Can we Pass Moral Judgement on the Past?

[Terxpahseyton]

Usually, it is assumed that there is a very specific price with which a monopolist earns most. At least that is something I feel like I was told once at a lecture. That is based on the reasoning, that the decrease of customers and the increase of prize do not form a constant disproportion, but that this disproportion is more like a curve. At some point, 10% prize increase may reduce customers by 20%. At some other, 10% price increase may reduce customers by 5%. And then there is some point where those two factors have the most profitable relation. Knowing economists this point is probably called equilibrium. There is always an equilibrium.
Having said that, I am puzzled how what you said now related to what you said before that, but I am happy to accept it nevertheless

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, that would make sense - which should, since monopolists are assumed to be good at fleecing people, be the natural state of affairs in the economy. Adding more deadweight loss may move this equilibrium, but it will certainly mean that its end result is less profit for the 'poor' monopolist.

Having said that, you put [from the changes described above] after 'monopolists don't benefit', and then remember that I'm not a very good writer.

 

[Masada]

So how do monopolists not benefit again? Less units, lower production cost (some exceptions noted) and higher prices? Do tell. :3

Edit: Prices, not profit. Sleep addled mind be damned.

 

[Flying Pig]

They're already working at the point whereby they're making the most money. More deadweight loss means that customers are taking less consumer surplus, which means that producers are taking less producer surplus. If the result of the deadweight loss is that they raise prices, they get fewer sales, and that will result in less money; similarly, vice-versa.