I’ll add that “dumping” doesn’t imply any unprofitable organization. If a state taxes some producers to subsidize others, in order to sell the subsidized produce below its cost of production, then the taxed producer loses the full value of his produce, even if he remains profitable, and the subsidized producer is still profitable by virtue of the subsidy. No one sells at a loss in this scenario, but I call it “dumping”.

I don’t call your liquidation scenario “dumping” even though someone does sell at a loss; however, if a producer persistently finds himself in this liquidation scenario and never goes out of the business of selling at a loss, I’m not believing it.

The state’s forcible involvement in these transactions denies the taxed producer his full market value, and at some level, this subversion of the market is what “dumping” always implies in my way of thinking. Exchange rate manipulation by monetary authorities amounts to the same thing.

Not necessarily. I might also imply that the producer values his produce too much.

Produces sell at a loss all the time. They do so to minimize their loss.

At some point, the theft ceases or thieves simply gain enough legitimacy or freedom from competition to stop offering the discounts. The temporary beneficiaries of theft then must reorganize again to produce goods they previously enjoyed at a discount to the cost of production, because they can’t enjoy both the previously discounted goods and the goods they produce under the discounted regime.

In Austrian parlance, this post-discount predicament is called “recession”, isn’t it? Is it now cause for celebration?