I think I thoroughly proved with 5 minutes Googling and the links I provided that your claim that the extreme rise in memory prices was just “social media vibes”, is complete total denialist bollocks (you’re pretty much saying “not it’s no just because I say so”) as well as lazy (you could’ve easily done the 5 minutes Googling for “DDR5 price history”, same as me and avoided saying such easily disproven bollocks).
You were literally bullshitting your argument when claiming that the RAM price rises weren’t true or were exaggerated and then when it was proven out with actual sources (as you demanded, no less), claiming you’ve been insulted - yeah, well, sorry that you’re trying to bullshit your way into winning an argument, mate.
As for the rest, if you seem to understand Supply/Demand based on the simplified overview explanation of it given to people who don’t know enough Maths to understand it in depth and thus misused an Economics 101 simplified explanation of Supply/Demand which is only about aggregate price movements, to try and make an argument about individual market actors, a level that’s beyond the scope of that simplified explanation.
Supply/Demand isn’t a Law and it doesn’t work in a Formulaic way - it’s a Statistical and Game Theory process were the incentives of Market Actors on both sides constantly seek a balance, and when Supply changes and Demand doesn’t keep up or vice-versa, that changes some incentives and the result in aggregate is that price will over time move until a new price is discovered were incentives are once again in balance, and all this isn’t instantaneous and there are things such as inertia as well as overshooting and undershooting of the final price.
Market Actors aren’t directly forced to do anything, they’re just incentivized to do so by the changed market conditions and because they see an opportunity to gain more under those new conditions but how fast and how far do they follow those incentives is up to each Market Actor.
Because this is a process in aggregate, nobody actually knows the final price once a new balance is found, plus there is a lot of room for exploiting the inertia, overshooting and undershooting of the process and extracting more profits from it, it’s perfectly fair to point at a specific Market Player and say that “they’re going too far” in how far and how fast they changed their prices and are thus profiteering from the situation.
Further and specifically for situation, all that only works well in highly competitive markets, and the memory market is no such thing hence a player like Samsung owns enough of the market that they can actually influence where the new price point will be, so here it’s even more valid be critical of Samsung if they’re perceived to be profiteering because their actions in the memory market can actually push the price further since that specific market isn’t free and highly competitive so doesn’t respond in the same way.
I think I thoroughly proved with 5 minutes Googling and the links I provided that your claim that the extreme rise in memory prices was just “social media vibes”, is complete total denialist bollocks (you’re pretty much saying “not it’s no just because I say so”) as well as lazy (you could’ve easily done the 5 minutes Googling for “DDR5 price history”, same as me and avoided saying such easily disproven bollocks).
You were literally bullshitting your argument when claiming that the RAM price rises weren’t true or were exaggerated and then when it was proven out with actual sources (as you demanded, no less), claiming you’ve been insulted - yeah, well, sorry that you’re trying to bullshit your way into winning an argument, mate.
As for the rest, if you seem to understand Supply/Demand based on the simplified overview explanation of it given to people who don’t know enough Maths to understand it in depth and thus misused an Economics 101 simplified explanation of Supply/Demand which is only about aggregate price movements, to try and make an argument about individual market actors, a level that’s beyond the scope of that simplified explanation.
Supply/Demand isn’t a Law and it doesn’t work in a Formulaic way - it’s a Statistical and Game Theory process were the incentives of Market Actors on both sides constantly seek a balance, and when Supply changes and Demand doesn’t keep up or vice-versa, that changes some incentives and the result in aggregate is that price will over time move until a new price is discovered were incentives are once again in balance, and all this isn’t instantaneous and there are things such as inertia as well as overshooting and undershooting of the final price.
Market Actors aren’t directly forced to do anything, they’re just incentivized to do so by the changed market conditions and because they see an opportunity to gain more under those new conditions but how fast and how far do they follow those incentives is up to each Market Actor.
Because this is a process in aggregate, nobody actually knows the final price once a new balance is found, plus there is a lot of room for exploiting the inertia, overshooting and undershooting of the process and extracting more profits from it, it’s perfectly fair to point at a specific Market Player and say that “they’re going too far” in how far and how fast they changed their prices and are thus profiteering from the situation.
Further and specifically for situation, all that only works well in highly competitive markets, and the memory market is no such thing hence a player like Samsung owns enough of the market that they can actually influence where the new price point will be, so here it’s even more valid be critical of Samsung if they’re perceived to be profiteering because their actions in the memory market can actually push the price further since that specific market isn’t free and highly competitive so doesn’t respond in the same way.