It is, in the words of the economists, pure deadweight loss.

So, although the exploitation rate has vanished, there is still a deadweight loss to society.

The basis of his analysis was the concept of deadweight loss.

Because the price of labour is raised above the market rate, deadweight loss is created.

Deadweight loss does not account for the effect taxes have in leveling the business playing field.

Any addition to the price of consumption goods or an increase in the income tax extends the deadweight loss further.

Production is also decreased, further decreasing social welfare by creating a deadweight loss.

By charging higher prices than the equilibrium rate, unions promote deadweight loss.

This is a net social loss and is called deadweight loss.

With the status quo income tax, deadweight loss exists.

Through what economists now call "rent-seeking" they imposed deadweight losses on the economy.

It should be noted that this reduction in utility is not caused by deadweight loss associated with taxation.

But there is an additional tax burden or deadweight loss that is pure waste.

This is known as a deadweight loss.

This unneeded expense then creates the deadweight loss: resources are not being used efficiently.

The magnitude of the deadweight loss is dependent on the size of the subsidy.

The term deadweight loss may also be referred to as the "excess burden" of monopoly or taxation.

The deadweight loss is then the economic benefit foregone by these customers due to the monopoly pricing.

Conversely, deadweight loss can also come from consumers buying a product even if it costs more than it benefits them.

Yet, because it is difficult to see tangible results of deadweight loss, policy makers largely ignore it.

These are deadweight losses and decrease a monopolist's profits.

If each area could provide itself with just the quantity of the good that it requires, these deadweight losses could be avoided.

That is, the market is still entirely efficient and there is no deadweight loss to society.

The most cost-effective policy is one that has the smallest deadweight loss in achieving certain policy goals.

Becker's insight was to recognize that deadweight losses put an exponential break on predation.