What do Marxist economists say about the role of supply and demand? (hexbear.net)

submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

By "imperfect competition" I just meant that the lowest production cost doesn't always win among similar products, due to factors like

True, it's not always the path to success, but it typically is and that's what matters on the macro scale across sectors and national economies

transport costs — either moving product to consumer, or consumer to product — which can give companies a local pricing advantage over more distant competition

That still falls under the overarching cost structure that firms need to lower

consumer inability to compare products in a consistent way — whether comparing use values of products at a given price, or comparing prices at a given use value

That forms part of the bedrock of the turbulent regulation of demand, that capitalists are constantly overshooting or undershooting as they try to continually adjust

marketing, branding, packaging, and other appeals to consumer psychology

Attempts at scalability that may or may not work, an attempt by firms to regulate demand as it's regulating them, leads right back to the overshooting and undershooting problem which has enormous implications for future investments, or more importantly the potential lack thereof

So everyone's racing to automate, exploit, and cut corners ahead of the others. What happens when they run out of room? Do they just start buying each other?

Capitalists stop investing, begin layoffs and a depression ensues, no room for profits and growth means no investments

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

By the way, I always worry that I seem argumentative when I ask a lot of questions, but to be clear, that's not the intent! I'm just laying out my current mental picture so people can see where it's wrong and help me update it. I had some existing notions in my head, but they didn't all seem to add up.

That still falls under the overarching cost structure that firms need to lower

of course, but it'll always cost something, right? Which means that, if you have a region in which you're the only supplier, and your competitors are outside that region, everyone in your region basically has to pay a transport tariff if they want to buy from your competitors. That "tariff" gives you more wiggle room to charge above cost.

I don't know how important this is though. I assume it matters for unprocessed raw goods, like minerals or crops, where everyone's product is basically identical, and production is often constrained to certain locations where mines or farms can be developed. I assume it also matters somewhat for brick and mortar stores — a consumer isn't going to drive to the next town just to pay slightly less for bread. But I don't know how big a chunk of profit can be blamed on this. Is it more of a footnote or is it a big deal?

Capitalists stop investing, begin layoffs and a depression ensues, no room for profits and growth means no investments

Ahh okay that makes sense.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

By the way, I always worry that I seem argumentative when I ask a lot of questions, but to be clear, that's not the intent! I'm just laying out my current mental picture so people can see where it's wrong and help me update it. I had some existing notions in my head, but they didn't all seem to add up.

No worries, I didn't take it that way, I'm more than happy to answer questions and help comrades flesh out their understanding stalin-approval

That "tariff" gives you more wiggle room to charge above cost.

That's the thing, it's not above cost, it is simply the cost, production and transport are under the same cost structure, got to pay to make it and pay to move it, wages, material and energy are the main costs. In competition-as-war an army with an advantageous position is fair policy

It's not a guarantee of victory, but it's certainly not a war crime, profitability is defined by what you can get away with

I assume it also matters somewhat for brick and mortar stores — a consumer isn't going to drive to the next town just to pay slightly less for bread. But I don't know how big a chunk of profit can be blamed on this. Is it more of a footnote or is it a big deal?

"location, location, location" is a saying in business for a reason, again it's not a guarantee for success, firms that have overwhelming technical development, enormous scale or juicy patents can still overwhelm your location advantage and kick you out of the leading regulator game, but it depends on the sector and frankly energy costs in the wider economy

this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025

40 points (100.0% liked)

theory

774 readers

1 users here now

A community for in-depth discussion of books, posts that are better suited for [email protected] will be removed.

The hexbear rules against sectarian posts or comments will be strictly enforced here.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]