[monadINtop]

And in what world is the incentive of cutting costs and price gouging - of necessities no less - aligned with the incentives of the vast majority of mankind who would just like energy, healthcare, housing, public infrastructure, etc. to be as affordable and high quality as possible.

[kccqzy]

The incentive of cutting costs directly leads to affordability.

[ahf8Aithaex7Nai]

Companies cut costs to increase their profits, not to pass the cost savings on to customers. If there is price pressure, they may pass on the savings. But at the latest when the market is sufficiently consolidated, they will prefer to keep these savings themselves. And even if this were not the case, there would still be no direct implication of affordability.

[monadINtop]

No quite obviously cutting costs increases profit which goes into reinvestment to then generate more profit and so on. It has no relation to prices unless the business happens to be losing customers to competition which is unrelated. Prices are lowered only as much as it can increase the rate of profit. Increasing affordability past that point for the good of the consumer is strictly against the incentives of the business since it prevents the growth of capital and thereby hampers them in competition.

Also quantitatively cutting costs qualitatively looks like enshittification of goods and services in practice, and unlike in undergrad economics textbooks consumers rarely have recourse in the form of switching brands since basically all "markets" for necessities are oligopolies (thanks often to government contracts for public works in an increasingly privatized world, if not simply the natural global minimum of any market).

On a basic level the point of putting a commodity on the market is to sell it to the highest bidder. Why is this the preferred way to distribute necessities? It certainly "aligns" with one particular incentive - that of the seller - not that of most people. Doesn't everyone need access to healthcare, housing, energy, etc.? Are poor people to compete with people who can outspend them several times over for food and housing? As the cost of living continues to increase does it make sense to hand over an increasing portion of our wages for the same - or worse - standard of living?

If you want freedom of choice in what you consume and have the means to do so then go ahead and turn to a market to buy a penthouse or gourmet food or whatever. But why is it such an offense to the current hegemonic ideology to ensure that there is basic universal access to essential resources?