Israel Kirzner, o monopolista cruel

Varieties of Austrian Price Theory
- Highlight Loc. 361-70  | Added on Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 07:46 PM

Further, since the “monopolist” is, after all, the source and the creator of the supply, it is absurd to say that he “forces”—in some reprehensible manner—the consumer to pay higher prices for his product. All the purchases are voluntary, and due to a voluntarily high evaluation of his product. Are we then to condemn Israel Kirzner for (possibly) restricting his teaching hours so as to raise the total revenue to him? (If we could, which we can never do, somehow separate this from the increased leisure which Kirzner would then earn?) Are producers then to be enslaved to the consumers? We might grant that the consumers would benefit more if Israel Kirzner were to teach 70 hours a week (even if his teaching does not now earn him a “monopoly price”). But are the producers not to be considered also in all this? Kirzner may violate the “interest of consumers” by teaching 12 instead of 70 hours a week, just as Mr. Jones does the same by becoming a poorly paid actor instead of becoming a more highly paid ad man. Yet, Kirzner himself, earlier in the book, talks about the harmony of the market, the mutual benefit of exchange. Since all the exchangers are benefiting mutually, even though the sale is by so-called “monopolists,” what is the justification for Kirzner’s complaints about the operation of the free market?