Refute this

lmao @ marxist one. whoever did this is iq89

Germany was a National Socialist state, not a fascist state.
Second, their autarky was forced upon them because of the international jews boycotting.
They still managed to thrive, explore and invent alternatives to goods they needed/couldn't import directly.

this is more aimed at alt-righters who think that we should have protectionist economies because muh jews

I-I do user!

>Austrian economics
>empirical, data-driven hypotheses

choose one and only one

>The only Austrians are Miseans
cute

Austrian economics seems flawed though, what is the definition of"price" and what things do not act according to price, besides say governments?

Didn't we already try laissez-faire economics in the gilded age?
What went so wrong with it there that you had huge conglomerates?

Austrian economist is making the assumption that all goods are perfectly competitive. They are not. Companies can manipulate the price of goods through merges & acquisitions or anti-competitive practices.

For Austrians, can free market lead to monopoly of a company, or at least a player so strong that it essentialy inhibts competition? And, if so, how does the theory deal with it? Should it accept or does it think that it eventually autocorrects itself? Or should the state try to stop that and protect competition?

Just curious, I like Austrian school, but this question bugs me.

That entity is a whale

>can free market lead to monopoly of a company, or at least a player so strong that it essentialy inhibts competition

Yes of course that is possible and this is entirely the point of corporate strategy. How do you go from a perfectly competitive firm that takes market prices to a differentiated firm that has price setting ability.

Austrians are good? thanks unironically bought 100k

without patents it would be insanely difficult to achieve a monopoly. with patents its reasonable achieveable.

Hoppe represent.

maybe not have intellectual property

> without patents it would be insanely difficult to achieve a monopoly. with patents its reasonable achieveable.

parents are just 1 barrier to entry.
>Which we need btw or else our country would look like China with 0 reason to innovate since the firm that does R&D takes a loss after everyone copies their technology.
Companies like Google have such a large technological superiority that even without patent's they would still be ahead because they are able to out innovate in terms of search optimization.

There is also branding, google is synonyms with search and amazon/ebay with shopping and it would cost a fortune in marketing to get another competitor to be as popular.

mergers & acquisitions also allow companies to buy competitors, startup-ups with innovative technology, and vendors or suppliers

There are a lot of tools corporations can use to become a monopoly/oligopoly.

This

There's an example of the goodness of the free market that Molymeme once gave:
You need a pen RIGHT NOW to write down the number of your 'oneitis' love at first sight who just talked to you and left, before you forget it. So you run over to the nearest person you see writing something down, there are no other people with pens in the area. You give him $5 for the pen and because you value the number so highly at this very moment, and the person giving it to you doesn't value the pen THAT much, he gives you the pen and you're both very happy.

However, this story also shows the flaw of this kind of market system, as the holder of the pen could potentially see you talking to the woman, infer your need for the pen, and then charge you a ludicrous price for it, effectively sucking the wealth out of the economy that would have been generated had he sold at a much more reasonable price.
If the guy really is the only one in the area, and nobody else has time to go get a pen from somewhere, then he can charge as close to a forbiddingly expensive price as he wants.
This is the way capitalism crushes hopes, dreams, and love lol.

>the nazis weren't facist

Attached: ......jpg (750x1000, 35K)

Is it not possible for one company to dominate market when there is a network effect at play like in social networks when it grows stronger and faster the more users it has? Or when company can offer better prices because it's operating at bigger scale and can either negotiate better prices for materials or save more money thanks to some logistics/operations inventions that scale better with bigger inventory etc... ?

>only when an entity that does not act according t o price
So all humans?

>Is it not possible for one company to dominate market when there is a network effect at play like in social networks when it grows stronger and faster the more users it has?
yes. that is an example of one company being able to dominate the market.

>Or when company can offer better prices because it's operating at bigger scale and can either negotiate better prices for materials or save more money thanks to some logistics/operations inventions that scale better with bigger inventory etc... ?

cost reduction is generally considerated a competitive advantage in the short-run but not the long-run because technology gets diffused to competitors.

do you mean new keynesian? IE. prices and wages can be sticky and prevent labor and goods markets from clearing which drives or amplifies business cycles/aggregate fluctuations?

This is not always true. Large economies of scale can lead to permanent monopolies.

>Go McNuke yourself in the face
kek

You are right about technology going to other companies, but just as I was thinking about cases when savings scale with the size of operation - so even if everyone uses the same tech companies that went ahead first will often stay ahead, like it cost $5/unit to store or deliver the product for me, but $7/unit for my smaller competitor because his (identical) truck is only half full...

I like you guys opinion on the matter, but I was asking how do Austrians deal with it (if someone is familiar with Hayek, Mises, etc.)., to see if they think it's a flaw in their theory or a necessary evil (much like unemployement).

Yes that happens all the time with Fortune 500 mergers. That's why your companies like Kraft and Nestle have bought so many different brands. They can leverage their scale for cost savings.

but that's only a competitive advantage if consumers are price sensitive and not brand sensitive and buy the lowest priced good.

econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

read this it. your answer might be somewhere in it.

Thanks, my man, bookmarked the link for later reading.

Oh I see, also you actually touched on something I want to know, but have no idea how to google... Is there some good into to theory that describes what happens to economy/market when companies actively change what customers perceive as value? Like going from them being price sensitive to looking at the brand, or being environmentally friendly or even eliminating the 'need' customer have for particular item? Not sure if I make myself clear here... ? Anyone?

>god-tier
"I could explain the theory of relativity to my waitress"
>alright-tier
"I have a decent understanding of the world"
>pitiful-tier
"I cling to terminology as a smokescreen for my lack of judgement"

>GOD TIER AUSTRIANS at the same level of Post ke*nesians
Consider offing youself

you might want to read this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter's_five_forces_analysis

and this

youtube.com/watch?v=z5nq45zg9Wc

Companies generally cannot change what customers perceive as valuable, rather they react to what customers perceive as value. If customers think status is important than companies will focus on branding, e.g. Nike.

In a stateless society it'd be close to impossible for a monopoly to develop. They only exist due to government intervention

>In a stateless society it'd be close to impossible for a monopoly to develop.

Why? Because there would be no intelectual property?

austrian economics can't explain the business cycle or market failure at all. New keynesian can.

>In a stateless society
stateless society is a power vacuum. It will inevitably cease to exist as a rule consolidates power. Interesting idea of a stateless society but totally pointless.

>Not putting monetarist right under god-tier
lol

Lol, Jow Forums on economics

why do marxists like to pretend they're intellectuals?

> Companies generally cannot change what customers perceive as valuable, rather they react to what customers perceive as value.
I would argue they can, but I see now how it can be interpreted differently from other perspective... If company educates customer how being environment friendly is important - did he changed his view about products in this category or was he always against killing dolphins?

There was something interesting to me in links you provided. Thanks

I don't think wealth was sucked out of the economy, it was just transferred from an individual to another. The new owner of the $5 could spend it.

I don't understand it
I understand socialists I think but only because it's the ideology of choice of the modern sjw and they won't shut up about it
Where do I start reading? Are these worth delving into beyond being a theorist that tankthinks for the government? Any practical use for a normie?

>Tfw first post expects me not to understand and I don't
It is both humbling and infuriating

Attached: 1508596502987.jpg (900x968, 209K)

what team am i

You could always try wikipedia or investopedia.

They don't matter to your average day labourer but if you're trying to make money and have a discussion on a board dedicated to business and finance which heavily relies on a knowledge of the economy, job market etc. then you should look these up for sure.

intellectuals suck

>be China
>be protectionist as fuck
>2nd largest economy in the world
>bend over any (((corporations))) that want to do business in China
>tax the shit out of them, make them build in China, make them share tech and expertise with Chinese companies, censor them (google, faceberg)
>the devils are so greedy they still comply just to get muh 1.4 billion people market

If you are big enough you can do whatever you want. Corporate greed outshadows any kind of theoretical market principles. China is the ultimate refutation of muh free market corporate shilling - kikes might control the West but they suck Xi’s cock on demand

go back to Jow Forums kiddo

There is a difference between facism and National Socialism you fucking brainlet.