Uploaded July 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Do free markets naturally tend toward monopoly, requiring antitrust to keep them honest? Tate Fegley makes the Austrian case that the whole framework is backwards. The neoclassical ideal of "perfect competition" defines away real competition—advertising, undercutting, innovating—and treats it as evidence of monopoly. Following Rothbard, Fegley argues the only coherent monopoly is one granted by the state, and works through the antitrust consequences, from Lina Khan's case against Amazon to the courts punishing Alcoa for serving customers too well.
Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 21, 2026.
Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics, and is the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream.
0:00 Introduction: The Common Case for Antitrust
2:35 Rothbard's Three Definitions of Monopoly
5:03 The Neoclassical Models: Perfect and Imperfect Competition
11:00 Austrian Critique: "Perfect Competition Means No Competition"
12:59 The "Restricting Output" Problem: Coffee and Conor McGregor
18:31 The Austrian View: Competition as a Dynamic Process
20:40 Antitrust Policy: Protecting Consumers or Protecting Competitors?
24:38 Lina Khan and "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox"
28:51 The E-Book Pricing Episode and Inconsistent Application
36:22 Armentano's Case for Repealing Antitrust Laws
38:17 The Alcoa Case and the Staples-Office Depot Merger
Find free books, daily articles, podcasts, lecture series, and everything about the Austrian School of Economics at https://Mises.org.
X ► https://x.com/mises/
Facebook ► facebook.com/mises.institute
Instagram ► instagram.com/misesinstitute
SoundCloud ► soundcloud.com/misesmedia
Apple Podcasts ► podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/mises-institute/1280664810
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/c-2212754
Odysee ► odysee.com/@mises
Podcasts ► mises.org/podcasts
Do free markets naturally tend toward monopoly, requiring antitrust to keep them honest? Tate Fegley makes the Austrian case that the whole framework is backwards. The neoclassical ideal of "perfect competition" defines away real competition—advertising, undercutting, innovating—and treats it as evidence of monopoly. Following Rothbard, Fegley argues the only coherent monopoly is one granted by the state, and works through the antitrust consequences, from Lina Khan's case against Amazon to the courts punishing Alcoa for serving customers too well.
Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 21, 2026.
Mises University is the world's leading instructional program in the Austrian School of economics, and is the essential training ground for economists who are looking beyond the mainstream.
0:00 Introduction: The Common Case for Antitrust
2:35 Rothbard's Three Definitions of Monopoly
5:03 The Neoclassical Models: Perfect and Imperfect Competition
11:00 Austrian Critique: "Perfect Competition Means No Competition"
12:59 The "Restricting Output" Problem: Coffee and Conor McGregor
18:31 The Austrian View: Competition as a Dynamic Process
20:40 Antitrust Policy: Protecting Consumers or Protecting Competitors?
24:38 Lina Khan and "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox"
28:51 The E-Book Pricing Episode and Inconsistent Application
36:22 Armentano's Case for Repealing Antitrust Laws
38:17 The Alcoa Case and the Staples-Office Depot Merger
Find free books, daily articles, podcasts, lecture series, and everything about the Austrian School of Economics at https://Mises.org.
X ► https://x.com/mises/
Facebook ► facebook.com/mises.institute
Instagram ► instagram.com/misesinstitute
SoundCloud ► soundcloud.com/misesmedia
Apple Podcasts ► podcasts.apple.com/us/artist/mises-institute/1280664810
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/c-2212754
Odysee ► odysee.com/@mises
Podcasts ► mises.org/podcasts
