of course at home, inthe domestic economy, but unfortunately it is not consistentlyextended to trade and exchange between peopleof different nation-states. Indeed, all sorts ofrestrictions on trade and exchange—in the form oftariffs, quotas on imports, bounties for exports—havebecome traditional. To the extent that trade betweennations is restricted, to that extent is free competitionitself restricted, and the consumer remains lessthan sovereign.It should be noted that, historically, therestriction of trade between nations had its roots inthe nationalistic policies of Europe's mercantiliststates from the 16th century onward. This is not theplace to examine the pro's and con's of nationalism—asa phase in the history of people, on the one hand, andas an obstacle to truly free contact and exchange betweenpeople of different backgrounds, on the other.Suffice it to note that a policy of protecting domesticfirms from foreign competition by means of tariffs,quotas, and non-quantitative barriers in general—apartfrom its denial of free competition and consumers'sovereignty—is, from the consumers' viewpoint, illogical:it is no more logical to protect the ChryslerCompany from competition by Toyota or Honda than it isto protect it from competition at home by General Motorsand Ford.299

Role of GovernmentIt should be clear by now why the consumerstands to gain most by a condition of free competitionand free trade. Only open, competitive markets wouldcause firms to fear and tremble before every consumer,wondering whether the consumer will cast his dollarballots for their product or for their rival's? So far,so good. But, as already indicated, the greatest forcefor obstructing free entry, free trade and competitionis government—the political power of the nation-state.This brings us to the next leg of our analytical journeytowards optimum consumers' sovereignty: What should bethe proper role of government in the free market? Whatcan government do to help optimize conditions forconsumers' sovereignty?There is no need here to present a detailedanalysis of government interventions in the market.Suffice to note that government possesses the power tofix price minimums (favoring producers) and priceceilings (favoring customers), and to prohibit exchangeand production in varying degrees (e.g., allocations andrationing, labor laws, monopoly grants, tariffs, minimumwages). Here the discussion will be limited to a fewmain points. 5Removing Government ImpedimentsFirst of all, what is it that government shouldnot do? As the preceding analysis implies, governmentshould not place obstacles in the path of producers.This means an end to all restrictions on entry, such aslicenses, charters, or monopoly grants. In the freemarket, it is not logical to force a practitioner toobtain a certificate or license in order to qualify as aproducer. Let the practitioner decide for himselfwhether he needs a certificate. Let his concreteachievements—his successes and good reputation—sufficeto speak for him, be he certified or not. And letconsumers decide for themselves with which practitionersthey prefer to deal. If some consumers, for instance,prefer their doctors, lawyers, teachers, and dentists toAn excellent introductory analysis of the adverse,effects of government interventions is by Henry Hazlitt,In One Lesson (New York: Arlington House, Inc., 1979).long-runEconomics300

possess certificates of qualification—licenses, degrees,etc.—they are, of course, free to hire onlythose who have such certification, and shun those who donot.No More Government PropsNor should government come to the aid and rescueof ailing firms by providing subsidies or other financialnostrums. If firms get into trouble in the competitivemarket, it is due primarily to their inabilityto do as well as rivals in catering to the consumer. Ifconsumers' ballots have already spoken fatefully, "Exitfrom the stage," no one else should thereupon tear thisverdict asunder. After all, there are firms that domake profits because they are successfully catering toconsumers—and these firms should be cheered on; on theother hand, firms who can only suffer losses should bebooed and hissed off the stage. From the consumers'viewpoint there should be cheers for the profit-makerbut boos for the loss-makers.As far as consumers are concerned, it is rubbingsalt in their wounds for the government to take theirtax money in order to subsidize non-competitive firms.Instead, government should defer to the consumer and lethim decide which firms shall survive and which shall gounder. For only when the firm is not protected bygovernment against its failures—failure to cater toconsumers and failure to match its rivals 1 successes—does the consumer have a chance to be sovereign in themarket. Conversely, any propping-up of firms by thestate only weakens the effectiveness of the consumers'dollar ballot: it prevents the consumer from effectivelyrewarding firms in accordance with their responsivenessto his wishes, and penalizing them for negligenceor indifference towards him.Meaning of Laissez-faireSuch a hands-off pro-competition policy bygovernment was known from its inception in 18th centuryFrance as laissez-faire. Literally it means: let thepeople make or do? but figuratively it means: let thepeople, pursuing their own peaceful, productive ways,determine their own lives. "Laissez-faire!" was thegreat cry of the 18th century French economists, thePhysiocrats, who sought a radical dismantling of the301

overregulated mercantilist economy of France in order tomove it towards free production and free trade. Leavethe market alone, unhampered by government regulations,and the people will flourish—that was the battle cry.Today, however, laissez-faire is in general disrepute—amuch maligned and distorted concept, with a connotationtotally opposite to its original meaning.Adam Smith, who knew the Physiocrats well, carriedthe message to England. He, too, egged his generationto nail the lid on the coffin of Mercantilism inBritain. For Smith, Mercantilism was, among otherthings, a system of state protection of the specialinterests of producers against the consumer. He wrote:... [I]n the mercantile [read: mercantilist]system the interest of the consumer is almostconstantly sacrificed to that of the producer;and it seems to consider production and notconsumption as the ultimate end and object ofall industry and commerce.... 6Adam Smith registered specific complaints againstgovernment "restraints" upon imports of foreign goodsthat were competitive with domestic output, and"bounties" (subsidies) to exporters of goods not able tocompete on world markets. For him, both of thesepolicies favored the domestic producer at the expense ofthe consumer.Laissez-faire vs.Privilege and ProtectionThus it was that laissez-faire, far from beinga policy of favoring the firm and sheltering it fromconsumers and competitors, originated as the great cryfor free trade and competition—for the smashing ofmercantilistic protectionism and monopoly privilegebased on state charters, franchises, and licenses.To be sure, one would not expect the entrenchedpropertied and business interests of the 18th century torally behind the new banner of laissez-faire and freecompetition. For them laissez-faire represented a mostunwelcome threat: the need to compete in the openmarket in order to acquire and preserve new wealth.6 Smith, The Wealth of Nations, p. 625.302

Whenever possible, threatened interests balked and attemptedto restore the system of paternalism and protection;in time they managed to chip away at the foundationsof increased competition and freer trade laid inthe Industrial Revolution in England and the Americanrepublic.Property Rights and ProductionHaving just outlined the negative side of thecoin—what government should not do for the market—letus outline the positive side: What positive governmentactions would promote optimal consumers' sovereignty?Proponents of classical laissez-faire, consistent withtheir concept of non-interference in production andexchange, envisioned a system of limited government.That is to say, government should limit itself to a"nightwatchman's" role of protector of individualproperty rights, since property rights—especially theright to own means of production—were naturally basicto production and exchange. Thus, property rightsbecame a fundamental tenet of classical liberalism—"liberalism" meaning liberty or freedom from stateinterference and coercion.For Adam Smith, it was sufficient to rely on theindividual's natural desire to seek gain or profit.Since individuals participating in the market economycould gain only be rendering useful products or servicesfor exchange on the market, it followed that such gainmotivatedactions would necessarily result in benefitsto society. For Smith, as well as for other liberaltheoreticians, this was the truly seminal insight intothe wondrous working of the market. Smith attributedthe miracle of gain-motivated social productivity to the"invisible hand," a term whose metaphysical connotationunfortunately overshadowed the basic wisdom of hisinsight. 7 What remained, then, for government to do?For Smith, it was a relatively few things: national defense,police, some public works (roads, for instance).In today's world, that's not very much when comparedwith the leviathan proportions of modern governments.On the "invisible hand," see pages 34-35 above,303

Consumer Under SocialismWith the institution of property rights/ especiallyin the means of production, we come to the lastof the conditions required to optimize consumers'sovereignty. The property-rights requirement is one ofthe central features differentiating the free marketfrom socialism or any government-controlled system.Socialism, by definition, is the abolition of propertyrights in the means of production. By extension, italso means the end of the free market: its price mechanism,its productivity, its rising living standards andexpectations. What does all this imply for consumers 1sovereignty under socialism as compared to the freemarket?Imagine, if you will, that you are living in theSoviet Union instead of the U.S.A. Each day you facethe typical chores of the Soviet consumer: your dailyrounds of shopping leave you thoroughly frustrated anddissatisfied because the selection of consumers 1 goodsin the state-owned stores is a far cry from the virtualcornucopias back in the States.What was it specifically that left you dissatisfied?Was the price of goods too high? Was the qualityinferior relative to the price asked, or unacceptable atany price? Was the variety of goods—in size, style,and design—too narrow? Or was the variety unbalanced(e.g., plenty of radio sets but not enough TV sets,cars, cameras, phonograph records, tape recorders, typewriters,or do-it-yourself supplies)? Was it the absenceof competition among firms—that the state was the onlyproducer? What on earth can you do about it all?First of all you can simply refuse to buy—learnto do without. Even in the totally monopolized economyof the Soviet Union every consumer has this option. Youtry shopping at another store—but only to find the samestory there: the array of goods is practically a carboncopy of those in the first store. So you look for athird store, but there may be none—or simply not enoughstores as far as your tastes are concerned.Planners vs. ConsumersWhen you came home you decide to dash off aletter to the state-owned newspaper, venting your frustrationsroughly as follows: You have learned that the304

Soviet Constitution proclaims that "all power... belongsto the working people...." If so, it appears that thestate is much too indifferent toward people as consumers;that the planners don't seem to be doing enoughtoward "raising the material and cultural standards" ofthe people as promised in Article 11 of the SovietConstitution (1958 edition).8 You would much prefer tosee some competition introduced in the market. To you,competition among firms makes perfect sense: consumershave everything to gain when firms are compelled tocompete for the consumers' rubles!Then, having gotten this letter off your chest,you sit back and wait for some editorial response. Youwonder, first, if they will dare publish your letter inthe first place: Why should the state newspaper—theonly paper in town— give your complaint the widestpossible publicity? If your letter does get published,millions of other sympathetic consumers might read itand join you in a chorus of protest. Hopefully thestate planners will get the message—especially if thereensue consumer boycotts and disappointing sales figures,and Party leaders will want heads to roll.So the planners decide to make some concessionsto consumers. They introduce a few new lines of clothing,negotiate a contract for a foreign automobile factory,add a few other product lines—only to find theirefforts are in vain: consumers remain frustrated, wantstill more changes instituted, and write still morecomplaining letters—occasionally also asking why stateresources are allocated for moon shots, space satellites,and imperial ventures in the Third World insteadof consumers' goods. And so on and so forth.Property Rights a Necessary ConditionAt some point you go into deep reverie of theway it was back in the U.S.A.—why it was so differentthere compared to here. In the U.S., individual propertyrights are recognized and implemented in greatmeasure: almost anyone with sufficient capital—his ownor borrowed—can go into business. You realize this iswhy private property, especially in means of production,oQuotations from the Soviet Constitution in this section arebased on Robert LeFevre, Constitutional Government Today in SovietRussia (Larkspur, Colo.: Rampart College, 1962).305

is the crucial difference: in the U.S., individualownership of property provides the freedom to jump intoproduction and fill any perceived gap in the market.In the U.S.S.R., however, individuals are deniedthe right to own means of production. Here is the waythe Soviet Constitution (Article 4) puts it: "The economicfoundation of the U.S.S.R. is the socialist systemof economy and the socialist ownership of the instrumentsand means of production, firmly established as aresult of the liquidation of the capitalist system ofeconomy, the abolition of private ownership of theinstruments and means of production..." (underliningmine).Socialism Inherently RestrictiveIt may be reasonably asked: Why is it legal forSoviet citizens to own consumers' goods, which they canbuy with their rubles, but it is not legal for them toown means of production—such as materials, machines,factories, work shops—to produce consumers' goods forthemselves, things like sweaters, cosmetics, stockings,cameras, and endless other things they can find a happyuse for?More specifically: Why is it legal for theSoviet state to be the monopolistic employer of laborservices, but it is illegal for Soviet citizens tocompete with the state by becoming employers in turn,entering into voluntary agreement with others as employees,and conceivably offering higher wage-rates than thestate? To put it bluntly: Why is it illegal for Sovietcitizens to undertake productive activities that increasethe standard of living?If a Soviet citizen can make a better mousetrapthan the state, what reason could the state have forpreventing him from competing with it? By outlawingprivate property in the means of production, is not theSoviet state simply stifling opportunities to increaseproduction and consumption? Is it not sheer arrogancefor the Party and planners to believe they alone knowwhat and how much the people should consume? By whattest can the state prove that it is "raising thematerial and cultural standards" of the people?306

When Is a Socialist a Capitalist?These questions are crucial: they penetrate tothe essential anti-humanism of socialist prohibition ofprivate ownership of the means of production. Before weexplore this anti-humanism, we must first note a characteristicfallacy in socialist thinking. Article 4 ofthe Soviet Constitution correctly states that theU.S.S.R. has abolished private ownership of means ofproduction; but it also claims the U.S.S.R. hasabolished "capitalist" methods of production—which isgrossly misleading.First of all, we saw in Chapter IV that whatmakes production "capitalistic" is investment and use ofcapital goods and roundabout (indirect) methods of production,in cooperation with labor. Thus, there is nonecessary connection between a "capitalist" method ofproduction, on the one hand, and private ownership inthe means of production, on the other.It is true that capitalist methods of productionhave historically been most widely applied by systemsbased on private ownership, such as Britain and the U.S.The consequences are well known: greatly increasedlevels of consumption for tens of millions of people.But the economic fact remains that there is nothing inthe economic concept of capital goods per se that impliesprivate property.Free Market vs. Mere "Capitalism"Thus we can see the fallacy stated in the SovietConstitution: its confusion of the terms "capitalist"and "private ownership." To be sure, no one can denythe U.S.S.R. has legally outlawed private ownership inmeans of production, but certainly has not outlawed theuse of capital goods—indeed, quite the contrary!Soviet emphasis on the use of machines and other capitalgoods in production—especially since the first fiveyearplan in 1928—makes the Soviet economy as capitalistas any so-called "capitalist" economy. For somereason, Soviet leaders as well as socialists around theworld perpetuate a fallacy attributable to Karl Marx,the notion that there is an inherent relation betweencapital goods and the concept of property rights as thefoundation of the free market.307

Ironically, the Soviet Constitution, while denyingpeople the right to own means of production, doesnot hesitate to offer them "freedom of religious worship,"the "right to vote," "freedom of speech ...ofthe press ...of assembly ...of street processions anddemonstrations." This raises a question: Why pronouncesuch "human rights"—so familiar in the Western world—but omit the human right to own resources for productivepurposes? We will return to this issue below.The Question of "Human Rights"This brings us to the truly basic question: Inthe U.S.S.R., are not the "freedom of religious worship,"the "right to vote," "freedom of speech ... press...assembly ...street processions and demonstrations"—all proclaimed by the Soviet Constitution—no morethan mere words? How can Soviet citizens really implementthese human rights in any practical sense? Theissue is not whether the Soviet state is able to implementthese rights according to its own lights—accordingto its own interpretation of the meaning of "humanrights." Rather the issue is whether the Soviet individualis able to implement these rights according to hisown wishes. A few examples suffice to illustrate thepoint.For instance, take the frustrated Soviet consumer.Suppose the state newspaper refuses to publicizehis consumer complaints. What other recourse does hehave? What if he wanted to start up his own newspaper,or a consumer's newsletter, in order to bring hisopposition message to fellow consumers? How on earthcould he implement his "freedom of the press" when thestate owns all the required means of production—thenewsprint, the printing presses, the printer's ink, thefactory space, the delivery trucks, the mail service—and when the state also prohibits the hiring of wagelabor? Is this real freedom of the press? As A. J.Liebling once put it: "A free press exists only whenyou own a press."Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and ReligionIf freedom of the press under socialism is amere hoax—a promise without substance—how about "freedomof speech and assembly" and "freedom of streetprocessions and demonstrations"? What if activist consumersdecide to take their cause into the streets—to308

shout their protest from every street corner, to paradewith banners down the main boulevards, and to picketwith signs in front of the appropriate ministries?Could they even get to first base?Assume that protesting consumers actually march,speak out and picket—only to have the police storm themand break up their protest? Consumers might then set upa cry: Are not the streets the "people's property"?The police reply that the protesters are "disturbing thepeace" and "obstructing traffic." How can this apparentconflict between the people and the state police beresolved? Who really owns the streets when the chipsare down? So long as the state, and not the people, isthe de facto owner of the "socialized" streets andsidewalks, then it is clear that human rights in theU.S.S.R. are at the mercy of the state's minions.Finally, what about "freedom of religiousworship" in the U.S.S.R.? True, disgruntled consumersdo not ordinarily resort to prayer in church as thesolution to their shopping difficulties. But for peoplewho are regular church-goers—what about them? Whatdoes their right to worship really amount to? Do theyhave the right to land on which to build their shrine?Can they hire labor to build it? Are firms free toproduce church organs, velvets and raiments? Areprinters free to produce prayer books? In other words,in what effective sense does a citizen possess truefreedom of worship? The land belongs to the state, asdo all the other means of production, and wage labor isprohibited. In a word, only the state has the politicalpower to build the church and to control worship."Human Rights" Are Property RightsIt should be obvious by now that human rightssuch as freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religion iligionultimately depend on property rights. (By "property" ismeant ownership.) Property rights in the means of productionare crucial for all human rights. In practice,man must have the right to own the means with which toimplement human rights. If a person does not have meansof his own, then he must at least be free to hire themor borrow them from owners of means. Without propertyrights, human rights become de facto mere will-o'-thewisps.309

We can now also see why the familiar clichethat "human rights" are superior to "property rights,"is actually a fallacious dichotomy. We have just seenthat there is no effective way to implement human rightswithout property rights in the means of production.Indeed, not only is the implementation of human rightsdependent on property rights, but property rights areprior to "human rights."To go one step further: "Human rights" arederivative from property rights in the same sense as areproducts—the fruits of one's labor: they both come tofruition only by use of one's own means. Far from therebeing a conflict between "human rights" and "propertyrights," the former are naturally based on the latter,and flourish only to the extent that the latter flourish.As one writer has put it: "...property rightsare indissolubly also human rights."9 It follows that aproper defense of "human rights" necessarily implies thedefense of property rights.Right of Self-SovereigntyThis basic truth is obvious in the case ofRobinson Crusoe, isolated man. For Crusoe, his "humanright" to life implies the right to keep the fruit ofhis labor—this alone sustains him. It follows that, ifCrusoe has a natural right to own the fruits of hislabor, he must possess the natural right to own and usethe means of producing these fruits, including his ownlabor power. In turn, Crusoe's right to own his laborpower implies that he has the natural right to own hisperson and being. That is to say, he is by nature aself-owner. It is this natural property right in hisown being—this natural right of self-sovereignty—whichgenerates Crusoe's right to the material goods that heproduces.What happens to Crusoe's property rights—inhimself, his means, and his product—if and when hecomes into social contact with other people in society?Is it proper that these rights be in any way compromisedor denied by "society"? For instance, imagine that oneday Crusoe meets Friday. Friday, not wanting to work9 Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market (2nd edv Kansas City:Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, Inc., 1977), pp. 238-240.310

for his own sustenance, decides to set upon Crusoe andexploit him. Using his superior physical strength, heinitially seizes Crusoe's product and accumulatedwealth, and then forces Crusoe to give him a portion ofhis product on a regular basis. To Crusoe it is obviousthat Friday is exploiting him—forcibly enslaving him—invading his natural right of self-sovereignty. Now, itis clear that if Friday is not justified in exploitingCrusoe, then neither is "society" justified in similarlyexploiting all the productive Crusoes. All of thisraises moral issues beyond the scope of this book.Socialism versus Property RightsWhat does this excursion into the nature ofproperty rights imply for socialism in general? Bymaintaining state monopoly ownership of the means ofproduction, socialism must be viewed as a fundamentallyexploitative system. Far from being "humanist," as somesocialists claim, socialism is ultimately anti-humanistprecisely because it denies individual property rightsin the means of production and, in consequence, deniesthe basis of human rights in general.Thus an important truth emerges. The freemarket economy is not only the proper economic frameworkfor optimizing production and consumers' sovereignty; itis also the optimal social-political framework for theexercise of human rights in general. Just as interferencewith the right to own means of production, enterinto production, and exchange goods is, willy-nilly, arestriction of consumers' sovereignty, so is the denialof property rights a denial of human rights. We are allconsumers, to be sure, but—more important—we are allhuman beings. The free market not only optimizes opportunitiesfor consumers' sovereignty but may also be theroad toward optimal human rights.ConclusionThe fact that we are all consumers has, initself, a fundamental implication: the market-pricesystem must be, above all, a system for consumers'sovereignty—for the benefit primarily of people asconsumers and not for the protection of business profitsor political privileges. So-called capitalism or freeenterprise is virtuous primarily by reference to itsservice to people as consumers. As one observer has put311

it: "... [B]usiness is not the element which benefitsfrom [capitalism]. Businesses, in fact, are punished—or at least disciplined—by the free enterprise system.Only consumers benefit. ...And we should not askbusinessmen to assure market competition. If ever we'reto keep what economic freedom we still have, or rollback the smothering blanket of controls, we'll haveto ... do it as consumers, not as businessmen." 10AppendixTHE GALBRAITH EFFECTThis chapter primarily addresses two basic questions:Why should the consumer be "sovereign" in themarket place? How can this sovereignty be implementedin optimal fashion? With very few exceptions, thesefundamental questions have been curiously neglected ortreated all too briefly or casually by economists. Asnoted in the first paragraph of this chapter, thealternative tendency has been to discuss consumers'sovereignty primarily as an empirical issue involvingsuch questions as: Is the consumer actually the boss inthe market place? If so, to what extent? Does theconsumer exert any direct or meaningful influence overwhat firms produce?In this latter vein the main contribution hasbeen made by John Kenneth Galbraith, who has concludedthat there is no effective consumers' sovereignty in themarket place.11 It is this point of view on which thisAppendix is focused.According to Galbraith, the general reason forthe absence of consumers' sovereignty is that the modernfirm has a kind of unfair advantage over the consumer.James E. Foy, letter to editor, Reason (October 1977), p. 9,John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society (College Edition,Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1958, 1960), Chapter XI.312

In the modern social division of labor it is necessarilythe case that production by the firm comes first, andthen only subsequently comes the consumer to buy thegoods thus profferred to him by the firm. That is,since the firm does not take direct orders from theconsumer but, instead, takes the initiative to profferthe menu of goods supplied to the consumer, the consumerapparently has no choice but to buy what the firm placesin front of him in the shops and markets.In this way, continues Galbraith, the consumer'swants necessarily become "dependent" on what the firmproduces—that is, the consumer's wants are directlyinfluenced by the firm's offerings. Because of thisdependence effect, as Galbraith dubs it, the consumercan in no way exercize any sovereignty over the firm.He puts it this way: "...[P]roduction creates the wantsit seeks to satisfy....[T]he process by which wants aresatisfied is also the process by which wants arecreated....[T]hus, wants are dependent on production....The producer [has] the function both of making thegoods and of making the desires for them." (Bracketsmine.)Before I elaborate on this, by now classical,Galbraithian formulation and analyze its flaws, weshould first note a basic agreement: the sociologicalfact that, in the modern division of labor betweenhouseholds and firms, production by firms necessarilycomes first and consumers' buying comes only afterward(see Chapters II, IV, and IX.) But then note the significantlydifferent implications drawn. For thepresent author, this basic sociological fact, given thenatural priority of consumption as the purpose ofproduction, constitutes the essence of a weighty universalproblem, the "consumers' sovereignty problem," whichpreoccupies this chapter.For Galbraith, however, it constitutes the basisof a determinist argument, to wit: Consumers' wants arenecessarily "dependent" on (shaped by) what the firmsproduce; hence, consumers are in no way able to exercizeany sovereignty over firms. Thus, for Galbraith, thefact that the firms produce consumers' goods in advanceso that they typically appear on store-shelves inadvance of consumers' purchases, necessarily predeterminesconsumers' tastes and preferences, deniesthem the possibility of making "spontaneous" or"independent" choices, and therefore precludes any consumers'sovereignty.313

For this author, however, this argument involvesa determinist fallacy—the idea that firms can prefixthe consumer's tastes and preferences, and therebyvirtually compel him to buy their products. Suchdeterminism overlooks two things. On the one hand,consumers are always free to decide whether to buy ornot, or from whom to buy, and whether to change theirtastes and preferences in the face of ever-changingofferings in the market place. 12 On the other hand, successfulsales to consumers can only superficially besaid to originate exclusively in the supply side—in thefirm's initiative. On a deeper level, such salesreflect a successful appeal to pre-existing dispositionsof consumers to accept the firm's offerings.In support of his main argument, Galbraithrelies on a bisection of wants into two familiarcategories. On the one hand he postulates "urgent"wants—wants that are "original" with man himself, thatwould be experienced "spontaneously" if the individualwere left to himself, that are "independently" determinedor established (that is, independent of advertisinginfluence or the inducement to "emulate" what othersare consuming). (Some have called these the "basic" or"innate" wants.) Curiously, Galbraith does not seriouslycatalogue or exemplify these "urgent" wants, exceptto incidentally refer to "hunger" and "physical want."("A man who is hungry need never be told of his need forfood.") One can reasonably assume that Galbraith wouldfeel at home with the concepts of "absolute wants" andfixed "hierarchy" of wants discussed in Chapter V.In contrast to these "urgent" or innate wants,Galbraith poses the category of "created" or "contrived"wants which emanate exclusively from the dependenceeffect described above. Created wants are typicallyimposed on consumers by the production process itself,in which firms, by producing first, are able to "create"consumers' wants. For Galbraith, the created wants aregenerated in two ways. One is by the innocent "passive"People as consumers are surely no less free to choose in themarket place than in the voting booth on election day. Indeed, itcan be easily argued that the individual's "sovereignty" asconsumer exceeds his sovereignty as citizen-voter at the ballotbox. At least, in the market place a person is not forced to buywhat he does not want, whereas on the day after elections he canfind himself stuck with things he did not want to "buy"—that is,with candidates and propositions against which he voted.314

process of "emulation." ("One man's consumption becomeshis neighbor's wish," familiarly known as Keeping Upwith the Joneses.) The second is the more active and"more direct" way to create wants: by "advertising" and"salesmanship."For Galbraith, advertising and salesmanship areassociated primarily with the emergence of the higher or"affluent" standards of living achieved in theindustrial age. Furthermore, the "central function" ofadvertising and salesmanship is precisely to "createdesires—to bring into being wants that previously didnot exist." Indeed, for Galbraith, such want creationis "the most obtrusive of all economic phenomena" in themodern economy. It becomes easier to "synthesize" and"catalyze" people's wants when they have alreadyachieved loftier levels of consumption and are therefore"so far removed from physical want that they do notalready know what they want. In this state alone menare open to persuasion." (Underlines mine.)Noteworthy is Galbraith's reference to "alreadyknown" wants, presumably his innate wants—"independentlydetermined" by life's "physical" requirements (suchas food, clothing, shelter). (Recall his bon mot: "Aman who is hungry need never be told of his need forfood.") For Galbraith, any wants introduced beyond thisbasic level of urgency would merely "fill a void" inwhich alone people become "open to persuasion." (As heputs it: "production only fills a void that it hasitself created.") Such persuasion, of course, becomesmore effective the more the "value system" esteemskeeping up with the Joneses and the more firms resort toadvertising and salesmanship. That is, were it not foremulation and advertising, the "created" wants wouldsimply not exist, since there is no natural "urgency" or"spontaneous need" to satisfy them.Now to return to the original point.Galbraith's bisection of wants, while superficiallyappealing, turns out to be inadequate and confusing.First of all, Galbraith's innate wants are unjustifiablynarrowly circumscribed, confined to wants usually disparagedas materialistic—wants that cry for the creaturecomforts satisfied by food, clothing and shelter.(Recall his relevant references to "hunger" and "physicalwant.") However, in the broader perspective ofthe full stature and strength of man—giving man andhuman nature its proper due—Galbraith is clearly shortchangingus I315

For instance, immediately coming to mind areAbraham Mas low's five categories of basic wants: (a)physiological wants, to which Galbraith's innate wantsare limited; (b) desire for safety and security; (c)desire for affection and belongingness; (d) desire forself-esteem; and (e) striving for self-realization orself-fulfillment. This is more like it! Here is arange of wants that encompasses much more of humannature. But even Mas low's list is incomplete—for thepanoply of man's wants most assuredly must include humanpreoccupations, propensities, and passions in such expressivedimensions as literature, music and the otherarts (so-called "culture"); philosophy, religion andscience; and—not the least—technology and technologicalprogress.Not only is Galbraith's concept of basic wantsunreasonably confined, his analysis is avoidablyobfuscating: he seems unaware of the implication of thefact that the satisfaction of wants requires means.Thus, whereas the several categories of human wants—even in the broadest sense—may be regarded as finite ordeterminate, the variety of means or devices by which wemay satisfy our wants must, in the full view of humanhistorical achievement, be regarded as potentiallyunlimited. It is precisely in the area of means,instruments, implements and devices that man has beenthe most "creative" and "contriving" (innovative) of allcreatures. 13If, therefore, Galbraith is complaining of the"created" and the "contrived," it surely cannot be inthe area of wants; since their number and type arefinite and determinate by nature, there is no more roomfor man to "create" or "contrive" new wants. Instead,it is in the realm of means that man, in all of hisreason and ingenuity, is the constant creator, contriverand innovator. Unwittingly, Galbraith is actuallylashing out against this most precious of man'sproclivities 1 In view of man's time-honored, ceaselesscreativity and innovation, Galbraith's case for acessation of the "created" and the "contrived" wouldFriedrich A. Hayek argues, in effect, that virtually thewhole of "civilization" and the spread of "culture" among theworld's peoples are attributable to innovation and emulation in themeans of producing goods and services. See his "The Non Sequiturof the 'Dependence Effect'," Southern Economic Journal (April1961), pp. 346-348.316

appear to be not only tilting at windmills but alsoreactionary to boot.An illustration of this point should be instructive.While the basic drive to assuage hunger—whichleads us to the act of eating—is a constant, the samecannot be said of the class of means called food,capable of satisfying hunger. The virtually endlessvariety of foods that clutter human diets and menus isnecessarily created or contrived, mainly as aconsequence of on-going social and cultural interactionand emulation. For example, take the lobster: To manypeople its appearance is so disgusting or outrageous asto deter them from eating it—at least until they firstsee it prepared and enjoyed as a food by others. Yet,for many others, it has been a traditionally naturalfood of unquestioned credentials. In Galbraithian terms,does the lobster represent a "basic" means or a"contrived" means?!Or take the staple food, meat. So natural acomponent of the American hamburger would be treated asan unwelcome, unnecessary food for many people of India.How about insects? Such a natural component of the dietof Venezuelan tribes would be abhorred as an unseemlyfood by most Americans. Then again, it took some 200years between 1550 and 1750 to overcome resistance inEurope and North America to one of the most nourishingand easily cultivated vegetables—the potato! What isillustrative here of the relation between eating (aconstant want) and the variety of foods (man's contrivedmeans) can be multiplied by illustrations from virtuallyevery other dimension of human wants.In this connection, we should recall thesignificant symbiotic relation discussed in Chapter IXthat exists between wants, or goals, purposes and ends,and means—a relation that involves the imputation ofvalues. Specifically, the value a person attaches toany given purpose or want is naturally imparted ortransmitted ("imputed") to the means that are capable ofsatisfying the purpose or want. Thus any given wantthat is regarded as worthwhile by a person necessarilymakes the means capable of satisfying that want equallyworthwhile. Conversely, means, no matter how contrivedor varied, are no less important than the wants they cansatisfy.317

It follows, then, that if we have no grounds forputting down or denigrating another person's wants ordesires, we have no basis for denigrating the valueattached to the means that can satisfy those wants ordesires. That is, there is no putting down of a meanswithout implying a putting down of the want itself.Thus it is that when Galbraith puts down means bylabelling them as "created" or "contrived," he is willynillyalso putting down the wants satisfied by thesemeans. Given his fixation on "physical" wants, he wouldseem to be condemning us to egalitarian asceticism.318

CHAPTER XICOMPETITION:"PERFECT" VS. REALIt is traditional to believe that competition isa good thing. The U.S. government, under the anti-trustlaws, is empowered to achieve pro-competition and antimonopolygoals. But what have the administrators usedas their theoretical, intellectual guide for achievingincreased competition? It has not been the neglectedclassical liberal concept of laissez-faire competitionoutlined in Chapter X. Instead, they have leaned primarilyon the economists' perfect competition model forguidance on how to reduce "monopoly power" and increase"competition." In this chapter we will examine theperfect competition model featured in every economicstextbook, and offer alternative perspectives for adesirable competition.I. The "Perfect Competition" ModelThe most popular textbook model for market competitionis so-called "perfect competition." As we willsoon see, however, perfect competition is neither"perfect" nor "competitive." Furthermore, taken literally,it is a most unrealistic model—impossible toimplement in the real world. Even if perfect competitionwere possible, it would not necessarily bedesirable. Yet, here we are, about to devote the majorpart of this chapter to perfect competition. Are wegiving it more importance than it deserves? Let us seewhy this subject does deserve special treatment.Standard for Government PolicyFor one thing, perfect competition (hereinafterreferred to simply as PC) is important simply because itis the main economic-theoretical standard by which realworldcompetition is measured, and by which governmentregulation of business is guided. Since the businesssector is a dominant element in our economy, governmentpolicy designed to regulate business practices and promotecompetition, especially as it relates to prices andproduction, should be of prime interest to all.319

Furthermore, a serious critical analysis of thePC model has been relatively neglected in introductorytexts. The PC model is widely used as a standard fordesirable competition, yet, as will become abundantlyclear, it is based on unrealistic assumptions—assumptionsthat are unnatural and undesirable. If the PCmodel proves to be an unsuitable model, it should not bea guide for public policy.What Does "Competition" Mean?If competition is the desired goal, and morecompetition is supposed to be better than less competition,it behooves us to understand precisely what ismeant by "competition." How is it to be defined? Howcan we tell when there is competition or when it isabsent? In what ways is competition supposed to bebeneficial? And for whom? This chapter will confineitself to answering some of the preceding questions andto furnishing perspectives for understanding the PCmodel. It will also try to show why the free-marketmodel outlined in Chapter X is a more commendable andpractical model than perfect competition. 1Competition as RivalryRight off, it should be noted that economiststhemselves are not agreed on how to define "competition."Some economists use a common-sense definitionthat is akin to what the layman means when he uses theterm, and what the dictionary describes as "rivalry:the effort of two or more parties to secure the businessof a third party by the offer of the most favorableterms." In this popular concept the key sense is rivalry—competitionas a dynamic process engaging firms in"rivalrous" behavior with respect to each other, in anongoing contest for the consumer's dollar.More precisely, the dimensions of rivalrouscompetition are basically: price, quality, and variety.Consumers tend to favor the firm which, other thingsbeing equal, sells at a lower price than its rivals,offers a better quality product than its rivals, andA noteworthy analysis of the problem of defining competitionis by P. J. McNulty, "Economic Theory and the Meanings of Competition,"Quarterly Journal of Economics (November, 1968).320

offers a greater variety from which to select (e.g.,styles, designs, colors, materials, sizes). Hence,competitive firms will be constantly striving to currythe consumer's favor by (a) distinguishing or "differentiating"their products in one way or another, or by (b)imitating and catching up with rivals who have differentiatedtheir product to profitable advantage or havebeen able to cut costs and price.The "Market Structure" ApproachIn contrast to this dynamic, rivalrous model ofcompetition stands the comparatively static textbookmodel of PC competition. The PC model is an example ofthe market-structure approach to competition, to whicheconomists have become so dedicated.Market-structure competition is regarded as"static," not dynamic, because its competition is determinedby its looks or physical attributes, and not byits dynamic action and interaction in a rivalrous environment.It reminds one of the Geraldine line by FlipWilson: "What you see is what you get." Thus, if youobserve a type A market structure, you can expect to geta type A competition; if you see a type B market structure,you should expect a type B competition; and so on.As we will see, one type of market structure—perfectcompetition—is preferred to all the others. To appreciatethis we must first analyze the various marketstructures.First, what is a "market structure"? A marketstructure is described in terms of four dimensions; (1)the type of product or service produced by firms in theindustry, (2) the number and size of firms, (3) theconditions of entry and exit, into and out of the industry,and (4) the degree of information or ignoranceprevailing among firms and consumers. Let us examineeach of these dimensions in detail.Dimensions of Market Structure(1) Product. Products are classified either as"homogeneous" or as "differentiated." Homogeneous meansthat the product produced by each firm in the industryis identical, bearing no brand name, trademark or othermark of distinction. Similarly, firms that render customerservices along with their products—such as321

guarantees, complaints, repairs, returns, or financing—are likewise identical with respect to these services.As a consequence, consumers have no way of distinguishingthe product or service of any one firm from that ofother firms.In contrast to the class of homogeneous productsare the differentiated products. This is a much morerealistic classification: here the products of firms ina given industry can be distinguished from each other insome respect—by brand name, trademark, design, style,advertising, customer services, or location. Indeed,such differentiation of product is one of the mainstaysof competition in the real world.It is important to stress that, in practice,even if products of a given class are, for all practicalor technical purposes, virtually similar—as in the caseof shoes, clothing, canned goods, appliances—so long asthe consumer perceives these similar products to besomehow differentiated, this suffices to make them "differentiated."It is the eyes of the beholder, theconsumer, which ultimately determine whether there isdifferentiation—"whether real or fancied," as onewriter put it.(~) Firms, number and size. At one extreme ofthis dimension is the case of "monopoly," which literallymeans a single seller. At the other extreme is thecase of infinitely numerous firms. In between these twomarket structures are two others, one consisting of a"few" firms, and the other consisting of "many" firms.(3) Conditions of entry and exit. A major conditionof entry-exit depends on the presence of artificialor legal barriers, such as licenses, permits,patents, and copyrights. These devices tend to restrictentry by new producers and sellers because they arespecial privileges that impede access to the market.Another aspect of entry-exit pertains to thedegree of mobility of resources, especially labor andcapital goods. "Mobility" here refers to the ease withwhich the resource or resource-owner can be induced tomove into or out of the market in response to changes inprices or profit margins. Mobility, in turn, is influencedby one's geographical location and the easewith which one can acquire new skills or apply newtechnology.322

With respect to exit conditions, pertinent aresuch questions as: Is the firm at liberty to closedown its plant and dismiss workers if and when itslosses are too heavy? Or are there legal hurdles orregulations that prevent or impede such moves?One way of classifying market structures accordingto entry-exit conditions is to distinguish between"open" markets and "closed" markets. Open markets includemarket structures that have no legal or other"artificial" barriers imposed by government. In effect,an open-market structure corresponds to the condition of"free competition" described in Chapter X: the libertyor freedom of anyone to enter production. In contrastis the closed market, characterized by all kinds oflegal blocks to entry, ranging from outright monopolyprivileges granted by the state to public-utility firmsand taxi companies (e.g., Yellow Cab) to license requirementsfor barbers and beauticians.(4) Information or knowledge. Does everyoneparticipating in the market know all the prices ofconcern to him? For instance, do consumers know wherethey can buy at the lowest price? Do firms know theselling prices of all their rivals? Do workers knowwhere they can get the highest wage-rate for theirlabor? Do resource-owners in general know where theycan get the best prices, rents, or interest rates fortheir resources (e.g., materials, rental space, loanablefunds)?All of the preceding questions pertain tocurrent market prices or rates; but what about futureprices or rates—how well informed are people aboutthem? At one extreme, as we will soon see, there is amarket structure—perfect competition—which postulates"perfect" knowledge or information (i.e., "omniscience"):all participants in the market know everythingthey need to know in order to make non-regretfuldecisions, to assure that ex-ante decisions are alwaysrealized in the ex-post. The other market structures,being more realistic, postulate degrees of ignorance onthe part of firms, consumers, and resource-owners.The Four Market StructuresHaving noted that the market-structure approachto competition is akin to a "what you see is what youget" way of describing the market, exactly what is meant323

y this? Textbooks usually list four types of marketstructure, as follows:1. Perfect Competition2. Monopoly3. Oligopoly4. Monopolistic CompetitionWhich of these structures assures the best type ofcompetiton? According to the market-structure approach,it is perfect competition (PC). Why? Why is PC esteemedabove all? Before the answer is given, we mustfirst describe each market structure in terms of thefour dimensions outlined above. Only then can we drawconnections between market structure and the characterof competition expected therefrom.The "Perfect Competition" Model(1) Perfect Competition. First, the kind ofproduct produced by firms in PC is characteristicallyhomogeneous. Products are identical by definition—there is not an iota of differentiation between onefirm's product and another's. There are no brand namesor trademarks. The consumer has absolutely no way totell which firm produced which product. For example,all TV sets would be turned out exactly alike by everyproducer, and each set would be a perfect substitute forevery other set. In this way consumers would choose aproduct strictly on the basis of price—i.e., at thelowest price available—and would be indifferent as towhich firm produced it.What about the number and size of individualfirms in PC? By definition, the number of firms in PCis virtually infinite—great enough to make each firmextremely small relative to the size of the industry,and its output insignificant compared to the total outputof all other firms. Generally speaking, for anygiven amount produced by an industry as a whole, themore numerous the firms, the smaller is each firm; andvice versa, the fewer the firms, the larger is eachfirm. In PC, therefore, since the number of firms isvirtually infinite, each firm must clearly be very tiny.Indeed, the individual firm in PC is so tiny that it istotally powerless to affect the market supply or price.For example, if any one firm closed down, itsmissing supply would hardly cause a dent in the total324

supply of the industry and, hence, could not cause arise in market P. Remember, in Chapter VIII we saw thata drop in the industry S schedule would cause a rise inP, assuming demand remained the same. Well, in the PCmodel, the industry S schedule would hardly drop at allif one firm closed down, since the firm is too small toaffect S and P. The same reasoning applies to the entryof a new firm: practically no increase in S and drop inP would occur. Indeed, the PC firm is so small that theword "atomistic" has been used to describe it—a firm assmall as an atom!The crucial importance of atomism in the PC firmcannot be exaggerated. By any reasonable interpretationof the literature, one must conclude that the conditionsrequired to fulfill the PC model logically imply avirtually infinite number of firms which, in turn,implies a puny, atomistic firm.How about entry and exit conditions in the PCmodel? By definition, PC calls for freedom of entry andexit—no legal or other artificial barriers—and forperfect mobility of resources or resource-owners. Withrespect to free entry or open markets, the PC modelshares a feature in common with free-market competitionas described in Chapter X. In the latter context, in thequest for consumers' sovereignty, open markets and freecompetition were eminently reasonable and desirable.However, the second requirement—perfect mobilityof factors—is really asking too much. Even if weassume no legal constraints on the mobility of peopleand capital goods, there are significant natural constraintsthat might dissuade people from being perfectlymobile, such as geographic loyalty, great distance to anew job, and lack of incentives and personal skills.The fourth and last structural requirement ofthe PC model is no less extreme than the first two:every participant in the market—firm, consumer, andresource-owner—has perfect knowledge or complete information.First of all, everyone has perfect knowledgewith respect to prices. Everyone knows all the future—as well as current—prices. Each firm knows exactlywhat every other firm's selling price is, and thereforeknows whether it is overpricing or underpricing its ownproduct. Each consumer knows whether the seller ischarging him more or less than rival sellers. Eachworker knows whether his employer is underpaying himcompared with other employers.325

Perfect knowledge of current prices impliesfurthermore that firms are also instantaneously aware ofany changes in demand and supply conditions. Somehowthe market operates like a magical computer: it notonly computes and reports instantaneously—to one andall—every nuance in D, S, and price, but it also sensesthese nuances to start with. As for future prices,firms possess not only the prescience to know future Dand S conditions but also its underlying determinants.Finally, the assumption of perfect knowledgeextends also to the sphere of technology and technologicalprogress. We saw in Chapter IV that innovationof (a) a new product or (b) a new technique of productioncan give the firm two competitive advantages, respectively:in the first case, it enables the innovatorto win customers away from the old products of otherfirms; in the second, it enables the innovator to cutcosts and prices below those of his rivals. In PC,however, with its generalized perfect knowledge, anyfirms that lag behind the front-running innovator neednot worry for long: possession of perfect knowledgeenables them to be instantaneously apprised of anyrival's innovation and, because of perfect resourcemobility, are instantaneously able to marshal the resourcesnecessary to duplicate the innovator's feat andrecoup their lost share of the market. Implied, then,in the assumption of perfect knowledge and resourcemobility, is instantaneous adjustment by firms to anychanges in the market—adjustments made without any timelag. What any one firm accomplishes technologically canbe duplicated by all the others—and immediately! "Anythingyou can do, I can do," so to speak.Given these structural features the first questionusually asked is: Are there any examples of the PCmodel in the real world? Strictly speaking, there arenone. Almost without exception, economists admit thatthe PC model is "palpably unrealistic," as one writerhas put it. In fact, "unrealistic" is putting itmildly: the PC model is outright "impossible," asanother writer put it. If PC is an impossibility, whywould economists offer it as the standard for real-worldfirms? We will return to this question later in thechapter.Textbooks do suggest some real-world approximationsto the PC model. Agricultural markets are believedto present some analogies to PC, due to the largenumber of farms, the relatively small size of firms, the326

elatively homogeneous products, and their commodityexchanges. But we should not stretch the analogies toofar. For example, homogeneity of product may be moreapparent than real. Thus, fruit and vegetable farmersdo not all produce merely homogeneous products, undifferentiatedfrom their rivals' products by fertilizers,soil, and growing conditions. Finally, the growingimportance of large-scale corporate agriculture ("agribusiness")is significantly reducing the role of thesmall, family-size farm.More important, major segments of farming arereally "closed" markets rather than "open" ones, owingto various government regulations which prevent open,unrestricted competition. Examples include wheat, oats,cotton, tobacco, oranges, milk, and lemons. That mayleave cattle-growing, beef and other foods, and truckfarming as possible vestiges of open markets. Someeconomists include housing, both residential and owneroccupied,and restaurants as approximations of PC. Inany case, there are no pure examples of PC in the realworld.The Case of "Monopoly"(2) Monopoly. This is the extreme opposite ofperfect competition. Literally, the word "monopoly"means only one seller and therefore should be appliedonly to market structures in which there is only onefirm in production. Obviously, the monopolist has norivals.But the term "monopoly" is not withoutambiguity. Some writers claim that the meaning of theterm depends on whether it is given a narrow or broaddefinition. If "product" is defined narrowly enough,then every producer or seller can be regarded a monopolist,since he is naturally the only seller of hisproduct. Bobby Fischer, the chess grandmaster, was oncea monopolist because he was the only practitioner of hisbrand of chess—even though there were many other grandmasterson the scene. On the other hand, if the productis defined broadly enough, then no one producer can beregarded a monopolist. For example, the Du Pontcompany, although once the only producer of cellophane,could not really be considered a monopolist when broadlyclassified as a producer of "wrapping or packagingmaterials," since these include such competitors asbrown paper, waxed paper, aluminum foil, and newspapers.327

Instead of using the word "monopoly" alone, someeconomists modify it by using also the words "closed" or"open," thus giving us two types of monopoly, i.e.,closed monopoly and open monopoly. These useful termshelp us understand that monopoly can arise in one of twoways. One route to monopoly is by a government-grantedprivilege that forcibly excludes any other firms. Thishas been the historical, traditional meaning of monopolysince the 16th century. A few examples will suffice:the wine and playing-card monopolies granted to Crownfavorites by Elizabeth I; the charters granted to theEast India trading companies; charters granted to railroadsand airlines; licenses granted to radio and TVbroadcasters; the monopolies granted to the telephone,gas, electric, and water "public utilities"; and patentsgranted to inventors. Such legal monopolies are referredto as closed monopolies, meaning the market isclosed by the government to potential competitors.The other road to monopoly is in sharp contrast:it is monopoly achieved by means of successful competitionin the open market—by selling at the lowest pricefor the given quality, or by offering the best qualityat a given price. As a consequence, rival firms fall bythe wayside because they are incapable of matching thesuperior price-quality performance of the emerging monopolist.So long as potential rivals cannot outperformthe successful monopolist in competition for the consumers1 dollars, so long will the monopolist reign. Butsuch monopolies remain open monopolies because they donot depend on the power of the state, or the organizedviolence of a Mafia, which can forcibly exclude potentialrivals from entry. The only "power" to excluderivals is the economic power of the monopolist's abilityto keep his costs and prices low enough to dissuadepotential rivals from trying to invade his market. 2Nevertheless, an open monopoly cannot be a permanentone. As a consequence of its "openness," themere absence of current rivals does not preclude theemergence of future rivals. If the monopolist decidesImportant contributions to the understanding of openmonopolies are by W. S. Leeman, "The Limitations of Local Price-Cutting as a Barrier to Entry," Journal of Political Economy(August, 1956) and J. S. McGee, "Predatory Price Cutting,"Journal of Law and Economics (October, 1958).328

to exploit the market by abandoning his low cost andprice policy and switching to a higher price and profitmargin,he is only looking for trouble: potentialrivals attracted by the increased profits of the monopolistwill be induced to invade his market. If themonopolist ever tires of the struggle to maintain hislow-cost and low-price policy to keep rivals at bay, hemight try seeking protection through a governmentgrantedmonopoly. If successful, the open monopolywould then be converted into a closed one.Sometimes the word "monopoly" is impreciselyapplied to the case where, like barbershops, there ismore than one firm producing the given service under alicense granted by the state. Nevertheless, since thereis a monopoly feature involved—the fact that the grantingauthority, the state, is the only source legallyempowered to grant the privilege of entry—the word"monopoly" is not entirely out of place. It is asthough the state were acting as the only supplier ofbarber services, and is merely opening up new branchesevery time it chooses to grant a barber a permit tooperate. In effect, barbers become mere agents of amonopoly firm, the state. The same reasoning applies toevery field in which the state requires that firmsobtain a permit or license to operate.What about the size of the monopoly firm?Obviously, it is very large since only one firm issupplying the entire market, and the demand schedulefacing the monopolist is identical with the market demandschedule. As for the monopolist's product, it isregarded as being differentiated since no one else isproducing it, making it unique in that sense.What about entry conditions? In the case ofclosed monopoly, entry is obviously precluded by theforce of state-granted privilege. In the case of openmonopoly, however, entry is as open as in "perfectcompetition" or free-market competition; there are nolegal or other artificial barriers to keep existing orpotential firms from joining in the fray. The onlyimpediment to entry is the monopolist's ability to outperformother firms in terms of price and quality.The Case of "Oligopoly"(3) Oligopoly. Between the two extremes ofperfect competition and monopoly lie the two remaining329

market structures, "oligopoly" and "monopolistic competition."These two structures encompass the bulk of firmsin the real world."Oligopoly" literally means few sellers. Becauseof this fewness, each firm is relatively large or"giant"-size. Steel and automobiles are good examplesof oligopoly industries. The degree of oligopoly isusually measured by the percentage of industry outputaccounted for by the four largest firms—a percentagethat could run from 50 percent on up.It is important to note that although oligopoliesdominate the output of their industry, they do notnecessarily account for all 100 percent of it. Oligopolyindustries may contain fringes of smaller firms whichtogether account for as much as 30 percent or more ofthe industry's output.The product turned out under oligopoly conditionsis generally regarded as differentiated. For onething, the product of individual firms typically carriesa brand name or trademark that distinguishes it fromrival firms' products. In the case of automobiles andother consumers' goods, the product itself is also differentiatedby design, style, and color. Differentiationmay also occur in industrial products, such asspecial-grade steels made for special purposes and,hence, not easily duplicated by rivals. Even where theindustrial product is fairly standard or similar, as incement and steel, the attached brand name or trade-markmakes for differentiation.What about conditions of entry under oligopoly?Although, in theory, oligopoly industries are openmarkets, in practice they may become closed by one oranother type of government intervention or protection(e.g., environmental regulations). Some writers, however,believe that the mere existence of oligopolycauses a "barrier" to entry. They point to the largesize and "concentration" of output in the hands of a fewfirms, and to large advertising budgets and establishedreputations which allegedly make it difficult for newfirms to get a foothold in the industry.What makes oligopoly of particular interest?When people talk heatedly about "big business" or the"giant corporations," it is usually oligopoly they havein mind. Because of their large size, they account formajor shares of manufacturing output, and therefore are330

allegedly in a position to raise prices and increaseprofit-margins, causing "administered" price inflation.(This question of "administered" prices will be pursuedbelow.)"Monopolistic Competition"(4) Monopolistic Competition. This is the lastof the market structures which, together with oligopoly,encompasses the bulk of output in the economy. Offhand,the term sounds contradictory due to the combination of"monopolistic" and "competition." Actually, "monopolistic"here signifies that the industry is characterizedby product differentiation, brand names, and trademarks,while "competition" refers to the presence ofnumerous firms and the absence of comparative giants.Furthermore, the product differentiation is often effectivelyslight, not enough to prevent the differentbrands from being regarded as close substitutes for eachother. Leading examples include the manufacture oftextiles, clothing, cigarettes, beer, chewing gum,bread, soap, TV sets, magazines, and aspirin."Monopolistic Competition" can, therefore, bebriefly characterized as follows: the product is differentiated,albeit relatively slightly so that thedifferent brands can be effectively regarded as closesubstitutes. Firms are many in number, and few, if any,are "giant"-size. Entry conditions are typically open.Which Market Structure Is Best?We are now ready to tackle the question: Whichmarket structure is the most desirable model forcompetition, and why? As noted above, the market structuretheory regards competition with a "what you see iswhat you get" approach: different market structurespresumably yield different kinds of competition. Of thefour market structures described above, it is perfectcompetition (PC) that is regarded by virtually allstandard texts as the "optimal," most desirable form ofcompetition.The other three structures suffer by comparisonwith the PC ideal, and, hence, are lumped together underthe classification of imperfect competition. And thereason given is very simple: under PC the firm ispresumed to produce more Q (quantity) and sell at a331

lower P (price) than any firm under imperfect competition(hereafter referred to as I£). Conversely, eachfirm under IC is presumed to produce less and sell at ahigher price than any firm under PC.Clearly, the basic criteria for preferring PCover IC are selling price and quantity produced. Inthemselves, these are eminently reasonable criteria.Other things being equal, consumers would surely preferto buy at a lower price than at a higher price, and toget a larger quantity for their dollar than a smallerquantity. Since the PC firm, compared with IC firms, ispurported to produce more at a lower price per unit, itwins the contest hands down. Compared with the standoutperformance of PC, the IC structures of monopoly,oligopoly, and monopolistic competition all yield"impure," inferior results. The simple graph in Figure33 illustrates these comparative performances.How Come PC Is Best?Figure 33 shows that for any given capacity ofproduction, the PC firm outperforms the IC firm in termsof quantity produced and selling price. The PC dotindicates that the PC firm produces at a higher rate ofcapacity than does the IC firm, and sells at a lowerprice, to boot. Right off, however, the reader may beprompted to ask: How is this possible? How can a tinyPC firm operate at a greater Qs and lower P than, say, agiant oligopolist (subsumed under the IC dot) whooperates with economies of large scale?For example, how can a puny "atomistic" PC firmproduce more automobiles than a General Motors, and sellits car at a lower price than the mass-produced GM car?Something is out of whack here. Surely any GM plant canoutperform—in terms of quantity, costs, and price—anytiny backyard, atomistic car maker. How do textbooksarrive at a conclusion so manifestly in conflict withexperience? The textbooks do explain how they reachtheir curious conclusion, but what they generally omittelling us is that their exposition incorporates afallacy. The nature of this fallacy, however, cannot befully understood without additional technical analysis,to which we now proceed.332

PRICEIC1 h IIIIPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY(IN PERCENT)100FIGURE 33:COMPARISON OF PERFECT COMPETITION AND IMPERFECT COMPETITION333

II.The Horizontal Demand ScheduleThe technical textbook analysis which ends upconcluding that the PC model is superior to any of theIC models runs along two related paths. One path exploresthe fact that the demand schedule facing the PCfirm becomes horizontal, whereas the IC firm retains thefamiliar downward sloping D schedule. Along this pathwe will uncover several implications of the horizontal Dcurve compared with the sloping D curve. This analysiswill involve elements covered in Chapters VII and VIII.The second path is concerned with the question:Assuming both PC and IC firms seek to maximize profits,and given their respective horizontal and sloping Dcurves, which particular combination of P and Q willenable each firm to maximize its profits? That is tosay, of all the possible dots (i.e., P and Qd) alongtheir respective demand schedules, which one should thePC and IC firms select as the profit-maximizing one,such that any other P and Q would be less than profitmaximizing?To prepare for this particular analysis,some new technical concepts, such as "marginal cost" and"marginal revenue," must be introduced.From Inelastic to ElasticHow do we start to understand the horizontaldemand curve of the PC firm? How does the D curve loseits downward slope from left to right and acquire ahorizontal slope? Figure 34 helps us reach an answer.Imagine, first, a real-world firm with the inelastic Dschedule. The dot indicates the firm's initial positionwith respect to P and Q. If it raised it price, itwould lose some unit sales, but because of its inelasticD its TR would increase. Other things being equal, theincreased TR would leave it better off. Let us now takethe next step in the analysis.Imagine that just before our firm could takeadvantage of its inelastic D by raising its price, theindustry is invaded by a host of new competitors fromhome and abroad. One consequence of this massive influxof competition and increased supply is a downward pressureon market price, as we saw in Chapter VIII. Butmore important for our purpose is the effect of theincreased competition on the slope of our firm's Dcurve. As we saw in Chapter VII, an increase in thenumber of firms producing similar products will tend to334

PRICEPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY(IN PERCENT)100FIGURE 34:ORIGIN OF HORIZONTAL DEMAND SCHEDULE.335

make D more elastic, that is, D will slope more to thehorizontal, as shown by D 2 in our diagram. And what adifference this makes I Let us see why.Infinite Supply of Close SubstitutesCompare the new demand D 2 with the former Di.First of all, D 2 clearly looks elastic, which means thatif our firm now dared to raise its P it would loseproportionally more unit sales than under Di , and itsTR would decrease! Not only is this bad news for thefirm, but it also reflects the effect of the increasedavailability of close substitutes caused by the hugeinflux of new firms producing a similar product. As wesaw in Chapter VII, the greater the availability ofclose substitutes, the more elastic will D be. Now, letus go one step further in our analysis.Imagine now the ultimate—that the influx of newfirms into the industry continues indefinitely. Here iswhere we must stretch our imagination a bit: the continuousinflux of new firms producing a similar productwill infinitely increase the availability of close substitutes.The ultimate theoretical and graphical consequenceis shown by the perfectly horizontal D 3 .Freedom of entry and the infinite availability of closesubstitutes have achieved their ultimate effect bycausing perfect elasticity of D—that is, perfecthorizontality in the demand schedule. We now have theexplanation of the horizontal D. But our travels arenot yet ended.At this point we should note that our firm andits industry have reached the general condition characteristicof perfect competition: all firms areproducing a similar, highly substitutable product (homogeneity); the number of firms has become "infinitely"great and, therefore, the size of each firm (relative tothe total size of the industry) has become "infinitely"tiny (atomism); and freedom of entry has made possiblethe endless influx of competition. This awareness thatwe have reached essentially PC conditions will help usas we proceed.No One Dares Raise His PriceWe must now ask: What would happen to our firmif, faced with D 3 , it would again try to raise its336

price? How many unit sales would it lose? The perfectlyflat D 3 tells us. The firm would lose all of itsremaining customers! Not even one unit could be sold attneabove-market price I All of this can be explained:if our firm dares to raise its P, while other firms donot, no consumer would want to buy from it when he couldget the same thing from its rivals at the unraisedprice. Given the virtually infinite number of competitors,the consumer finds it extremely convenient to buyfrom competitors whose unraised prices still prevail.If we simply remember the assumption of perfectknowledge, the consumer automatically knows wherealternative suppliers and unraised prices are available.In this connection it helps to emphasize thatreal-world firms typically face the familiar downwardsloping D schedule, which looks like Di or D2 in Figure34. This means that if any firm dares to raise itsselling P above its rival's price, it would lose somebut not all of its customers. The important thing tonote is why the firm would not lose all of itscustomers: customers cannot find perfect substitutesfor the firm's product. Consequently, some of themcontinue to patronize the firm. The reason for thiscontinued loyalty might be one of the following:customers still perceive the product as being sufficientlydifferentiated from rival firms' products; orthere are too many rival firms which makes it too costlyto search for and locate a lower-priced source.There is a more technical way of putting this:the horizontal D follows necessarily from the PC marketstructure. Product homogeneity assures perfect substitutabilityamong products of separate firms. Unlimitedcompetition means that each firm is necessarily a teenyatomistic entity, accounting for only an itsy-bitsyfraction of the industry output. Indeed, each PC firmis so small that it can readily sell all of its output(i.e., 100 percent of its productive capacity) at thecurrent market price. Since consumers possess perfectknowledge, and all products are homogeneous, firms donot need to advertise or otherwise promote theirproduct.Meet the "Price-Taker"In effect, all these special PC conditions causethe PC firm to end up as a totally passive, submissiveagent—a mere price-taker, as some writers put it—337

obediently accepting the market price as its own sellingprice. Our new Figure 35 helps us see this connectionbetween the PC firm as price-taker and the horizontalityof its demand schedule, as it perceives it. In panel A,the market dishes up a market-clearing price based onthe momentary D and S conditions. Then, somehow, bysome magical mystery device, the market automaticallytransmits information about this price to every firm, asshown by the arrow pointing to panel B. Panel B showsthe firm "taking" the market price, adopting it as itsown selling price, at which price it can then sell asmuch as it wants to produce.In other words, the horizontal D schedule facingeach price-taker is merely saying to the firm: themarket says there is only one price at which you cansell your current product, and this is it; there is nosense in trying to sell at any other price. Forinstance, if you set your price above the market price,you will lose all sales to your rivals. On the otherhand, there is no point selling below the market pricesince the market says you can sell all you want at the(higher) market price. Thus, the horizontal D scheduleis essentially a price line in the same way that thefamiliar downward-sloping demand schedule constitutes a"price line": all demand schedules, regardless ofdegree of slope, indicate the price at which a givenquantity can be sold to demanders.A Possible ConfusionIn this connection, let us anticipate a questionconcerning the apparent conflict between the traditionaldownward-sloping market demand schedule and the perfectlyhorizontal demand schedule facing the individual firmunder PC. Actually, there is no real conflict: thehorizontal D is an abstraction related to an unreal PCmodel, and hence is an impossibility, whereas thedownward-sloping market D is a real-world concept.Market demand schedules will always have the familiardownward slope (remember Chapter VI). As for the demandschedule facing the individual firm in the real world,it too will possess varying degrees of downward slope solong as its product is differentiated and the number ofrival firms is more or less limited (see Chapter VII onelasticity of demand). In contrast, the horizontal Dschedule is merely the logical outcome of extreme conditionspostulated by the PC model: absence of productdifferentiation and unlimited number of rival firms.338

gt- fc UJO o OiiON339

III. Profit Maximization; MC vs. MRWe have reached the half-way point on our trekto discover the secret of Figure 33: why the perfectcompetition (PC) firm is alleged to produce more andsell at a lower price than the imperfect competition(IC) firm. On the first leg of our journey we exploredthe nature and implications of the horizontal demandschedule. We now explore the method by which firms aresupposed to maximize profits, that is, the "marginalcost" versus "marginal revenue" method. In order tounderstand this rather technical approach to profitmaximization,we must first explain the concepts ofmarginal costs (MC) and marginal revenue(MR).Costs, Fixed and VariableThe concept of marginal costs (MC) is simplyderived from the concept of total costs (TC). As theterm indicates, TC includes all current and capitalexpenses incurred by the firm in production. Generallyspeaking, the higher the rate of production—that is,the higher tjie rate of productive capacity utilized—thelarger is TC.Textbooks distinguish two main components of TC:"fixed costs" (FC) and "variable costs" (VC). Again,the terms indicate their respective meanings. Thosecosts which are classified as fixed costs are so calledbecause, by their nature, they remain fixed or unchangedin total dollars regardless of the firm's rate of output.The other costs, which are classified as variablecosts, are so called for the opposite reason—they donot remain the same but, rather, vary in amount accordingto the different rates of output. These generalcharacteristics of the TC, FC, and VC schedules areshown in Figure 36, panel A.Leading examples of FC—which textbooks alsocall "overhead" or "sunk" costs—are rent, depreciation,property taxes, and salaries of overhead personnel(e.g., executives, department chiefs). Leading examplesof VC are wages of direct labor, materials, water, andelectricity.We can now see in Figure 36 why TC rises as therate of output increases: it is due to the VC component,since FC remains constant. The reasons for thischaracteristic behavior of VC are several: the increase340

DOLLARS(B)DOLLARS(A)O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100PERCENT OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITYFIGURE 36:TOTAL COSTS AND MARGINAL COSTS.341

in output generally requires more inputs of labor,materials, and power. However, at the highest rates ofoutput (say, 85-100 percent of capacity) premium ratesof pay for overtime labor may be incurred; overtimeoperations are regarded as less efficient than day-shiftoperations; any additional workers hired may be lessefficient than the regular labor force, thereby causingan increase in unit costs of output; and continuous highrates of plant utilization often cause equipment breakdownsand expenses for repair.Classification of CostsHow does one determine whether a given productionoutlay should be classified as "fixed" or"variable"? Theoretically, it is very simple: itdepends on whether the dollar outlays for the givenexpense item are affected by, and vary with, the rate ofoutput. If they vary whenever the rate of outputvaries, it is a variable cost. Otherwise, if they staythe same in dollar amount, regardless of the rate ofoutput, it is a fixed cost. In practice, however, theaccounting for such expense allocation may be morecomplicated than in principle.The reader should be alerted to the fact thatFigure 36 depicts a typically short-run situation. The"short-run" is defined as that time period during whichthe productive capacity of the firm is presumed to befixed, unchanged. In our analysis, whenever we refer to"productive capacity," we are assuming a given, shortrunsituation during which plant, equipment, and otheroverhead items remain the same; the only things thatvary in the short run are the variable expense items,such as labor and materials.From TC to MCIt is from TC that we derive the marginal costs(MC) in a straightforward way. First, MC is defined asthe increment of increase (or decrease) in TC whenproduction is increased (or decreased) by one unit ofoutput. For instance, if an increase in output of oneunit increases TC from $1,200 to $1,300, then the MC is$100, the increment of increase in TC.Although Figure 36 is drawn in terms of rates ofoutput (e.g., increments of 10% each of productive342

capacity), and not in terms of single units of output(e.g., one ton of coal), the principle of derivationremains the same, as shown in panel B. By extractingthe increments of change in TC from panel A and connectingtheir heights in panel B, we are able to derive acharacteristic MC curve. Indeed, the MC schedule turnsout to be a reflection of the incremental changes in VCas well as TC. The reason for this, as we saw above, isthat the marginal changes in VC account for the marginalchanges in TC to start with.From TR to MRDerivation of the marginal revenue (MR) scheduleof the firm is less complicated. Indeed, all we need tostart is a demand schedule: an array of prices (P) andthe quantity demanded (Qd) at each respective P. This Dschedule enables us to derive total revenue (TR); and itis this TR from which marginal revenue is derived in thesame incremental way as MC is derived from TC.The following Table VI (A) illustrates thesimple arithmetic involved. When P is reduced, Qd increasesand, in this case, so does TR. MR, in thiscase, is the extra revenue from selling an additionalunit. Thus, as TR increases from $1,000 to $1,089, MRamounts to $89, and so on. Indeed, MR can be definedsimply as the increment of change in TR when one more—or one less—unit is sold."Spoiling the Market"Notice the following characteristics of the TRand MR schedules derived from the D schedule in Table VI(A). First, for all downward-sloping schedules, so longas the TR schedule increases when P is reduced (i.e., Dis elastic), it increases at a diminishing rate—bydiminished increments—as seen in the MR column: MRdecreases even though TR increases.The diminishing rate of growth in the TR, andhence the MR, is itself a consequence of the "spoilingof-the-market"effect that naturally occurs when firmsreduce their P in order to increase the number of unitssold. Since the lower P is applied to all units offeredfor sale, the firm necessarily takes a beating, so tospeak. For example, in order to sell 11 units insteadof 10, the firm must reduce its P for all 11 units.343

This differs from the practice called multi-partpricing, under which the firm would sell the first 10units at the original $100 and then sell only the 11thunit at $99, the 12th unit at $98, and so on. Instead,the firm applies the new, lower P to all units sold, andnot merely to a part of them.TABLE VI(A) Marginal Revenue — Sloping DPrice(P)QuantityDemanded(Qd)TotalRevenue(TR)MarginalRevenue(MR)$1009998979695 '9410111213141516$1,0001,0891,1761,2611,3441,4251,504$—898785838179(B) Marginal Revenue — Horizontal DPrice(P)$100100100100100100100QuantityTotalDemanded(Qd)1234567Revenue(TR)$100200300400500600700MarginalRevenue(MR)$100100100100100100This brings us to an important associatedcharacteristic of the MR for a downward sloping D: atevery selling P, the MR ijs less than the correspondingP. This, too, can be seen in Table VI (A): at a P of$99, MR is only $89; at a P of $98, the MR is only $87;344

and so on. This characteristic tendency is likewiseattributed to TR growing at a diminishing rate when D iselastic, that is, the "spoiling-of-the-market" effectnoted above. We can graphically illustrate thesecharacteristic features of MR in its relation to TR inFigure 37, panel A.MR for the Horizontal DSo far, our discussion of the MR schedule isrelevant only to the case of imperfect competition (IC),not to perfect competition (PC). The reason is thatonly in IC do we find downward-sloping demand scheduleswhich do not exist in PC, where D schedules are necessarilyhorizontal. Under IC, demand schedules facingthe firm characteristically slope downward because ofproduct differentiation, as we saw in our discussion ofFigure 34.Mathematically, the MR derived from a horizontalD is calculated in the same way as for a sloping D (seeTable VI (B)). But whereas MR is always less than P inthe case of the sloping D, MR is always equal to P inthe case of horizontal D schedules. For every unit soldthere is only one P, the market P. Thus, since thehorizontal D of the PC firm is its "price line," it isalso its MR schedule. This characteristic coincidenceof MR and P under perfect competition is illustrated bythe P and MR schedules in Table VI (B) and in Figure 37,panel B.Determining Maximum-Profit P and QWe now approach the climax of the textbook casein favor of the PC firm and against the IC firm. Atthis stage of the analysis both types of firms are askedto determine their maximum-profit price and quantity bymeans of "marrying," so to speak, their respective MCand MR schedules. That is to say, they are both askedto apply a special method of determining that unique Pand Q combination at which total profits will be amaximum, such that any other P and Q would yield lessthan maximum total profits. At its heart this methodinvolves the juxtaposition of the MC and MR schedulesrelevant to the PC and IC firms, respectively. Let usfirst examine the case of the PC firm.345

aQ> "ni rn2an346

How the Price-Taker MaximizesHow does the atomistic price-taker in PC determinehis maximum-profit P and Q? According to thetextbooks, we must look for that unique combination of Pand Q at which MC equals MR—that is, graphicallyspeaking,the intersection point of MC with MR. Thisspecial meeting place of MC and MR points out thatparticular price (P) and output (Q) which will maximizethe firm's profits. This intersection point, where MCequals MR, is readily seen in Figure 38, panel A: itpoints both to the P (i.e., $100) along the horizontalD, and to the Q (vertically downwards, the quantity X).(Remember, for the price-taker and his horizontal D, themarket P represents his MR, too). In this case, then, aP of $100 and a Q amounting to X are the unique pair ofP and Q that maximizes total profits. Any other P and Qwould be less than maximizing under the given MC and MRconditions. Why? Let us see.A simple, logical process of elimination enablesus to see why only that pair of P and Q at which MCequals MR brings maximum maxir profits. If we look at panel Ain Figure 38, we notice that the market has alreadygiven our price-taker the price at which he must sell;it remains for him only to find that unique quantitywhich will maximize his total profits. And we find thisspecial Q at the output X that is indicated by theintersection point of MC with MR: only output X canmaximize total profits; any other Q will bring less thanmaximum profits.For example, if the price-taker produces morethan X, MC will increase and exceed MR; this means thatthe extra costs of producing the additional units wouldbe greater than the extra sales revenue and would,therefore, detract from total profits. Conversely, ifthe firm produces less than X, the MC is being exceededby the MR, which means that the firm can still add toits total profits by producing more. Only when itreaches output X will the firm discover that its MC hasfinally caught up with its MR so that no more profitscan be added by producing still more.Balancing Costs vs. BenefitsTo put it another way: it always pays theprice-taker to produce more so long as MR exceeds MC,and to produce less when MR is exceeded by MC. That is347

348

to say, so long as MR is greater than MC, additionalprofits can be earned by producing more, even though MCis continuing to rise: this rise in MC is merely slowingdown the increments of increase in total profits butis not stopping total profits from growing. (Indeed,total profits continue to increase, albeit at a diminishingrate.) Similarly, so long as MR is being exceededby MC, it means that the hitherto earned batch ofprofits is being eaten up by the excess of MC over MR.This excess of MC over MR is the signal that the firm isproducing too much.Actually, this principle by which the firmbalances MR against MC is merely a special case of ageneral principle: It pays to put out extra effort orsacrifice (MC) so long as the extra benefits or gain(MR) exceeds it. The only difference between the applicationof this principle to (a) the firm, and to (b)human action in general, is that in the former case itis easier to quantify or assign numerical values to MCand MR, whereas in the latter case it is not possible toquantify the subjective valuations attached to extrasacrifices and extra benefits.Price-Taker Is a Quantity AdjusterAt this point it is relevant to note that the PCfirm is not only a price-taker but is also a quantityadjuster.That is to say, once he is given the marketP, he need only adjust his quantity of output to thatrate which is indicated by the intersection of MC and MRand which will, therefore, maximize his profits.For example, if on a given day the market pricerises—say, from P 1 to P 2 in Figure 39—this causes arise in marginal revenue schedule from MR X to MR 2 and anew intersection point with the unchanged MC schedule.This in turn indicates a new (higher) rate of output (toY) that would maximize profits. Conversely, if themarket price decreases—say, from Pi to P3 —the newintersection point of MR with MC indicates a reductionin output to the rate of Z. In summary, rising marketprices enable output to expand into the higher MCranges, whereas falling prices drive output down intolower MC ranges.349

PRICED2 (MR2)D1 (MR1)D3 (MR3)QUANTITYX YFIGURE 39:PRICE-TAKER AS QUANTITY-ADJUSTER.350

How IC Firms Maximize ProfitsIn contrast to the price-taker in the PC model,how does the firm in the IC market structure—monopoly,oligopoly, or monopolistic competition—maximize itsprofits? In the textbooks, the answer is straightforward:apply the same profit-maximizing principle.That is, look for the intersection of MC with MR, sinceonly that P and Q which make MC and MR equal can maximizeprofits. Precisely this has been done in Figure38, panel B. But notice some differences due to thesloping demand schedule characteristic of IC firms, towit.The downward-sloping demand schedule of the ICfirm as we saw in Figure 37, panel A, generates a stillgreater downward slope in the MR schedule. For thisreason we get a different intersection point for MC andMR, even though the MC schedule is the same in bothcases: The intersection will characteristically occurat a point that is lower and leftward along the MC curve(see Figure 38). It is from this differently locatedjunction of MC and MR that we now read off that unique Pand Q combination that maximizes profits for the ICfirm. When we do this, we find that the MC:MR intersectionpoints to the smaller output of Y and the higherprice than in panel A (remember, price is always readoff the demand schedule).Voila*!Less Q, Higher PIt is here that we have the textbook answer toour original conundrum—that the atomistic price-takercharacteristically produces more and at a lower pricecompared to the IC firm whose Q is typically smaller andits P higher. Ostensibly, the key to the puzzle is thedownward slope of the demand schedule characteristic ofthe IC market structure! If only the IC firm were notfacing a sloping D schedule—that is, if it instead hada horizontal D curve—it, too, would produce as much asthe PC firm and at as low a price. Only the sloping Dinduces it to retreat to the smaller Q and the higher Pfor its maximum profits; any lower P and greater Q wouldonly cause a drop in total profits. Let us now proceedto raise a sticky question: To what extent is thesloping D really the key to the puzzle?351

IV.Taking Stock of "Perfect Competition"How are we to evaluate this textbook case infavor of the PC model? First, we will examine the PCmodel on its own terms to see if it really holds up as asuperior model of competition. How realistic is"perfect competition" as a model or standard for realworldcompetition? How desirable is the PC model, evenif it were possible to implement? Then we will swingover to the IC model and see if things there are reallyas inferior as they are made out to be. Let us nowbriefly review the realism of the four basic assumptionsunderlying the PC model.Is Perfect Competition Realistic?It should be clear by now that the PC modelstarts right off with three strikes against it by assumingthe triad of product homogeneity, atomism of firmsize, and perfect knowledge. All three are patentlyunrealistic conditions, yet the PC model brushes thishandicap under the rug. It is like saying a personcould fly merely by assuming that he already had wings!How does one get wings in the first place? How do weachieve homogeneity, atomism, and omniscience to startwith?Illusions of Perfect KnowledgeOmniscience? Perfect knowledge? How does thisapply to real life? Knowledge or information are scarceresources because the means of acquiring them, and ofovercoming ignorance in general, are themselves scarceand therefore costly to acquire: the time, effort, andmoney required for searching, trial-and-error experience,and learning.Worst of all, the world does not stand still—itis in constant flux; demand schedules shift, techniquesof production become obsolete through the introductionof new and better ones, and the supply and quality ofresources alternately worsen or improve. The result isconstant change in demand, supply, and prices—changethat makes them unpredictable. As soon as we learn agiven fact, so soon is it likely to become obsolete. Atbest we can expect only to acquire that amount of informationwhich will hopefully maximize the likelihood ofnon-regretful decisions. For everyone to possess perfect352

knowledge, however, you would have to make the worldstand still and remain changeless until everyone couldobtain all the information he needed to make nonregretfuldecisions. That is, only in a static worldwould perfect knowledge be possible.Homogeneity vs. NatureHomogeneity of product? This goes entirelyagainst the natural tendency of human beings to differentiateand distinguish themselves simply because theyare differentiated by birth. Whether it is by creatingdifferent products or rendering individuated services,each of us naturally seeks to individualize his personalityand talents in some self-satisfying way. Hence,it is unreasonable to expect differentiated human beingsto produce naturally a flow of undifferentiated (homogeneous)goods and services. The only way you can gethomogeneity of product is first to produce homogeneouspeople. Short of that, you would have to impose adictatorship to compel people to produce homogeneousresults.Atomism vs. ProductivityHow about atomism of firm size? Theoretically,the smallest irreducible size of the firm is the individualproducer, working on his own homestead. Offhand,it is difficult to object per se to such individualfarmers, craftsmen, industrial artisans, and selfemployedprofessionals as the basis of a householdeconomy. But an individualist economy does not necessarilyimply homogeneity of product instead of differentiation.Indeed, given the natural tendency for humandifferentiation, it is more reasonable to expectdifferentiation rather than homogeneity of product in ahousehold economy!Furthermore, history tells us that, when giventhe chance, man would just as soon give up his householdeconomy and participate in the social division of laborin order to enjoy its multitude of benefits: theeconomies of large-scale production and their associatedlower costs and prices, the greater supply of humantalents that can be pooled in one locale, and thegreater variety of goods and services available in onemarket. Again, the only way you might get a universalreversion to one-man household economies would be bytotalitarian force.353

An Inner InconsistencyThis brings us to an embarrasing inconsistencyimmanent in the PC assumptions—specifically, betweenatomism and homogeneity. It can be argued that the twokey requirements of homogeneity and atomism are notnecessarily mutually compatible. Thus, it does notnecessarily follow that product homogeneity is morecompatible with endless numbers of atomistic firms thanis product differentiation. Indeed, on the basis ofboth logic and history, quite the contrary can beargued: It is standardization of product that couldreasonably be associated with massive concentration ofproduction within a few giant firms (i.e., oligopoly),whereas differentiation of product would naturally beassociated with the host of atomistically small,independent producers, each turning out his more-or-lessindividualized product.For one thing, standardized products are technicallymore easily adapted to large-scale mass productionmethods. (The Industrial Revolution proved that.)Add to this the economic attraction of lower unit costsand prices permitted by large-scale production. Hence,there is the undoubted attraction of concentrating productionin a relatively few large-scale plants. Incontrast, differentiation of product necessarily impliesseparate small plants or workships for each separatecraftsman; and since there is no conceivable limit tothe number of different products man can create, thereis no assignable limit to the number of firms or workshopsthat would be established, except the limit posedby scarcity of resources. Thus, atomism does not necessarilymean homogeneity of product; the PC model isstood on its head.Free Entry Makes SenseWhat's left? It's free entry—freedom tocompete—at last something we can accept as a reasonableway to achieve maximum production and exchange, andhence maximum consumers' welfare. But, as we saw inChapter X (on consumers' sovereignty), the free-marketsystem also features freedom of entry. Why push forfantastic perfect competition, with its triple chimeraof homogeneity, atomism, and perfect knowledge? If freeentry is desirable, then the free-market model wouldseem to be a more reasonable objective than impossiblePC.354

No Real Competition in PC!This brings us to another serious flaw in PC.Where, oh where, is there any real competition in this"perfectly competitive" model? Where is there even awhiff of rivalrous behavior in this world of passivequantity-adjusters? For example, where is there anyprice competition? As a matter of fact, the PC modelprecludes any incentive to engage in competitive pricingsince each price-taker is a mere quantity-adjuster.Where is there any non-price or quality competitionthrough product differentiation? There is none of that,either; it is homogeneity which rules the roost. Theonly rivalrous dimension in the whole of PC is freeentry. But as we have just seen, free entry is by nomeans unique to the PC model. More important, however,free entry under PC becomes a meaningless feature:Firms are free to enter into only passive, noncompetitiveproduction as mere quantity-adjusters! Soagain it must be asked: Where is there any realcompetition in PC?This is a real embarrassment! After all, howcan anyone sensibly hold PC up as a model of competitionwhen, by definition, it is totally barren of any realcompetition for the consumer's dollar? Thus, the freeentrycondition provides only a delusive dimension ofrivalry: PC firms are free to produce only homogeneousproducts. Indeed, as we will soon see, every attempt tocompete by means of product differentiation or costcuttinginnovations proves to be futile—which is enoughto kill off any incentive to compete in the first place.We will now see why.Competition in the Real WorldIn the real world, as distinguished from thepassive world of PC, competition only superficiallytakes place in terms of lower price and better quality.Underlying both price and quality competition is innovation—thoseseminal activities that bring about (a) theproduct differentiation that enables the conquering ofmarkets, and (b) the cost-cutting that enables firms toreduce prices without squeezing profit margins (seeChapter IV). Indeed, we will now see why only in thereal world would it be reasonable to expect such innovationto occur, and why it is unreasonable to expect anyinnovation under PC.355

By means of product differentiation, firms seekto tap new markets by filling gaps in market demand—demand to satisfy wants or demand for new means. As longas people's tastes blossom and develop in endlessvariety and sophistication, and as long as people arenaturally inclined to keep up with the Joneses, themarket will continue to reveal "gaps" of unsatisfieddemand which entrepreneurs will seek to fill. But noneof this will happen automatically: only the alertfirms, and the ones that command sufficient capitalfunds, will be able to capitalize on the untapped gapsin market demand.Instantaneous Imitation of ProductIn contrast, the PC model offers only homogeneityof product. We must now ask: What would happen inPC if a maverick firm, having spotted an untapped gap inmarket demand, decides to innovate—by producing a newproduct, improving on an existing one, or modifying itwith a new style or design? Such innovation couldenable this firm to increase it sales, grow in size, andincrease its share of the market. However, given themagical assumptions of PC, such advantages would beextremely short-lived: perfect knowledge, mobilefactors of production, and the firms' ability to instantaneouslyimitate any innovation would immediately eraseany advantage to the innovator. Right on the heels ofthe innovator, all other firms would instantaneouslyduplicate the innovator's feat in order to recoup theirlost shares of the market. As a consequence, innovatorswould soon realize that, given the likelihood of instantaneousimitation by rivals, it would be utterly foolishto innovate in the first place. Why bother?!We can now also see why the PC model, whichprecludes product differentiation, is so unreal. In thereal world it would take at least some time before anyor all rivals could catch up with the innovator:resources are not so mobile as in PC; nor does everyfirm have personnel as talented or creative as theinnovator's. Indeed, we can now see that the PC assumptionof instantaneous imitation implies that every firmhas equally talented personnel. Only this equalityassures that what any one PC firm can do, every otherfirm can do as well, and instantaneously. In PC, homogeneityof product implies homogeneity of personnel!356

Instantaneous Imitation of TechniqueA similar threat of instantaneous duplication byrivals hangs over the PC firm if it dares to innovatenew cost-cutting techniques. Why on earth would a firmintroduce a new technique of production in the firstplace if rival firms can duplicate this feat in a jiffy?We can now see the real reason why, when faced with ahorizontal D schedule, it would be foolish for the firmto sell below the market price. The reason is notsimply that the firm is taking the easy way out bypassively "taking" the market price; it is a bit morecomplicated than that.First of all, selling below the market pricemeans that, as a result of its price-cut, the firm'sprofit margin will be squeezed. True, this underpricingof product is silly if you are in PC and you are free to"take" the higher market price and still be able to sellall that you produce. So long as you are motivated tomaximize your profits and wealth, so long will youprefer to sell at a higher price than at a lower price,ceteris paribus. Therefore, it makes no sense tosqueeze your profit margin if you don't have to. Butwhat if you can introduce a cost-cutting technique andcut your selling price without squeezing the profitmargin? And what if you alone are able to cut costswhile your rivals cannot, so that you can cut your pricewithout cutting your profit rate while your rivals cannotdo so? This possibility is diagrammed in Figure 40.Unit Cost or AC ScheduleThe first thing to note in Figure 40 is theaverage cost (AC) curve introduced in panel B. Based onobserved date, the AC schedule shows the varied costper-unitof output incurred at different rates of production.At very low rates of production—say, in theOX range—the AC is above the minimum unit costs thatoccur in the large XY range of productive capacity.Only when the plant is operating at these higher ratesof capacity—in the XY range—can it enjoy the minimumunit costs. Then, at the very high rates of production,in the approximately 85-100 percent of capacity range(YZ), unit costs again rise above minimum costs. Thereasons for this are several-fold: overtime rates ofpay; costs of repair and maintenance of overburdenedequipment; and drop in productivity due to newly hiredworkers.357

358

The next thing to note in panel B of Figure 40is that the current market price iust covers the minimumpoints of the AC curve. Since textbooks usually includea "normal" rate of profit in the AC schedule, this meansthat firms are able to earn a normal profit when theirAC is covered by the going market price. (The readershould be aware that this inclusion of profit in the ACschedule differs from the treatment in Chapter IX. Thisdifference of treatment is still an unresolved questionin the technical literature. Here we adhere to theorthodox treatment, unless otherwise specified.)This tangency of market price and minimum ACrepresents a state of equilibrium. If market price wereto fall below AC, losses would begin to replace profits,firms would begin to exit from the industry, and thereduced supply would tend to drive prices back up again.The restored price level would then make it once againprofitable to enter the industry. If, on the otherhand, prices were to rise above the original level, theextra profits would attract new firms whose entry wouldincrease supply and drive prices back down, thusreducing profits to their former rate.Source of Differential ProfitsNow, in panel C we can see the initial positiveimpact on the innovator's profits of his newly introducedcost-cutting technique. The new technique ofproduction enables the innovator's AC schedule to drop;this means a lower unit cost of production. Sincemarket price is still the same as before, the innovator'slower AC automatically increases the spreadbetween selling price and AC. Thus our cost-cuttinginnovator enjoys initial differential profits—a higherprofit rate than his rivals'.He now has two basic choices: (a) continue toenjoy the full margin of differential profits, whileleaving his selling price the same as his rivals' (panelC); or (b) reduce his selling price to where it justcovers his minimum AC (panel D). The first option wouldgenerate an accumulation of profits and increase hiswealth, while the second option could enable him tounderprice his rivals and drive them out of business.(A very important byproduct of this rivalry between ourinnovator and the laggards is the lower price enjoyed byconsumers). Since his rivals cannot match his lowerprice without suffering drastic losses, they lose359

customers to the innovator. But then our innovatorwould have to expand his productive capacity in order tosupply the increased demand for his product.Whence will our innovator obtain additionalfunds to invest in new plant and equipment? He can, ofcourse, borrow from the money and capital markets; buthe now also has a new source of investment funds: thedifferential profits associated with choice (a) above.However, the innovator, in line with much of U.S. experience,could decide upon a combination of both (a)and (b), enjoying part of the financial benefits accruingfrom (a) and part of the competitive benefitsaccruing from (b).Instantaneous vs. Delayed AjustmentsWhichever course our innovator undertakes as aconsequence of his initial differential profits, thefact remains that these profits can arise only so longas none or very few of his rivals can duplicate hiscost-cutting feat, and so long as there is a sufficienttime-lag between his innovative advance and his rivals'catching up to him. In real-world competition, significantdifferential profits are possible precisely becausefirms are not equally capable of innovative advances andcannot instantaneously imitate the innovator's feat. Inthe PC model, however, all firms are required to beequally capable in every dimension of competitive behavior.Ironically, as a consequence, no real-worldcompetition would actually take place. Why compete whenthere is no advantage to it?In the real world, by contrast, firms do haveincentive to innovate precisely because the inequalityof talents and creativity, on the one hand, and thetime-lags involved in catching up to the innovator, onthe other, may be sufficient to bring pioneer profits tofirms able to innovate. By the same token, the laggardfirms, in order to catch up, are desperately driven toat least imitate the innovator, if not to innovate ontheir own. Otherwise, they must resign themselves to asecondary position in the industry. In the process ofimitation, the imitating firms may resort to luring awaykey personnel from the innovator, intensive market research,product planning, and research and development.Such catch-up efforts thus give an ironic twist toreal -world rivalry among firms: to the extent thatlaggards intensify their imitation of the innovator—for360

example, in style or design—to that extent a tendencyto homogeneity asserts itself and offsets the tendencyto differentiate products.Homogeneity of Firms, TooAll of this helps bring home another importantimplication of the PC model already noted above: Thelogical concomitant of homogeneity of product is thehomogeneity of firms! The personnel of firms themselvesmust be as homogeneous as the products they produce.The talents embodied in each firm must be equally knowledgeableand creative in order to be able to achieveinstantaneous imitation of a rival's innovation. It isas though the goddess of egalitarianism had descendedupon the world and redistributed the differentiatedtalents of the world in order to create an even distributionof them. Hence the motto, "Anything you can do,we can do!" appropriately describes what homogeneity ofproduct in PC really implies.Is Perfect Competition Desirable?Let us grant that no one really Wants a reincarnationof the PC model under real-world conditions, andthat proponents of the PC model merely want us toapproximate it—by promoting tendencies toward homogeneity,atomism, perfect knowledge, and free entry.After all, aren't these, in themselves, desirable characteristicsfor a competitive economy?Well, to start, what about the desirability ofhomogeneity? This characteristic must be ruled outsimply on the logical grounds that it makes no sense todesire something that either (a) is impossible toachieve (given the axiom of human differentiation) or(b) is achievable only by undesirable means (i.e.,totalitarianism). Atomism of firms must be disqualifiedon virtually the same grounds. Furthermore, as we haveargued, atomism is more compatible with product differentiationthan with homogeneity.Perfect knowledge, too, must be rejected on thegrounds of impossibility. This is not to imply thepeople will not prefer more knowledge to less knowledge,but only that personal circumstances and subjective preferencesof each individual—the degree of urgency and361

motivation, and the availability of means—can determinethe extent to which a person pursues greater knowledge.Finally, we are again left with free entry asthe only realistic and the only desirable goal in PC.We have already noted that free entry implies essentiallythe same thing as free competition in the free-marketmodel in Chapter X: the absence of artificial barriersto new or existing firms that want to enter into competitionin the given industry. But, as we have stressed,free entry is the only realistic element in PC; the restof it—homogeneity, atomism, and perfect knowledge—mustbe abandoned as unrealistic goals.Free Entry Means Free MarketIf free competition is the most we can ask forin the real world, and the free market assures maximumfree competition, it is reasonable to ask: Why botherwith the impossible PC model when the free-market model—which is not impossible!—will suffice? Why saddleourselves with the chimera of product homogeneity,atomistic firms, and perfect knowledge if the onlynecessary condition is free-market competition?To repeat: the only one of the four basicassumptions of the PC model that can serve as a realworldstarting point for creating more elastic Dschedules is free entry; the only thing it requires isthe removal of artificial impediments to free competition.In contrast, the other three assumptions cannotserve as starting points because they are impossible;nor can they serve as end results because they areeither beyond human capability (e.g., perfect knowledge)or desirability(e.g., homogeneity, atomism).Sloping Demand the Achilles' HeelLet us now swing back to the much discredited ICfirm, which is alleged to produce less Q at a higher Pthan the PC firm, and therefore is regarded less satisfactorythan the imaginary PC firm. What is the singleapparent cause of this inferiority? Technically speaking,as noted above, it is the sloping demand schedule.Everything else in the textbook argument seems OK—thatis, since the marginal cost schedule is assumed to bethe same as that of the PC firm, the Achilles' heel mustbe the sloping D.362

If the sloping demand schedule automaticallycondemns the IC firm, it is proper to ask: What causesthis slope in the first place? The answer is: productdifferentiation—the absence of very close substitutes.This even includes monopoly—open or closed—since itsbeing the only firm in its field naturally differentiatesit from all firms. Except for the closedmonopoly, however, differentiation of product is, as wehave noted, a byproduct of the natural differentiationof human beings—consumers having varied tastes andpreference-scales, and producers having differentiatedability to cater to consumers' wants. Thus the indictmentof the IC firm basically implies a denial ofnatural human variation—as though demand schedules inthe real world could be anything but sloping!Producing Less for a Higher PriceIs there any way of saving the IC firm from thecurse of its sloping demand schedule, which alone inducesit to produce a smaller Q at a higher P? Oneobvious way out would seem to be this: Let the firmsettle for less than maximum profits! That is to say,let it produce more Q and sell at a lower P; for example,more than the amount Y in Figure 38, panel B; thendrop the P in order to sell this greater Q. But thisraises the obvious question: Why should the IC firm beforced to seek less than maximum profits? Does it nothave the same right as the atomistic PC firm to seekmaximum profits? It certainly does—but only by meansof producing less and selling at a higher P. Thisquestion, in turn, brings up the more fundamental issue:Does not every firm have the right to produce as much oras little as it wishes?For example, does Clint Eastwood have the rightto ask for a higher salary than, say, Robert Redford—orvice versa? Does either of them have the right to makeonly one picture a year, if he wishes, instead of two orthree? Does anyone have the right to compel them tomake more movies for less pay per movie? Does thefarmer have the right to sell less corn at a higherprice per ear? Does the electrical worker have theright to ask for a shorter work week and a higher rateof pay per hour? Is there anyone working a forty-hourweek who cannot be accused of preferring this to workingfifty hours at less per hour?363

Common law tradition has it that everyone hasthe natural right to produce as much or as little as hewishes, which includes working a shorter work week whileasking for a higher price for his service. But he doesnot have the right—at least in a truly free society,with individual rights of self-sovereignty—to forceothers to pay a higher price for less work. Unfortunately,this principle is being widely violated; leadingexamples are (a) trade-union strike actions toreduce working hours and increase wage rates, and (b)legally enforced farm acreage restrictions to reducesupply for higher farm prices.Bogey of "Artificial Scarcity"The less-Q, higher-P indictment of the IC firmis part of a general line of attack which holds that anyfirm that dares to produce less Q than it can is guiltyof "contriving artificial scarcity." This makes no moresense than to say that any of us who dares to rest fromwork or even sleep too much would also be guilty of"contriving artificial scarcity" by being less productivethan otherwise.More seriously, however, we need only recallthat scarcity is a natural condition that is prior toman's productivity. Anything useful that man produces,no matter how great or small, can only help alleviatethe scarcity of goods; it certainly cannot create "artificial"scarcity! It is totally irrelevant, therefore,that an oligopolist or any other real-world firm canproduce more than they do: so long as they produceanything at all, they reduce scarcity, not create it!Yes, there ijs a way to create artificial scarcity, andthat is to forcibly prevent or restrain a person fromproducing goods—for instance, by artificial legal barriersto entry of the type discussed in Chapter X (e.g.,licenses or permits required by government), threats andviolence by a Mafia gang, by trade union and agriculturalrestrictionism, as noted above.If we grant the IC firm every free man's rightto produce as much or as little as it wishes, and tocharge whatever price it feels its product is worth (orwhatever price the buyer is willing to pay), we mustthen ask: What grounds do proponents of the PC modelreally have for condemning the IC firm? If the IC firmdoes have the natural right to maximize its profits and364

to produce less Q at a higher P,reject the IC firm?on what grounds can weBogey of "Market Power"A favorite ploy of opponents of the IC firm isthe bugbear about "market power." What is this marketpower? In essence, it refers to one of two things: (a)the IC firm's ability to raise its price without fear oflosing all its customers, a fear that haunts the pricetakerunder PC; (b) the ability of large companies to"administer prices." In the first case, "market power"merely refers to possession of a sloping D! Only asloping D enables the firm to hold onto some of itscustomers even when it raises its P. Presumably,sloping D schedules must be outlawed! But enough hasalready been said about sloping D curves versus horizontalones. Let us, instead, move on to the concept of"administered prices."What Are "Administered Prices"?The concept of "administered prices" (AP hereafter)implies that the large firm has an unrivaledpower to raise its P at will—presumably in virtualdefiance of the law of demand and supply I That is tosay, the mere posting of its selling price by the firmsuffices to realize this price in the market place. Inthe past 30 years or so, the concept of AP has croppedup whenever the general price level in the economyspurted upward—in association with charges that the bigcorporations were to blame for "too high" prices and"inflation."This is not the place to get into the truecauses of price inflation. Suffice it to note that,other things being equal, the primary inducement toraising the firm's P is to increase its TR (not decreaseit). This implies that the firm believes it has aninelastic D schedule (Chapter VII): only an inelastic Dwill enable the firm to increase its TR by a price hike.That is, if the firm had an elastic D instead, the pricehike would only cause its TR to drop and it would thereforehave to rescind its price hike.365

All Firms Are Price-Takers!Two conclusions follow. One is that the bugbearabout AP can only have relevance to firms possessinginelastic rather than elastic D schedules. The issuethen becomes this: Does the big firm—or any firm—havethe natural right to raise its P in order to increaseits TR? We have argued the affirmative. More importantis the second conclusion: After all is said and done,in the real world all firms turn out to be price-takersno less effectively than in the PC model.For instance, no real-world firm really has the"power" to suspend the law of demand and supply—thatis, to avoid ending up with a surplus for overpricingits product, or to avoid less-than-maximum profits byunderpricing its product and realizing a shortage.Sooner or later, after trial-and-error searching for themarket-clearing price, every real-world firm findsitself eventually having to "take" the market price thatactually clears its supply. Thus real-world firms are"price-takers" no less than firms in pure competition,the only difference being this: PC firms "take" their Pfrom the market right from the start (they have perfectknowledge!), whereas real firms "take" their P onlyafter trial-and-error search in the market. Irony ofironies: real firms are, in an ultimate sense, pricetakers,too!What Firms Can or Cannot DoTo be sure, in the real world every firm is freeto sell or not to sell at the going market price. Forexample, it is free to withhold some of its product ifit believes this will cause a shortage and a rise inmarket price. But this "power" to withhold supply canin no way force the buyer to pay that higher price. Thebuyer is always free not to buy if he thinks the priceis too high. The only "power" possessed by any firm isthe right to post its selling price—merely to ask forwhatever price it wants—that's all! In no way can itcompel any buyer to pay that price.Thus we see that so long as the firm: (a) mustseek the market-clearing price in order to avoid overpricingor underpricing its product and to maximize itsprofits, and (b) does not have the power to force buyersto pay its asking price, then so long must the firm—even the ugly "giant" oligopolist—be viewed as a price-366

taker rather than a price-controller. So long as themarket demand can upset any price posted by the firm, wemust conclude that it is market demand and not the firmthat ultimately determines selling prices. In the absenceof perfect knowledge, real-world price-takers haveto grope and search for their profit-maximizing priceinstead of getting it automatically and instantaneouslyas in the unreal world of pure competition. In the realworld, there is no way for the firm to avoid subservienceto the market as the ultimate determiner ofits selling price. Hence, since all real-world firmsare necessarily price-takers, the PC model no longer hasa monopoly on price-takers!No Empirical BasisWhat remains, then, of the case against the ICfirm? On the one hand, the PC ideal stands shattered asan unrealistic and undesirable objective. Its horizontalD schedule is a pure heuristic device, unfit forhuman existence. Its free-entry requirement is notunique to PC, since it is also a basic tenet of thefree-market model (Chapter X). Its price-taker, once heis deprived of his magical "perfect knowledge," turnsout to be no more of a price-taker than any real-worldfirm. On the other hand, the IC firm does possess thenatural right to seek maximum profits and to produce asmuch or as little as it wishes.There is still another embarrassment for the PCmodel: the lack of any empirical basis for the chargethat the IC firm actually produces less and charges morefor its product than does the tiniest of PC firms.Indeed, reality is quite the reverse. For technologicaland economic reasons, the large-size IC firm is generallyable to outproduce and underprice the puny PC firm.Blowing the WhistleThis brings us to the most humiliating embarrassmentof all for the PC model; the diagrammaticpyrotechnics of the textbooks, in effect, amount to ahoax being played on the reader. The hoax takes theform of the casual but inadmissable assumption that boththe PC and IC firms have the same MC curves! (Panels Aand B in Figure 38 remain true to this assumption.)There is hardly a text that does not assume that boththe atomistic price-taker and the giant oligopolist have367

the same cost schedules. One prominent text even goesso far as to show the puny PC firm with lower averagecost (AC) and MC curves than the giant oligopolist!This glib assumption, of course, totally contradictsreality.If we appeal to reality instead of diagrammatichocus-pocus, we find that, except for cases where technologydoes not permit, the larger firm is generallyable to produce at lower costs rather than the smallerfirm (see the following Figure 41). The reason lies inits special ability to capture the economies of largescaleproduction which are technically and economicallyforeclosed to the undersized firm.Thus, in practice, it is the IC firm—not the PCfirm—which produces greater quantities at lower costsand prices. Instead of the untenable juxtapositionshown in Figure 33, it is much more reasonable topresent the comparison depicted in Figure 41. Here, thePC firm has an extremely high cost and price levelbecause of its puny size and scale of operations. Ingross contrast, the oligopolist, with his large-scaleeconomies, shows a relatively massive Q at a significantlylower cost and price. This is much closer toreality! As Joseph A. Schumpeter once put it, writing ascript on market competition that omits both rivalrousproduct differentiation and competitive cost-cutting is"like Hamlet without the Danish prince"!3V. Competition Is Good — For Whom?As we close this chapter, we come full circle—we return to the assertion that competition is a goodthing. This raises the question: For whom specificallyis competition supposed to be beneficial? For theconsumer? If so, in what way can competition benefitthe consumer? Is competition also beneficial for thecompeting firms? If so, in what way?Competition Benefits ConsumersTake the consumer first. The consumer is alwaysbetter off when he can buy at a lower P than at a higherJoseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy(3rd ed., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), p. 86.368

SoCC MisU. O o369

P, other things being the same. Under which conditionswill price be under pressure to drop? When demand isdecreased or supply is increased, as we saw in ChapterVIII. However, only the supply aspect interests ushere, since consumers would prefer to have more supplyto less, other things being equal. Hence, the questionbecomes this: How can we optimize the conditions underwhich supply can be increased? The answer has alreadybeen given in Chapter X: Only free or open markets arecapable of maximizing the opportunities to engage inproduction and exchange. A similar line of reasoningapplies to non-price competition via product differentiation. Here, too, only free markets provideoptimal conditions of entry into rivalrous productionand exchange.A Mixed Blessing for FirmsNow, how about the firm? How does competitionbenefit it? From the firm's viewpoint, unlike that ofthe consumer's, competition under a profit-and-losssystem is not an unmixed blessing! Whereas consumersstand only to gain from competition that drives costsand prices down and increases quality of product, firmsmust either gain or lose as the result of competition.As we saw in Chapter X, the free market putsconstant pressure on the firm to cater successfully tothe consumer as the only way to earn profits and avoidlosses. Firms are able to retain their hold on consumers' demand only via product differentiation or costandprice-reductions. Failure to do so brings lossesand possible banishment from the market. Furthermore,the more investors and stockholders prefer to invest inprofitable firms (rather than in loss-ridden firms), themore will firms be under the gun to earn profits andavoid losses.Competition Is War!Ironically, the same free-market competitionthat is an unmixed blessing for the "sovereign" consumercan drive firms to run screaming for shelter. Historyreveals that every now and then some firms have sent upthe cry, "Competition is war, and war is hell!" Morethan one firm has run to government to secure its protectionfrom the fateful verdict of consumers' dollarballots and competition from rivals at home and abroad.370

Whether government protection takes the form of subsidy,bailout, tariff, price-fixing, so-called "regulation,"or guaranteed market, it can only serve to undermine thedegree of consumers' sovereignty in the market. 4The reason is that in a truly free market inwhich government refrains from tinkering with or hamperingmarket competition, the only proper "protection" forthe firm is to cater successfully to the consumer. Theconsumers' dollar ballots are so powerful ultimatelythat we must alter our conception of market competition:that which superficially appears to be "rivalry" amongfirms is actually an indirect manifestation of theconsumers' fateful balloting. For example, if firm Aoutstrips firm B in the market place, and firm B closesdown or shrinks in size, it is not firm A that isultimately to blame for B's fate. Blame must fallultimately on the consumers who showed overwhelmingpreference for A over B. Thus, when firms cry"Competition is hell!" they are really paying indirecttribute to the fateful power of the consumers' dollarballots.SummaryAt the start, in Figure 33 we met the classicthesis that the PC firm outperforms the IC firm byproducing more Q at a lower P than the bigger IC firm.We then explored the two paths that lead to this thesis;one path took us through the horizontal D schedule, theother went through the process of profit-maximizing bymeans of MC and MR. Things came to a head in Figure 38which contains the curvilinear latticework thatincriminates the IC firm merely because it has a slopingD schedule.Finally, in denouement, we see that the caseagainst the IC firm amounts to intellectual sleight-ofhand;after all, it is not the sloping D schedule that4There is historical evidence that business leaders in majorindustries, including the railroads, have sought federal protectionagainst competition, at least since the 1880's, via the InterstateCommerce Act and other so-called "regulation". For example, seeGabriel Kolko's two works, Railroads and Regulation, 1877-1916(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965) and The Triumph ofConservatism (New York: The Free Press, 1963).371

does in the IC firm so much as it is the oversightconcerning the cost curves. However, none of thiscritique of the PC model should be construed as awhitewash of the big corporation. There _is a case to bemade against certain tendencies in corporate behavior,but it has little to do with atomism or sloping Dschedules; it has more to do with business 1 tendency torun to government for protection whenever the going getsrough in competition at home and abroad.372

FOR FURTHER READINGI. Introductory WorksAlchian, Armen A. and Allen, William R. Exchange andProduction. 2nd ed. f Belmont, CA: Wadsworth PublishingCo., 1977.Dolan, Edwin G. Basic Microeconomics. 2nd ed., Hinsdale:Dryden Press, 1980.Greaves, Bettina B. (ed.). Free Market Economics: A BasicReader. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for EconomicEducation, 1975.Gwartney, James D. and Stroup, Richard. Microeconomics:Private and Public Choice. 3rd ed., New York:Academic Press, 1982.Hazlitt, Henry. Economics In One Lesson. New York: ArlingtonHouse Publishers.Heyne, Paul T. and Johnson, Thomas. Toward UnderstandingMicro-Economics. Chicago: Science Research Associates,1976.Jevons, Marshall. Murder at the Margin (novel). Glen Ridge,N.J.: Thomas Horton and Daughters, 1978.Lee, Dwight R. and McKnown, Robert F. Economics In OurTime. 2nd ed., Chicago: Science Research Associates,1983.McKenzie, Richard B. and Tullock, Gordon. The New Worldof Economics. 3rd ed., Homewood, 111.: Richard D. Irwin,Inc., 1981.Sowell, Thomas. Markets and Minorities. New York: BasicBooks, Inc., 1981.II.Current Issues and PoliciesAllen, William R. Midnight Economist. Playboy Press, 1981.Friedman, Milton. There's No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.LaSalle, 111.: Open Court, 1975.373

McKenzie, Richard B. Economic Issues In Public Policies.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1980.North, Douglass C. and Miller, Roger LeRoy. The Economicsof Public Issues. 6th ed., New York: Harper and Row,1983.Williams, Walter E. America: A Minority Viewpoint. Stanford:Hoover Institution Press, 1982.III.Economic Growth, Capitalism, and Living StandardsChamberlain, John. The Enterprising Americans. New York:Harper and Row, Colophon Books, 1963.Chamberlain, John. The Roots of Capitalism. Indianapolis:Liberty Press, 1976.Hartwell, R. M. The Industrial Revolution and EconomicGrowth. London: Methuen and Co., 1971.Hartwell, R. M., et al. The Long Debate on Poverty.Institute of Economic Affairs, 1972.London:Hayek, Friedrich A. (ed.) Capitalism and the Historians.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1954.Hayek, Friedrich A. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago:Henry Regnery Co., Gateway Edition, 1972.Hazlitt, Henry. The Conquest of Poverty. New Rochelle:Arlington House, 1973.Jacobs, Jane. The Economy of Cities. New York: VintageBooks, 1970.Jewkes, John, Sawers, David, and StiHerman, David. TheSources of Invention. 2nd ed., New York: W. W. Nortonand Co., 1969.Landes, David S. The Unbound Prometheus. London: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1969.Novak, Michael. The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. NewYork: Simon and Schuster, Touchstone Books, 1982.Nutter, G. Warren. Political Economy and Freedom.Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1983.374

Puth, Robert C. American Economic History. Chicago: DrydenPress, 1982.Rand, Ayn. Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal. New York: NewAmerican Library, 1967.Rougier, Louis. The Genius of the West. Los Angeles: NashPublishing, 1971.Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. 2 vols., Glasgow ed.Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1981.Snyder, Carl. Capitalism the Creator. New York: TheMacmillan Co., 1940.Sowell, Thomas. Ethnic America. New York: Basic Books,Inc., 1981.IV.Market Process and CompetitionAlchian, Armen A. Economic Forces At Work. Indianapolis:Liberty Press, 1977.Backman, Jules. Advertising and Competition. New York:New York University Press, 1967.Backman, Jules. Pricing: Policies and Practices. NewYork: National Industrial Conference Board, 1961.Brozen, Yale (ed.). Advertising and Society. New York:New York University Press, 1974.Brozen, Yale (ed.). The Competitive Economy. Morristown:General Learning Press, 1975.Brozen, Yale. Concentration, Mergers, and Public Policy. NewYork: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982.Chalk, Alfred F. "Mandeville's Fable of the Bees: A Reappraisal."Southern Economic Journal, XXXIII, No. 1(July 1966).Chambers, Raymond J. Accounting, Evaluation and EconomicBehavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.Goldschmid, Harvey J., Mann, H. Michael and Weston, J. Fred(eds.). Industrial Concentration: The New Learning.Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1974.375

Hayek, Friedrich A. Individualism and Economic Order.Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., Gateway Edition, 1972.Hutt, William H. A Rehabilitation of Say's Law. Athens,Ohio: Ohio University Press, 1974.Hutt, William H. The Theory of Collective Bargaining.Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1954.Hutt, William H. The Theory of Idle Resources. 2nd ed.,Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1977.Kirzner, Israel M. Competition and Entrepreneurship.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.Kirzner, Israel M. Market Theory and the Price System.Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1963.Kirzner, Israel M. Perception, Opportunity and Profit.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.Kirzner, Israel M., et al. The Prime Mover of Progress.London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1980.Knight, Frank H. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1971.Mandeville, Bernard. The Fable of the Bees. 2 vols.,London: Oxford University Press, 1966.McGee, John S. In Defense of Concentration. New York:Praeger Publishers, 1971.O'Driscoll, Jr., Gerald P. Economics as a CoordinationProblem: The Contributions of F. A. Hayek. New York:New York University Press, 1977.Rosenberg, Nathan. "Mandeville and Laissez-Faire." Journalof the History of Ideas. XXIV (April-June, 1963).Sowell, Thomas. Knowledge and Decisions. New York: BasicBooks, Inc., 1980.Vernon, John M. Market Structure and Industrial Performance. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972.376

V. Government InterventionismArmentano, Dominick T. Antitrust and Monopoly. New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1982.Boarman, Patrick M. Union Monopolies and Antitrust Restraints.Washington, D. C.: Labor Policy Associates,1963.Bradley, Philip D. (ed.). The Public Stake In Union Power.Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1959.Brookes, Warren T. The Economy In Mind. New York: UniverseBooks, 1982.Chickering, A. Lawrence (ed.). The Politics of Planning.San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies,1976.Cornuelle, Richard.Books, 1976.De-Managing America. New York: VintageDavidson, James D. The Squeeze. New York: Summit Books,1980.Fleming, Harold. Ten Thousand Commandments. Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education, 1951.Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1962.Friedman, Milton and Friedman, Rose. Freedom to Choose.New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1980.Hayek, Friedrich A., et al. Rent Control: A PopularParadox. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 1975.Kolko, Gabriel. Railroads and Regulation, 1877 - 1916.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965.Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism, 1900-1916.New York: The Free Press, 1963.McKenzie, Richard B. Bound to Be Free. Stanford: HooverInstitution Press, 1982.Mises, Ludwig von. A Critique of Interventionism. NewRochelle: Arlington House, 1977.377

Oppenheimer, Franz. The State. New York: Free Life Editions,1975.Orr, Daniel. Property, Markets, and Government Intervention.Pacific Palisades: Goodyear Publishing Co., 1976.Petro, Sylvester. The Labor Policy of the Free Society.New York: Ronald Press Co., 1957.Reynolds, Morgan 0. Power and Privilege: Labor Unions InAmerica. New York: Universe Books, 1984.Rothbard, Murray N. For A New Liberty. Revised edition,New York: Collier Books, 1978.Rothbard, Murray N. Power and Market. New York: New YorkUniversity Press, 1977.Schmidt, Emerson P. Union Power and the Public Interest.Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1973.Templeton, Kenneth S., Jr. (ed.). The Politicization ofSociety. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979.Wooldridge, William. Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man. NewRochelle: Arlington House, 1970.VI.Perspectives on SocialismElliott, John E. (ed.). Marx and Engels on Economics, Politics,and Society. Santa Monica: Goodyear PublishingCo., 1981.Flew, Antony. The Politics of Procrustes.. Buffalo: PrometheusBooks, 1981.Foundation for Economic Education. Cliches of Socialism.Irvington-on-Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education,1970.Gray, Alexander. The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin.London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1946.Hayek, Friedrich A. (ed.). Collectivist Economic Planning.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1935.Hayek, Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, Phoenix Books, 1944.378

Hazlitt, Henry. Time Will Run Back (a novel). New Rochelle:Arlington House, 1966.Hoff, Trygve J. B. Economic Calculation in the SocialistSociety. Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1981.Mises, Ludwig von. The Anti-Capitalist Mentality. Princeton:D. Van Nostrand Co., 1956.Mises, Ludwig von. Bureaucracy. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1944.Mises, Ludwig von. Socialism. Indianapolis: LibertyPress, 1981.Nove, Alec. The Economics of Feasible Socialism. London:George Allen & Unwin, 1983.Roberts, Paul Craig and Stephenson, Matthew A. Marx's Theoryof Exchange, Alienation and Crisis. Stanford: HooverInstitution Press, 1973.Schoeck, Helmut. Envy. New York: Harcourt, Brace andWorld, Inc., 1970.VII.Third World AspectsBauer, Peter T. Dissent on Development. London:Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971.Bauer, Peter T. Equality, the Third World, and EconomicDelusion. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,1981.Berger, Peter L. "Underdevelopment Revisited." Commentary,Vol. 78, No. 1 (July 1984).Brunner, Karl (ed.) The First World and the Third World.Rochester: University of Rochester, 1978.Sowell, Thomas. The Economics and Politics of Race. NewYork: William Morrow and Co., 1983.VIII.Perspectives In Austrian EconomicsBoehm-Bawerk, Eugen von. Capital and Interest. South Holland,111.: Libertarian Press, 1959.379

Boehm-Bawerk, Eugen von. Shorter Classics. South Holland,111.: Libertarian Press, 1962.Dolan, Edwin G. (ed.). The Foundations of Modern AustrianEconomics. New York: New York University Press,1976.Kauder, Emil. A History of Marginal Utility Theory. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1965.Kirzner, Israel M. (ed.). Method, Process, and AustrianEconomics. Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Co.,1982.Lachmann, Ludwig M. Capital, Expectations, and the MarketProcess. (edited by Walter E. Grinder). New York: NewYork University Press, 1977.Mises, Ludwig von. Human Action. 3rd revised edition,Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1966.Moss, Laurence S. (ed.). The Economics of Ludwig von Mises.New York: New York University Press, 1976.Rothbard, Murray N. Man, Economy, and State. New York:New York University Press, 1978.Spadaro, Louis M. (ed.). New Directions In AustrianEconomics. New York: New York University Press, 1978.IX.Morals and PoliticsActon, H. B. The Morals of Markets. London: Longman,1971.Block, Walter. Defending the Undefendable. New York: FleetPress Corp., 1976.Hazlitt, Henry. The Foundations of Morality. Princeton:D. Van Nostrand Co., 1964.Hospers, John. Human Conduct. 2nd ed., New York: HarcourtBrace Jovanovich, 1982.Rothbard, Murray N. The Ethics of Liberty. Atlantic Highlands,N. J.: Humanities Press, 1982.380

X. Methodological IssuesHayek, Friedrich A. The Counter-Revolution of Science.Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955.Hayek, Friedrich A. Studies In Philosophy, Politics andEconomics. New York: Simon and Schuster, Clarion Books,1969.Kirzner, Israel M. The Economic Point of View. New York:New York University Press, 1976.Mises, Ludwig von. Epistemological Problems of Economics.Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., 1960.Mises, Ludwig von. Theory and History. New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1957.Mises, Ludwig von. The Ultimate Foundation of EconomicScience. New York: New York University Press, 1978.Schoeck, Helmut and Wiggins, James W. (eds.) Scientism andValues. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co.381

382

INDEXAbundance 9, 12, 83AC: Average costs See: CostsAdjustments, by firms 199-206Administered prices 267, 331, 365-67Agriculture 166-68, 326, 364Alchian, A. A. 81, 103, 230n, 287Allen, W. R. 81, 103, 230n, 287Altruism 105-13Annuity 262-63Anti-trust laws 319AP See: Administered pricesArbitrage 43-44Asceticism 12-13, 318Assaying 47Atomistic firms 324, 336, 353-54Autistic exchange 101-102Banks, commercial 25Barriers to entry See: EntryBarter 14, 37-38, 40-45, 111Bastiat, F. 33Beg, borrow, or steal 2-4Bergen, Edgar 110Black markets 210Boehm-Bawerk, E. von 90-92, 93-94, 238-39, 268Borrowing 2-4Bottlenecks 204Broadway hit shows 210-12Calculation, economic See: EconomicCapacity of production 203-204Capitalaccumulation See: Investmentconsumption See: Depreciationgain 263-64goods 60, 62-63, 67, 251, 307loss 263-64markets 251, 256, 294value 261-64Capitalism 279-312Capitalist production 65-66, 307Capp, Al 9Cartels 162, 174-75, 371n383

Cash balances 50-54Cash flow 66-67Ceteris paribus 125-26, 162, 164, 171Chamberlain, J. 298nChambers, R. J. xxiv-nCharity 107China 13Choice-making See: Decision-makingCities 32Closed markets 323, 327 See also: MonopolyCoefficient of elasticity See: DemandCoercion 6, 111 See also: ForceCoinage 46-48debasement 48Commodity money 39-40, 45-47Common law tradition 364Comparative advantage 36Competition 158, 174-75, 288, 319-72as war 370-72benefits to consumers 287-88definition 320-21foreign 298-99free 291-303imperfect 331-33, 351, 362-69inter-industry 296-97market structure 321-31perfect xxvi, 324-27, 331-39, 345-50critique of 352-72price 355quality 355rivalrous 320-21, 354-61, 368-72Complementary products 121-22Compound interest 247Conglomerates 296Construction 67Consumersas producers 297-98dollar ballots 287-88, 314nSee also: Consumers 1 spendinggoods 18-19sovereignty xxv, 78, 279-86, 289, 312-13, 368-72spending 29, 74-78under socialism See: SocialismConsumption 10-11, 23, 59, 116-17Cost-of-production theory xxiv, 266-67Cost-plus theory 266-67Cost-push inflation See: InflationCosts 266, 273, 276-77, 340-43average 68-70, 204, 232, 266, 357-59cutting of 68-70, 201, 355, 357-60384

Costs (continued)explicit 254fixed 340-42implicit 254-56interest 255marginal 265, 342-43opportunity 82, 254-56, 276-77out-of-pocket 254per-unit See: Costs, averagerelevant 253-56total 146, 340-42variable 340-42versus benefits 349Counterfeiting 5, 46Crusoe, Robinson xii, xvii, 1-3, 16, 59-60,64-67, 76-77, 112, 117, 283, 310Custom-order production 283Cutbacks in production 201D See: DemandDaisy Mae 9Davidson, J. D. xvii-nDebasement, of money See: MoneyDecision-making 81-113influence of future 260-66Deficit financing 7Deflation 122-23, 143 See also: PriceDemand 25-30, 79, 115-43, 145-78, 294and supply 24, 80, 180-99derived 27-28, 73-74, 266determinants of 117-24elastic 145, 149-50, 154, 336elasticity of xxiii-xxiv, 130-31, 136, 137,145-78, 334-37coefficient of elasticity 151, 177-78determinants of 157-72inelastic 145, 149-50, 154unitary elasticity 131, 145, 150, 154, 177farm products 166-68for resources See: Demand, derivedgraphing of 127-30horizontal curve 334-39, 336, 337, 357law of 117-18, 124-29, 135-43, 145-46alleged exceptions 140-43market 127-30meaning of 27, 115-17pent-up 227schedule 129shifts of 132-35, 175385

Dependence effect xxvi, 313Depreciation, capital 67, 255monetary 49, 53Derived demand See: DemandDifferentiated product 321, 322, 338, 345, 354,355-56, 362-63Diminishing marginal utility See: Marginal utilityDirect exchange See: BarterDirect-use production 14-16, 76 See also: CrusoeDiscounted value 241-42, 244, 251-53, 266Discounting 79Discount loan 247-48Disequilibrium 198, 207, 208-09Disutility 238Divisibility of money 41-42, 46Division of labor 2, 4, 16-19, 31-58, 280-84DOL See: Division of laborDolan, E. G. xiii-nDollar, origin of 56Double coincidence of wants 41E See: EquilibriumEconomic calculation 44Economic democracy 288Economic development See: Growth, economicEconomic growth See: Growth, economicEconomic man xx, 82Economic means xvii, 4, 7Economy size 140Elasticity of demand See: DemandEnds and means 261, 316-18Entrepreneurial profit See: ProfitEntrepreneurship 72-74, 199-200, 237, 295See also: UncertaintyEntry into market 294-96, 322, 325, 328-29, 330,331, 354, 355, 362Equilibrium, supply and demand 184-86, 206, 231-33Ex-ante 95, 98-99, 101, 173-74, 230-32Excess demand See: ShortagesExchange 4, 37-38, 44f, 83-84, 101-102See also: Barter; TradeExchange medium See: MoneyExchange rates 43-44Exchange value See: Money, value ofExcise taxes 163Exit from market 322, 323, 325Expectations 95, 122-24, 143 See also: UncertaintyExplicit costs 254Exploitation theory 235, 267386

Ex-post 95, 98-99Ex-post supply See: SupplyFallacy of composition 3FC: Fixed costs See: CostsFiat money 57Financial assets 53, 66, 68Financial intermediaries 294Firms 17-25, 60as discounters 243, 252-53, 256as income-generators xix, 18-21, 74-78as intermediaries 20, 22, 73-74centrality of xix, xxiiFischer, Bobby 327Fixed costs See: CostsForce 111 See also: CoercionForm-utility 61Foy, J. E. 312Fraud 100Free competition See: Free marketFreedoms See: Human rightsFree enterprise 311Free entry 354, 355 See also: Free marketFree market xiii-xv, xxv, 179-80, 207, 272,279-318, 323, 325, 362, 370-72Free trade 34, 299Future goods 240Futurity of decisions 260-66Galbraith, J. K. xxvi, 312-18Garden of Eden 9, 12, 83Geographic variation 36-37Getting by 1-8Goethe, J. W. von xiiGold, as money 39-40, 45, 55, 57Goodman, J. C. xiii-nGovernment 5-7borrowing 7and competition 292-93, 299-303and monopoly 292-93Gray, A. 31Groseclose, E. 39n, 49Growth, economic 59-78Haines, W. W. 39n, 47, 48, 55Hamlet 95, 96, 368387

Hammurabi 2 45Hayek, F. A. xiii-n, xxvi-n, 316nHazlitt, H. 93n, 300nHeyne, P. T. 103-104Hierarchy of wants 85Homogeneityof firms 356, 361of products 321-22, 324, 336, 353-54Horizontal demand curve See: DemandHospers, J. xiv-nHouseholds 16-23 See also: Direct-use productionHuman action See: Decision-makingHuman rights xxv, 176, 308-11Human variation 36-37Hyper-inflation 53IC: Imperfect competition See: CompetitionImitation 360Imperfect competition See: CompetitionImplicit costs See: CostsImports 204Imputation of values 261-65, 317Incentives 286Income 18-21, 24, 25, 26, 74-78effect 137, 139national 20source of 74-78structure 168-69Increasing marginal utility See: Marginal utilityIndirect exchange 44-45Individualism, methodological 102-105Industrial Revolution 12, 13, 17, 32, 35, 111,246, 298, 303Inelastic demand See: DemandInequality 36Inflation 25, 27, 53, 75, 77, 123, 143, 224-26,228-29, 365cost-push 267and profit 259Information 99, 101, 173-74, 193-98, 285, 288, 323,325-26, 352-53 See also: Prices; UncertaintyIn-kind, payments 41, 42Innovation 71-72, 326, 355, 356-61Instantaneous adjustments 326, 356-61Interdependence 17-19Interest 237-56market (loan) rate 244, 260pure rate 244rate tables 246-49388

Inter-temporal exchange 240-41Interventionism 179, 209Inventions 71Inventories 65, 67Investment 42-43, 64-68, 77-78, 205-206, 246, 250-51Invisible hand 34-35, 303Jacobs, Jane 32nJevons, W. S. 268Joachimsthal, 56Kirzner, I. M. xx-n, xxii-nKnow-how See: TechnologyKnowledge See: Information; UncertaintyKolko, G. 371nLabor theory of value xxiv, 266-67, 269, 270-72Laizzez-faire xxv, 301-303, 319"Land" 11Least-cost principle 138-39Leeman, W. S. 328nLeFevre, R. 305nLegal tender 57Leisure 10, 65, 68Liberalism, classical 33-36, 303Liberty 303Licensing 329Liebling, A. J. 308Life, as value 86Li'l Abner 9Limited government 303Loan rate of interest See: InterestLoans 242, 246, 251-52Locke, J. 11Loss, minimum 96, 97, 108, 202Maher, J. E. 74Majority rule 105Mandeville, B. 33, 106Marginal costs See: CostsMarginal revenue 265, 343-46Marginal utility 90-94, 120-21, 139-40, 169-71Market, as feedback 195-196Market power 365-67Market, price determination 28-29, 179-233, 267-68Market price, law of 206-209389

Market-price system, outlined xxi-xxivMarket rate of interest See: InterestMarket research 124, 135, 295Market stability xxii-xxiiiMarket structure See: CompetitionMark Twain 106-108Marx, Karl 3OnMarxism 235, 266-67, 269See also: Labor theory of valueMatching problem 279-85Maximization xx, 94-102, 138-39, 194, 239MC: Marginal costs See: CostsMcCarthy, Charlie 110McGee, J. S. 328nMcKenzie, R. B. xviii-nMcNulty, P. J. 320nMeans 11, 12and ends 261, 316-18limited 9-10, 12, 15of production 11Medium of exchange See: MoneyMenger, C. 268Mercantilism 299, 302Methodological individualism 102-105Methods of production See: TechnologyMinimum losss See: LossMinimum reservation price 182-83, 184Mises, L. von xx, 33n, 103, 239-40Mismatch See: MatchingMobility, of resources 322MOE: Medium of exchange See: MoneyMoney 25-27, 38-58 See also: Cash balancesabstract 54-57debasement 48-49, 52definition 45, 54fiat 57forms of 39-40, 45government role 48-49, 54-58inflation 226market origin 47, 49-52, 57-58medium of exchange 40, 45-47, 56-57metallic 46-47paper 57proper 50, 57-58silver 39-40, 45, 55, 57store of value 52 See also: Cash balancessubstitutes 57unit of account 54-57value of 51-52, 57, 237, 259weight nature of 55390

Moneylender 236-37, 241, 252, 256Monopolistic competition 331Monopoly 292-93, 327-29closed 292-93, 328, 329open 328-29public utilities 292Montaigne dogma 33, 35Morality xiii-xiv, 110-11, 176, 311Morrison, H. 212Motivation 94-95, 105MR: Marginal revenueMU: Marginal utilityMultipart pricing 344National income See: IncomeNational interest 104Necessities See: NeedsNeeds 85-87Neurotic 108New money 25-27Next time around 199, 201, 205Non-price determinants of demand 118-24, 125-26Non-profit firms 207, 209-212Non-specific resources 276Non-violence 34 See also: MoralityNormal rate of profit xxv, 359Novak, M. xv-nOil, demand for 162Oligopoly 329-31, 332OPEC 188-90Open markets See: Free marketOppenheimer, F. 4, 6-7Opportunity cost See: CostsOptimal decisions 208Out-of-pocket costs See: CostsOverhead costs See: Costs, fixedOver-pricing 186-87, 253Over-production 196Overtime pay 204P: Price(s)Pain and pleasure 108Paradox of value 88-89Payments-in-kind 41, 42PC: Perfect competitionPercentage approach (elasticity of demand) 177-78391

Perfect competition, critique of See: CompetitionPerfect elasticity of demand See: Demand, horizontalPhysiocrats 301Place-utility 61-62Planned sales period 186, 191-92Political means xvii, 7PPM: Purchasing power of money See: Money, value ofPrecautionary pricing 228-29Preference 82-85, 100Preference-scale 84-85, 165-68Premium loan 247Premium value 241-42, 244Present discounted value See: Discounted valuePresent goods 240Price controls 228-29Price-cutting 146, 147-49, 201Price deflation 221-24 See also: DeflationPrice-elasticity of demand See: Demand, elasticity ofPrice inflation See: InflationPrice, labor theory of See: Labor theory of valuePrice line 338, 345"Price of money" 244-46Price-setting by firms 23-25, 73, 78-79, 183-84,257-59Price-spread See: Profit margin (rate)Price-takers 337-39, 347-50, 366-67Price trends 221-26Prices, as information 28-29as reflector of scarcity 24, 30changes in 212-27determination by market 29, 179-233, 266-68and profits 257-59of stock-shares 264Private property See: Property rightsProducers 1 goods See: Capital goodsProduct differentiation See: Differentiated productProduction 3-4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 20-23, 59-80and income 18-21, 24, 74-78capacity 203-204, 342direct-use 14-16 See also: Crusoe"for use" 290process 235-37Productivity 32, 68-70Profit 23, 68-70, 78, 146-47, 172-73, 176, 235-60,267-68, 269-70, 290-91and-loss system 289and wealth 264-65as opportunity cost 256calculation 251-60differentials 359-60392

Profit (continued)entrepreneurial 256-59inflationary 256-57, 259maximization 176, 334, 340-51, 363normal rate xxv, 359perspectives on 235squeeze 146under socialism 290-91Profiteering 172, 173-74, 176, 193, 203, 205, 210-12,227-29Property rights xxv, 303-11Protectionism 207, 302-303, 370-72PSP: Planned sales periodPublic goods 284-85Public utilities See: MonopolyPurchasing power of money See: Money, value ofPure interest See: InterestQ: Quantity; QuantitiesQd: Quantity demandedQd versus TR 154Qs: Quantity suppliedQuality of life 86Quantity-adjuster 349-50Quantity demanded 117-24Quantity supplied 182 See also: SupplyQueuing 210Radford, R. A. 40nRedistribution 109-11Regret 98-101Representation 104-105, 288Research and development 71Reservation prices 182-83, 184Resources See: MeansResting on laurels 199-200Revealed preference 85Risk 206Roberts, P. C. 14n, 30nRobinson Crusoe See: CrusoeRose Bowl 209-10Rothbard, M. N. xiv-n, xvii-n, xxiii-n, xxiv-n,xxvi-n, 39n, 58n, 84, 310nRush, Tom 97Russell, Nipsy 75393

S: SupplySaving 42-43, 53-54, 64, 65-67, 246, 249-51and investment See: InvestmentScalping, tickets 210-12Scarcity xvii, xviii, 9-15, 81-102absolute 13artificial 364and choice 81-102relative 13ultimate cause 83Schlick, Count 56Schumpeter, J. A. xxvi-n, 71, 368Self-employed 20Self-interest xx, 33, 34-35, 105-13Selfishness See: Self-interestSelf-ownership 310Self-sacrifice See: AltruismSelf-subsistence See: Direct-useShakespeare, W. 93Share prices 264Shifts of demand See: DemandShifts of supply See: SupplyShortages 186-91, 192-93, 198, 202-206, 216,224-28, 227-29, 231-33, 258Short-run 342Silver money See: MoneySirkin, G. xxiiiSlichter, S. 71Smith, A. xxv, 32-35, 88, 279, 302, 303Socialism xv, xxv, 30n, 284-85, 290-92, 298, 304-11and consumer, 298, 304-11Socialist planners 284Society 2, 102-103Sovereignty, consumers' See: ConsumersSoviet Union 13, 304-309constitution 305-309Sowell, T. xiii-n, 285nSpecialization See: Division of laborSpecific resources 276Speculation 43, 73, 202, 210Spoiling the market 343-44, 345Stephenson, M. A. 14n, 30nStorage See: Time-utilityStore of value See: MoneySubjective value xxi, 63, 84-85, 87-94, 119-21,165-66 See also: Preference-scaleSubstitutability 337Substitute products 121-22, 157-62Substitution 83394

Substitution effects 136-37Subway fares 160-62Sunk costs See: Costs, fixedSupply 23-24, 180-84, 229-33based on production 59-80ex-ante 229-33ex-post 180-84, 229-33shifts of 213-14, 216-17, 218-21Surplus 186-87, 190-91, 192, 196, 200-202,218, 231-33Taxation 7, 25TC: Total costs See: CostsTechniques of production See: TechnologyTechnological progress 63, 68-72Technology 60, 63-64and profits 69-70"Thaler" 56Theft 3, 5Time and production 235-37Time horizons 250Time-lags 360Time-preference 62, 94, 237-51, 273Time scarcity 83, 238Time-utility 62Totalitarianism 13Total receipts 146-51, 154, 343-44Total revenue See: Total receiptsTotal utility 93-94TR: Total receipts; Total revenueTrade 36-38, 101-102 See also: ExchangeTrade unions 364Transfer payments 25, 26TR schedule 150TR versus Qd 154TU: Total utilityTullock, G. xviii-nTwain, Mark 106-08Uncertainty 25, 29, 30, 43, 60, 72-73, 100, 151,152, 194, 206, 256-59, 260-61See also: Entrepreneurship; InformationUnderpricing 186-88, 209-12Unemployment 275Unit of account See: MoneyUnit costs See: CostsUse-value See: UtilityUSSR See: Soviet Union395

Usury 235Utility 60-63, 93Utility, total 93-94Utopians xiiValue See: Labor theory of value; Exchange value;Subjective value; Use valueValue of money See: MoneyValue, paradox of See: ParadoxVariable costs See: CostsVariation, geographic 36-37human 36-37VC: Variable costsVoluntary exchange 4, 111Voting, political 314nWage-income, source of 269-73Wage-increases 146, 228Wage-price controls 228-29Wage-rate determination 273-75Waiting lines See: QueuingWants 10-11, 27, 81-82, 115, 314-16absolute 85-87unlimited 9-10, 15, 81-83Wealth effects 264-65Western economies 12Whole man 82Wicksteed, P. H. xx-xxi, 268Williams, W. E. xiii-nWithholding of supply 202Work 3-4, 5, 10Workers 1 control 272-73Working back from price 78-79, 266, 268Xenophon 31-32396