… a given rate, preferring instead the value of leisure. So, according to your theory, they are committing the monopolists’ supposed crime: withholding supply from the market in an attempt to force up the price.

Again, in reality, everyone always offers their goods or services in conditions of imperfect competition. Notice how you did not actually define the proscribed standard of uncompetitiveness? We will find that any definition you propose is arbitrary and includes economic activities which yourself agree are socially beneficial and not criminally culpable. Go ahead: try.

The Austrian argument is that these actions by government are always arbitrary, and thus are only an abuse of power: an attack by the coercive class against the productive class.

If someone charges above the market price, the regulator can say it’s “price gouging”; if below, it’s “predatory pricing”; and if on par, it’s “collusion”. What the regulator can never identify is the rational criterion that distinguishes the proscribed standard from many ordinary and necessary market actions on which human society depends? Can you?

“I do not think that a few large players should be able to get together and set prices or carve up territory or arrange tenders with impunity.”

Governments do all of those things, don’t they? But when they do, unlike market actors, governments setting of prices and carving up of territory is done on the basis of a legal monopoly of force and threats.

Please see Rothbard’s index and follow the reference to his treatment of monopolies, where you will find the anti-trust arguments completely and totally demolished. I would be interested to know your critique of his argument.

Thus, as concerns the anti-trust point, you have not established any criterion of unfairness that does not equally describe
a) other market activities that you accept should not be criminalised, and
b) government.

All
The fact that other people can produce goods cheaper than you, is not an argument for government protection, whether or not those others producers are protected. If they are, it only means their governments are forcing their subjects to provide us with cheaper goods!

"The fact that other people can produce goods cheaper than you, is not an argument for government protection, whether or not those others producers are protected. If they are, it only means their governments are forcing their subjects to provide us with cheaper goods!"

You dont export yourself i guess by this failed comment.
So explain how I am then supposed to compete in export markets? Is it so good that someone else is supplying my market with cheaper goods, no good for me, my employees or Australian efficient production as the only one to survive will be the subsidised country. Is that your market result? then only the subsidised will win, so will thier employees and thier economy will have a net benefit as the good isnt sold for less then it cost to produce overall, just the producer/ manufacturer has the costs reduced but all others in the supply chain receive full payment and pay the tax ( net benefit).
Again I dont care who is right or wrong in thier theory because thoery doesnt pay the bills nor does the buyers care.
Also if the country we compete with has manipulated its currency then there is an unfair advantage again against us, and we have to deal with it, it isnt a theory it is a reality I have to deal with daily.

You dont also answer the question of the need to drop our living standards and wages to compete in these markets.Countries that dont subsidise have low standards, we too would still have a textile industry if Bonds could treat workers like bangladesh companies do.
All your theories equate to BS in the real market place. No one gives a stuff about moral high ground or efficient production as they dont buy Government votes.

I don't think all this intellectual grandstanding has helped us much at all.
The reality is that Jardine K Jardine thinks that if other countries can produce food more cheaply and with less regulation, including regulation which impacts health, then we do we should embrace it.
Some of us believe that there are logistic and strategic reasons, health and safety reasons and even economic reasons why we need food produced right here on our doorstop.
All power to Joe Hockey for rejecting the ADM takeover.

If the reality is either low living standards or protection then we also need to choose, that answers your perfect theory, the same as all other countries do, what gives your own country the best net return for the long term, not just cheap socks now at the overall loss of jobs.
Don’t try to run the old furphy of new jobs or industries emerging to replace them because where are they? again another theory which doesn’t work in reality. Don’t also try to use unemployment stats as we know they have been manipulated. soon you will be classed as employed if you think you can work.
There will always be Governments so we have to live with that. There will always be countries willing to deliver their people low living standards, so we have to deal with that and others that use protection to keep their living standards. This is reality and the market to deal with.
If our people/ government have standards that want imposed on business whether social or Environmental that make up our living standard then society must pay. You don’t have to agree with this you just have to live with it, or change people’s views or change the government
The problem is at the moment OUR version of free trade and deregulation does not include labour or standards so it’s a bastardised version that makes business subsidise employees and uncompetitive against OS competitors until they go broke. The long term will result in not enough jobs to support the standard of living.
All the theory, efficiency and competitive advantage wont overcome this, Accept the trading world and do what the rest do to compete, while maintaining the living standard that is expected.
After all isn’t the main aim of society to achieve a living standard rather than deliver short term cheap socks.

Bartb
You keep confusing problems caused by government with problems caused by the market. If, in the logical consequence that you refer to, foreign protectionism totally destroyed all Australian industry, that would be a result of protectionism and socialism, not “my market” or free market economics. You’ve got it back-the-front. You’re proving my argument, not yours.

If the government puts so many restrictions and taxes on Australian businesses that it stamps out profitability, then why are you
a) blaming free market economics, and
b) calling for more restrictions on productive activity as a cure?

“There will always be Governments so we have to live with that.”

You seem to be saying that even if we agree that governments are causing the problem, there’s nothing we can do to fix that, but if markets are causing the problem, then we can get governments to fix it! Well if there’s a need to move government to do something, why not get them to stop doing what’s causing the problem in the first place?

For example, if the government wants to help the drought-stricken graziers in Queensland, instead of giving them handouts, why not
a) (stop destroying their business and industry in the first place, and)
b) get rid of the tax on diesel? This one reform alone would make a big difference to the viability of farm enterprises all over Australia.

As for, where are new businesses going to come from?, we both know very well that you need rocks in your head to try to start or run a business in Australia because at every turn, you’ve got bureaucrats blocking and charging you on every pretext, almost all of them fake, like the open-ended charges for “the environment”: a blank warrant for unlimited government interference in everything.

For example on my farm it’s illegal to cultivate the paddocks! What effect do you think that might have on profitability? Why are you blaming free market economics?

My mechanic friend was telling me of the problems trying to run a mechanics business with all the occupational licensing parasites bleeding …

... him at every turn. It’s enough to make him non-viable, and remove the only mechanic for 140 km – all in the name of consumer protection!

And your solution is to argue for more open-ended power in government to block and charge and restrict everything, without ever proposing any solution consistent with your own complaint.

“You don’t also answer the question of the need to drop our living standards and wages to compete in these markets.”

The need to drop our living standards or compete in these markets cannot be made to go away, because even if Australia completely stopped all trade with these markets, our living standards would drop further than if not. The government cannot make magic pudding. It’s simply socialist nonsense that we can get wealthier by passing laws restricting productive activity. But that’s what you’re advocating.

“So explain how I am then supposed to compete in export markets?”

Unfortunately the rest of the world, and the Australian government, don’t exist so that you or I can export what we want at what profit we want. It's just a dream of handouts.

Let’s come to tin tacks. My policy solution is start by abolishing the tax on diesel, as well as any compulsory licence to use one’s own property. What’s yours and why is it better?

campaigner
The intellectual grandstanding was the author’s, and everyone who agreed with him, in pretending by jargon-riddled argument and display of statistical illogic, to have shown that free market economics is to blame for declining farm profitability; not mine for pointing it out.

Perhaps he should have done a statistical correlation on the decline of farm profitability with the increase of costly regulation? I’d like to see that!

“All power to Joe Hockey for rejecting the ADM take-over.”

It is enough for me to demonstrate that no-one can defend argument by any rational criterion without self-contradiction and circularity; and that you are all advocating the anti-social and wealth-destroying policies that are the overwhelming cause of your complaints.