Difficulty of fixing the meaning of monopoly.

1. The term monopoly is used loosely and in many senses. In popular discussion monopoly means almost any wealthy corporation or the power the corporation possesses, a power which is usually thought of as oppressive. Even economists have held the vaguest ideas regarding monopoly. The recent rise of trusts and monopolies has given a large new body of facts bearing upon the subject, but all the resulting discussion by the public and by economists has not brought agreement upon a definition entirely satisfactory. When usage has not settled upon any one meaning, the selection of a definition is in a measure arbitrary, though it may be guided by logic and considerations of expediency. Let us state the various meanings and indicate the one adopted in this discussion.

Monopoly is not merely scarcity.

2. Monopoly should not be used as synonymous with scarcity. Scarcity is the essential condition of all value. The simplest things - bricks, sand, the commonest unskilled labor - would have no value were there not a degree of scarcity relative to the wants that may be gratified. "Monopoly," whatever else it means, always conveys the idea of some exceptional kind of scarcity, scarcity due in part to some source or cause not ordinarily present. It is a bad practice in definition to apply two words to one idea, leaving the other idea unnamed, as is done when monopoly is made synonymous with scarcity. Both words are needed. Such a usage unfortunately is common in economic literature. Many economic writers, for example, have called land-ownership monopoly, saying that land being the work of nature cannot be increased by men, and therefore must always be scarce. Even if it were true that in the economic sense land could be produced by man, there still would be confusion here between a general class of goods and a special thing. The fact that a particular field cannot be duplicated does not make a monopoly of land as a whole, any more than the existence of desert land in Arizona makes land valueless or a free good. Nor is a land-owner a monopolist any more than is the owner of a valuable machine. The owner of forty acres of land worth four hundred dollars, or the owner of a village lot worth a hundred dollars, can hardly be called a monopolist. It leads to absurdity to use the word monopoly with reference to landownership indiscriminately. Neither mere scarcity nor the limitation of natural stores should be called monopoly when ownership is scattered and combination between owners does not exist.

3. The ability of superior material agents and of skilled workers to secure higher returns than do poor ones does not constitute monopoly. The free competition assumed in abstract discussions of value, does not mean equal capacity or efficiency, but the legal freedom and personal willing.-ness to move a productive agent into the highest industrial place it is capable of holding. The rocky field does not compete with the fertile one in the sense that it can yield the same uses. The field fit only for potatoes does not compete with those rare and favored localities that can raise the best wines. The gardener earning two dollars a day does not compete with the skilled physician with, an income of twenty thousand dollars a year, for he has not the economic capacity to do so; but he is free to compete (as is the owner of the rocky field) unless law, caste, class legislation, social prejudice, or some other objective factor forbids. Anything, however, that prevents the labor or capital of buyers or sellers from application for which they are fitted, defeats free competition. To use the term monopoly of any and every limitation of economic ability is to extend it to every case of value. To use it of the high wages of skilled workmen, where no union to suppress competition exists among them, is to make it a colorless synonym of scarcity. It should be confined to a narrower and more exclusive use. Some special kinds of limitation should be connected with the idea of monopoly.

Monopoly is not merely superior economic power.

Monopoly consists in unified control.

4. The limitation connected with monopoly is not that of economic capacity but that of ownership and control. The derivation of the word from the Greek points to the general thought: monos, alone, and poleo, to sell, a single seller, the sole source of supply in a given market. The term was first used in England of special grants or patents of monopoly from the crown to make or deal in specified articles, such as soap, candles, etc. The political power of the state created and defended the monopoty. This policy is pursued in a limited degree today for the encouragement of invention, in the granting of patents and copyrights. In the current definition, "The exclusive right, power, or privilege of dealing in some article or trading in some market," the term " dealing in " is well chosen, for it is broad enough to cover cases of buying as well as selling, and includes power derived from political as well as from other sources. But the term "exclusive' is too absolute, allows of no gradations, and makes the definition applicable only in the rarest cases.

Definition of monopoly.

5. Monopoly is such a degree of control over the supply of goods in a given market that a net gain will result to the seller if a portion is withheld. Every producer has control over some agents and some portion of the supply of products; but ordinarily the portion controlled by any one is so small that withholding it entirely from sale would not cause the market price to rise in any appreciable degree. The producer in such a case regulates his action as if the market price were fixed beyond his control, and he uses his productive agents fully up to the point where costs equal price on the marginal unit of product. A skilled worker getting five dollars a day loses that sum every day he is idle. A landowner whose land can command a competitive rent of ten dollars an acre must take that sum or less, or nothing; he cannot get more. How can a net gain ever result from a smaller sale? As a reduction of supply results in a higher price, it is possible, as is seen in the paradox of value, for a situation to arise in the case of some goods, where a smaller number of units yield a larger sum in the market than a larger number of units. But the seller's interest lies not in the increase of total sales, but in that of net gains. Net gains, being the product of the number of units sold multiplied by the gain on each unit, increase at a much faster rate than do total sales, The existence of monopoly power in any degree depends therefore on several factors: the effect of contraction of supply in raising prices, the effect on costs, the number of units remaining in the ownership of the one contracting supply, and the possibility of preventing others from increasing supply later to profit by the higher prices.

Monopoly limits supply.