In a 2012 article published by the Future of Freedom Foundation entitled “The Misplaced Fears of Monopoly,” historian and free-market economist Tom Woods explores the fallacies perpetrated in our modern-day society which portray monopolized industries as a major economic threat. He pointed out the villainous light with which such successful business magnates as Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt are frequently painted; yet Woods statistically proves that, regardless of political or social beliefs, men like these undoubtedly made massive contributions to the standard of living, much to the benefit of greater society, by single-handedly paving the way for prices in their respective industries to fall exponentially–much to the contrary of what advocates against the free market would have you think.

Furthermore, Woods discussed the theory of predatory pricing as a means of driving out competition in a specific industry, thus establishing a monopoly. He essentially concludes that predatory pricing in fact does not pose an advantage for the firm that attempts it for a number of reasons. He points out the most adversely affected victim of predatory pricing: the supplier. Woods theorizes what would happen if, for example, Walmart were to attempt to use predatory pricing to achieve a monopoly in its sale of drugs by selling at the lowest price possible. Of course, if a monopoly were achieved, the assumption is that Walmart would then greatly increase prices in order to reap the benefits; otherwise, there would be little benefit to having a monopoly. However, the increased prices would inevitably lead to decreased sales of its product, which would negatively impact Walmart’s drug suppliers. Thus, they would not allow for such to happen.

Many credit the government with the expansive economic growth that America–and the world as a whole–has experienced in the last several centuries; but on what basis are such claims made? The idea that government intervention has led to an improved standard of living is not only implausible on its own; the increase of government efforts to help the poor beginning in the latter half of the 20th century has quite literally coincided with the slowing of the growth that the previous century had brought.

At face value, the claim that government somehow increased the standard of living simply makes no sense. On the contrary, industrialization and free exchange left without interference has proven to be the most effective means of economic growth. This works by means of capitalists’ investments in equipment that promotes increasingly efficient production of goods. When this process is uninhibited, it leads to higher wages and falling prices. Without the means of production equipment that have developed in the last two centuries, the government would not be able to alleviate poverty by redistributing wealth; poverty would simply be naturally widespread–as it was, in fact, two centuries ago–due to the lack of ability to produce efficiently.🔹