The real might in capitalism belongs to consumers, proved once more. Ludwig von Mises brought enough arguments to proclaim this.
For example, that a market economy held daily plebiscites, in which every penny spent was a vote to influence the use to which society’s scarce resources would be directed. But by many Austrians so called consumer sovereignty is counted to be an inaccurate political metaphor. Also, they reject the implicit critique of market outcomes, including monopoly peculiarities.
Man, Economy, and state
“Man, Economy, and the state” by Murray Rothbard was the most valuable act versus the doctrine of “consumer sovereignty”. Let’s look at the main reasons of his opposition. First, he thinks that consumers are not truly sovereign over the producers. He is from those who believe socialism is an economic system was the necessary analog to democracy as a political system. The capitalism is mentioned by that same Mises as a more democratic way of economy. The main statement of such people sounds like: “The free market is a much better system of social organization than any democracy!” We all know in democratic elections only one is the winner, so those who voted for the losing candidate will be frustrated. In market economy, instead, the capitalists and landowners do not poll the consumers and then make shoes that are all the size of the median foot. A very obvious way out was found: shoes of standard sizes are mass produced. Of course, it would not suit most consumers if shoe production is a subject to democratic control.
