• Only_Shift5078@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it’s the opposite of how supply and demand work? Supply hasn’t changed but demand is going to taper down in the long run because a large market was just taken offline. Same supply with less demand means lower prices.

    • Exist50@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think people are thinking longer term. If companies know they can’t sell to the Chinese market, naturally they’re reduce supply to match, but you still have most of the same fixed costs.

    • bahn_pho@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It only lowers prices for a brief period, and then it jumps significantly.

      • short term = oversupply = same product for lower price
      • long term = company reacts to reduced market by decreasing production & support. Price jumps. Product quality declines, and possibly discontinued if bad enough.

      Sanctions dont make the market more robust or healthier. They artificially carve it into pieces, which in the longterm creates poorer products, creates monopolies, and eventually ends up enforcing those monopolies by strangling off any would-be competition.

      In this example:

      • Losers: amd, companies dependent on amd, all consumers
      • Winners: bureaucracy, government/regulators, dell, “competition” of amd i.e. nvidia&intel, financial institutions, black markets
      • Only_Shift5078@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually in general, it will lead to lower prices. But yes, in a narrow set of circumstances it could lead to higher prices, although I find it highly unlikely to be the case here.