[WalterBright]

> They're also competing to make as much profit as possible, which has effectively zero benefit for the public.

The end result is plenty of cheap stuff for people to buy. It's why free markets have full supermarkets and socialist markets have long lines.

Take the free market in software, for example. My entire software stack on my linux box cost me $0.

[nnevod]

Plenty of cheap stuff is a consequence of companies interested in people's money and, yes, presence of at least nominal competition between providers (i.e. they can be essentially a cartel, mirrioring each other exactly, but each still wants to step into other's money supply and retain its own). Choice for customer is present but also equally nominal.

In deficit economy, economic agents aren't really interested in people's money, and competition is between consumers - who'll bid higher and offer something of real interest to provider. So providers hoard stuff and there are long lines.

Benefit for public is not a boolean, it's a spectrum. Lots of cheap poor stuff readily availible is better than having to compete for stuff, but less good than having choice between cheap poor stuff and more expensive better stuff, for example. For the latter, you need non-nominal competition and providers having to compete whithin the market, not outside of it, and also each individual provider having infinitesimal effect on whole market.

[kulahan]

"Companies optimize to make as much money as possible, which is why there is cheap stuff" does not logically follow. I get what you're saying, but it's not related to the concept of companies trying to make as much profit as possible. Some will simply chase higher profit margins.

[WalterBright]

> Some will simply chase higher profit margins

That's constrained by the Law of Supply and Demand.

> "Companies optimize to make as much money as possible, which is why there is cheap stuff" does not logically follow.

Standard Oil gained great profits by reducing the price of kerosene by 70%.

[nnevod]

>That's constrained by the Law of Supply and Demand.

Law of supply and demand works in the really free market, when providers are essentially infinitesimal and are not able to exert their will upon consumers. If a single provider is capable of significantly affecting the prices and supply of the whole market, it can bend law of supply and demand.

>Standard Oil gained great profits by reducing the price of kerosene by 70%. They (I suppose, don't know for sure) had plenty of margin for that, and as price-demand relation is not linear, increase of volume was larger than margin reduction. That is often not the case, and race to (quality) bottom and shrinkflation happens.

[WalterBright]

Standard Oil made more money by lowering the price. They had margin to do that by being very good at lowering costs.

> race to (quality) bottom

When people aren't willing to pay for quality, there's no point in increasing the costs for more quality.

[carefree-bob]

The math doesn't support this. There is great confusion about this point. Imagine, for example, that there are people that want to buy one unit of a product made by a monopoly that is a greedy corporation trying to maximize profits. And to keep things simple, make everything discreet in dollars.

10 people are willing to pay $2

5 people are willing to pay $3

1 person is willing to pay $4

and no one is able or willing to pay more than $4

So this would be the demand curve.

Now, let's do the supply curve. Keep it simple and assume a constant cost of production equal to $1 per unit.

The question is, if you are a greedy corporation, then how much should you charge to maximize your profits?

You should charge $2.

At that price, you will make $10 selling to the poors, $5 selling to the middle, and $1 selling to the rich. $16 bucks in profit for the greedy corporation.

If you charged $3, you would make $10 in profit selling to the middle, and $2 in profit selling to the rich, for only $12 in profit.

12 < 16. The greedy monopoly prefers $16 in profit to $12 in profit. That's why it lowers prices.

If you charged $4, you would make only $3 in profit.

3 < 16

In other words, it is profit maximization + law of demand + law of one price that drives down prices in the face of a demand curve.

People get this all wrong, they think that it requires perfect competition or some set of unobtainable market assumptions to make stuff affordable, it does not. It's just the law of demand (charge more and you get fewer customers) plus the law of one price (everyone pays the same amount).

This is why things like government subsidies to the poor to help them buy stuff actually drives prices up. It's why businesses wage an eternal war to be able to price discriminate. Health care, for example, would be much more affordable if hospitals had to post their prices and could not charge different rates to different people based on what they could squeeze from their insurance or based on how much money they had. It's why programs to help the poor by giving them more cash to buy stuff end up making things unaffordable for everyone else. It's why section 8 rental subsidies drive up rents. It's why during the covid subsidies, the new car price index went up from 147 to 188, but after the imposition of tariffs, it didn't change at all. So much of the world is explained just by some simple math, the law of one price, and the law of demand.

Because the companies are already charging the most to maximize their profits. They are not charities. Whenever a business says "if I have to pay this extra tax, it will just drive up prices", then ask them "Are you a charity? If you could charge more, then why aren't you charging more now? If you can't charge more now, why do you think you will be able to charge more tomorrow?"

Now, I'm not saying that there is no relationship between costs and prices, and that everything is set purely by demand and the law of one price. To get supply in there, you need more assumptions about the type of competition and the cost curve. But in general, supply only enters into the picture in that if you raise a firm's costs, then some firms go out of business because they can't pay the higher costs, and for the firms that are left, there is less competition, and it is this reduced competition that allows (some) of the increase costs to be passed on to consumers.

Always remember -- firms are already charging the most they can possibly charge in order to maximize total profits. That's the normal state of affairs, and it is what drives prices lower. Whether you are modeling a monopoly, or monopolistic competition, or an oligopoly, or perfect competition, it does not matter. They always charge the most they can possibly charge, and the law of demand, working with the law of one price, drives prices down.

[kulahan]

Except it doesn’t scale at all like this. There are companies selling sandwiches on private jets for $150/ea. Some people sell a candle for $5 at Target while others sell them for $45 at a farmer’s market. If you’re making websites for a living, it’s common advice to raise your prices to keep away people who aren’t very serious or who will balk at every expense.

There are countless companies working with excellent profit margins.

[carefree-bob]

None of those are monopolies, unless you consider someone selling a sandwich on a particular plane as a monopoly and the people on the plane are your market, in which case it is exactly this situation, and why that sandwich doesn't cost $100.

So instead of trying to think of complications, you need to first understand the argument, and then you can see it everywhere once you understand it.

[kulahan]

I’m simply saying it’s incorrect to assume that everything everywhere is as cheap as possible. This is true in MANY INDUSTRIES, but not everywhere, and it’s absolutely nothing like a rule.

You, I think, are tying it into a larger discussion about monopolies, but I’m not sure that makes sense because if you’re a monopoly, you don’t have competitors to beat on price, so you again would not charge the least amount possible. That makes no sense.

[carefree-bob]

> I’m simply saying it’s incorrect to assume that everything everywhere is as cheap as possible.

This is a non-sequitur. Please read the post and reply to what I wrote (or don't reply) - not to whatever ghosts are dancing in your head. I think the combination of you not understanding what I wrote, yet somehow getting triggered by it, and then launching on a debate with a interlocutor that exists only in your mind is the reason why you are objecting to things I said by providing examples that solidify my case.