>The result of monopoly pricing is that consumer surplus is reduced and producer surplus is increased; the reason we care as a society, though [..] is deadweigh

>The result of monopoly pricing is that consumer surplus is reduced and producer surplus is increased; the reason we care as a society, though [..] is deadweight loss. >Facebook may have a monopoly in social networking, and while that may be a problem for Snap or any other would be networks, Facebook would surely argue that the lack of deadweight loss means that society as a whole shouldn’t be too bothered. Traditionally, the main issue with monopoly has been about suppressing competition and innovation, not about prices. Price analysis was at most an afterthought. Here's e.g. Woodrow Wilson [1] campaigning against monopoly in 1913 (he later created the FTC and signed the Clayton Act): "Our purpose is the restoration of freedom. We purpose to prevent private monopoly by law, to see to it that the methods by which monopolies have been built up are legally made impossible. We design that the limitations on private enterprise shall be removed, so that the next generation of youngsters, as they come along, will not have to become proteges of benevolent trusts, but will be free to go about making their own lives what they will" "Monopoly means the atrophy of enterprise. If monopoly persists, monopoly will always sit at the helm of the government. I do not expect to see monopoly restrain itself. If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it" [1] https://archive.org/details/newfreedomcallfo00wils https://archive.org/details/newfreedomcallfo00wils