About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

15 J.L. & Econ. 143 (1972)
Durability and Monopoly

handle is hein.journals/jlecono15 and id is 147 raw text is: DURABILITY AND MONOPOLY R. H. COASE University of Chicago Law School ASSUME that a supplier owns the total stock of a completely durable good. At what price will he sell it? To take a concrete example, assume that one person owns all the land in the United States and, to simplify the analysis, that all land is of uniform quality. Assume also that the landowner is not able to work the land himself, that ownership of land yields no utility and that there are no costs involved in disposing of the land. If there were a large number of landowners and the price were competitively determined, the price would be that at which the amount demanded was equal to the amount of land in the United States. If we imagine this fixed supply of land to be various amounts either greater or smaller, and then discover what the competitively determined price would be, we can trace out the demand schedule for American land. Assume that this demand schedule is DD and that from this a marginal revenue schedule, MR, has been derived. Both schedules are shown in Figure I. Let the total amount of land in existence be OQ. Then, if the price were competitively determined, the price would be OB (see Figure I). We now have to determine the price which the monopolistic landowner would charge for a unit of land in the assumed conditions. The diagram would seem to suggest (and has, I believe, suggested to some) that such a monopolis- tic landowner would charge the price OA, would sell the quantity of land OM, thus maximising his receipts, and would hold off the market the quantity of land, MQ. But suppose that he did this. MQ land and money equal to OA X OM would be in the possession of the original landowner while OM land would be owned by others. In these circumstances, why should the original landowner continue to hold MQ off the market? The original landowner could obviously improve his position by selling more land since he could by this means acquire more money. It is true that this would reduce the value of the land OM owned by those who had previously bought land from him-but the loss would fall on them, not on him. If the same assumption about his be- haviour was made as before, he would then sell part of MQ. But this is not the end of the story, since some of MQ would still remain unsold. The process would continue as long as the original landowner retained any land, that is, until OQ had been sold. And if there were no costs of disposing of the land, the whole process would take place in the twinkling of an eye.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most