During the late nineteenth century, when local governments were beginning to grant franchise monopolies, the general economic understanding was that "monopoly" was caused by government intervention, not the free market, through franchises, protectionism, and other means. Large-scale production and economies of scale were seen as a competitive virtue, not a monopolistic vice. For example, Richard T. Ely, co-founder of the American Economic Association, wrote that "large scale production is a thing which by no means necessarily signifies monopolized production." John Bates Clark, Ely's co-founder, wrote in 1888 that the notion that industrial combinations would "destroy competition" should "not be too hastily accepted." Herbert Davenport of the University of Chicago advised in 1919 that only a few firms in an industry where there are economies of scale does not "require the elimination of competition," and his colleague, James Laughlin, noted that even when 'a combination is large, a rival combination may give the most spirited competition.'" Irving Fisher and Edwin R.A. Seligman both agreed that large-scale production produced competitive benefits through cost savings in advertising, selling, and less cross-shipping. Large-scale production units unequivocally benefited the consumer, according to turn-of-the-century economists. For without large-scale production, according to Seligman, "the world would revert to a more primitive state of well being, and would virtually renounce the inestimable benefits of the best utilization of capital." Simon Pat -- ten of the Wharton School expressed a similar view that "the combination of capital does not cause any economic disadvantage to the community... combinations are much more efficient than were the small producers whom they displaced." Like virtually every other economist of the day, Columbia's Franklin Giddings viewed competition much like the modern-day Austrian economists do, as a dynamic, rivalrous process. Consequently, he observed that "competition in some form is a permanent economic process... Therefore, when market competition seems to have been suppressed, we should inquire what has become of the forces by which it was generated. We should inquire, further, to what degree market competition actually is suppressed or converted into other forms." In other words, a "dominant" firm that underprices all its rivals at any one point in time has not suppressed competition, for competition is "a permanent economic process." David A. Wells, one of the most popular economic writers of the late nineteenth century, wrote that "the world demands abundance of commodities, and demands them cheaply; and experience shows that it can have them only by the employment of great capital upon extensive scale." And George Gunton believed that "concentration of capital does not drive small capitalists out of business, but simply integrates them into larger and more complex systems of production, in which they are enabled to produce... more cheaply for the community and obtain a larger income for themselves... Instead of concentration of capital tending to destroy competition the reverse is true... By the use of large capital, improved machinery and better facilities the trust can and does undersell the corporation."🏁

During the late nineteenth century, when local governments were beginning to grant franchise monopolies, the general economic understanding was that "monopoly" was caused by government intervention, not the free market, through franchises, protectionism, and other means. Large-scale production and economies of scale were seen as a competitive virtue, not a monopolistic vice. For example, Richard T. Ely, co-founder of the American Economic Association, wrote that "large scale production is a thing which by no means necessarily signifies monopolized production." John Bates Clark, Ely's co-founder, wrote in 1888 that the notion that industrial combinations would "destroy competition" should "not be too hastily accepted." Herbert Davenport of the University of Chicago advised in 1919 that only a few firms in an industry where there are economies of scale does not "require the elimination of competition," and his colleague, James Laughlin, noted that even when 'a combination is large, a rival combination may give the most spirited competition.'" Irving Fisher and Edwin R.A. Seligman both agreed that large-scale production produced competitive benefits through cost savings in advertising, selling, and less cross-shipping. Large-scale production units unequivocally benefited the consumer, according to turn-of-the-century economists. For without large-scale production, according to Seligman, "the world would revert to a more primitive state of well being, and would virtually renounce the inestimable benefits of the best utilization of capital." Simon Pat -- ten of the Wharton School expressed a similar view that "the combination of capital does not cause any economic disadvantage to the community... combinations are much more efficient than were the small producers whom they displaced." Like virtually every other economist of the day, Columbia's Franklin Giddings viewed competition much like the modern-day Austrian economists do, as a dynamic, rivalrous process. Consequently, he observed that "competition in some form is a permanent economic process... Therefore, when market competition seems to have been suppressed, we should inquire what has become of the forces by which it was generated. We should inquire, further, to what degree market competition actually is suppressed or converted into other forms." In other words, a "dominant" firm that underprices all its rivals at any one point in time has not suppressed competition, for competition is "a permanent economic process." David A. Wells, one of the most popular economic writers of the late nineteenth century, wrote that "the world demands abundance of commodities, and demands them cheaply; and experience shows that it can have them only by the employment of great capital upon extensive scale." And George Gunton believed that "concentration of capital does not drive small capitalists out of business, but simply integrates them into larger and more complex systems of production, in which they are enabled to produce... more cheaply for the community and obtain a larger income for themselves... Instead of concentration of capital tending to destroy competition the reverse is true... By the use of large capital, improved machinery and better facilities the trust can and does undersell the corporation."🏁