Director held that market monopoly power does not spill across separate markets

Evidence

Building on the premise that competitive forces undermine monopoly, Director claimed that if the corporate form had contributed to the emergence of a monopoly, it also would have simultaneously contributed to the demise of that monopoly—even if it seemingly facilitated a large-scale organization with monopoly powers. Implicitly conjuring Hayek’s “road to serfdom,” “The road to monopoly even with neutral rules is not a one-way road” (1951, 20). Furthermore, Director maintained that monopoly power did not get projected from one market to another; thus, a monopoly in the product market could not perniciously or selfishly manipulate the labor market or the capital market. — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1111

Categorization

  • XREF: The claim that product-market monopoly cannot manipulate labor or capital markets contradicts later concerns about monopsony power and platform economics spilling across markets. — connects to: Price discrimination generally does not create monopoly or harm competition — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1144; Director’s antitrust position and its shift marked a key departure from klassical liberalism — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1114; Friedman came to see competition as the natural check limiting monopoly power — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1117
  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: how did this ‘monopoly does not project’ assumption fare as later Chicago-school scholars encountered labor monopsony evidence?

Broader Connections