Creative destruction: the product life cycle versus the revenue life cycle
24 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
Can you invest in a trend?
14 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in entrepreneurship, financial economics, industrial organisation, survivor principle Tags: creative destruction, efficient market hypothesis, market selection, survivor principle, The meaning of competition
Creative destruction alert: whatever happened to the Microsoft monopoly?
09 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
Creative destruction alert: Google and the collapse of US newspaper advertising revenues
08 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
The Attack on Concentration: Yale Brozen (1979)
06 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, industrial organisation, survivor principle Tags: anti-trust law, competition law, creative destruction, The meaning of competition
There is a distinction between controlling the supply of a product and producing or selling most of the supply of a product.
“Dominant” producers who sell a major portion of a product’s supply usually have no control over the supply. They have no power to set any lower level of industry output and a higher price than that which would prevail in a market with many suppliers and no dominant firm.
Usually, a dominant producer is the most efficient firm in the industry. Its large output is the result of its efficiency in supplying the market. The market price is as low as it would be with many producers frequently lower.
Any attempt by a dominant firm to restrict its own supply and increase price after reaching a “dominant” position simply results in the expansion of output by other firms, the entry of additional firms, and loss of its dominance. A dominant firm can keep its dominance only by behaving competitively.
The fact that there is a dominant firm, or small group of firms, in an industry is evidence of competitive behavior not of monopolization.
via The Attack on Concentration: Newsroom: The Independent Institute.
Monopoly or superior efficiency – Google and all that
05 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
https://twitter.com/EconBizFin/status/539937864234958851
HT: Jeremy Thorpe
Joseph Schumpeter, economic growth, and creative destruction
15 Nov 2014 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, entrepreneurship, liberalism, theory of the firm Tags: creative destruction, Joseph Schumpeter
Joseph Schumpeter | MRUniversity
28 Oct 2014 Leave a comment
in economic history, entrepreneurship, history of economic thought, technological progress Tags: creative destruction, entrepreneurship, Joseph Schumpeter
Robots will take my job alert: when musicians campaigned against the introduction of canned music into cinemas
28 Sep 2014 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, human capital, industrial organisation, labour economics, labour supply, survivor principle, technological progress Tags: automation, creative destruction, mechanisation, technological unemployment, The Great Enrichment
Barriers to entry alert: do late entrants have a chance
22 Sep 2014 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, Austrian economics, economic history, entrepreneurship, industrial organisation, liberalism, technological progress Tags: Austrian economics, barriers to entry, creative destruction, Israel Kirzner, market process
September 21, 1999 – Google came out of beta; the 17th search engine to officially enter the market.
Kirzner defines a competitive market as a market where no potential participant faces non-market obstacles to entry:
Following a long tradition in economics going back at least to Adam Smith, Austrians define a competitive market not as a situation where no participant or potential participant has the power to make any difference, but as a market where no potential participant faces nonmarket obstacles to entry.
(The adjective “nonmarket” refers, primarily, to government obstacles to entry; it is used to differentiate such obstacles from, for example, high production costs that might discourage entry. These latter do not constitute noncompetitive elements in a market; to be able to enter means to be able to enter a market if one judges such entry to be economically promising-it does not mean to be able to enter without having to bear the relevant costs of production.) That is, a situation is competitive if no incumbent participant possesses privileges that protect him against the possible entry of new competitors.
The achievements that free markets are able to attain depend, in the Austrian view, on freedom of entry, that is, on the absence of privilege.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments