"would resell on the secondary market for a giant profit."
But you've no evidence that that "giant profit" would be more than the increase that the suppliers would apply.
Arbitrage allows the market to find an agreeable price; a middleman arbiter with a warehouse of RAM has an incentive to agree a price with a buyer because he's stuck with that inventory if he doesn't shift it, and he has costs related to financing it.
A supplier has no such incentive, they can just jack the price up and if sales drop off they run the machines at a lower rate, or sack employees. But sales aren't going to drop off, because the baseline for demand has been lifted
Once this "RAM Crisis" is over, what reason would manufacturers have to reduce prices?
They have to cover their fixed costs somehow. Collusion and cartels only get you so far. OPEC and Mexican drug cartels are still exposed to market pressures.
"Designing the plane may only have taken four years, but training the staff, organising the workshops and mastering the production tools took much longer."
Lockheed had no experience with titanium prior to OXCART. 95% of the first 6,000 sheets of titanium had to be scrapped.
It was the first production design to incorporate low-observable shaping.
It was 50% faster than anything Lockheed had previously tried to build, and four times faster than the U-2.
And they literally did all that between April 1958 and April 1962.
So, yes, it was designed from scratch as nothing useful from prior projects read across to it.
Yes of course, it's part of the actuarial calculation. As cars age they become more expensive to repair and eventually will cross a boundary where the insurer will write them off on any type of accident, rather than trying to repair. This naturally increases the base insurance price.
OEMs in the EU are only required to produce spare parts for 10 years after a model is withdrawn, which is a strong indicator of when write-off becomes the primary option.
If you are not in the market for a new car, there are plenty of second hand EVs now. Including some that are close to 15 years old. Most of those will easily beat your ICE car on maintenance and fuel consumption. And they aren't that much more expensive even.
Every nuclear nation plans on winning a nuclear exchange. Of course, what 'winning' means is debatable, but they very much plan to beat the threat and not just bluster about mutual nuclear annihilation.
They don't really have to fight, most people these days accept their role as a guest on their hand-held computer.
The hand-held computer tells them what they're permitted to do, and they conform.
Sometimes, one of the users has a non-conforming idea and says "I'd like to be a superuser on my computer" and they're shouted down with a chorus of "you'll be hacked" and "nobody will be able to trust your computer and you'll be excluded from online services". Sometimes the organisations saying this even use the excuse that "restricting the user is essential to maintaining the user's privacy".
Lmao if that were true, everyone would be buying them. We aren’t, because they suck. It’s a decent car if you just need something cheap, but cheap doesn’t mean good. A raspberry pi isn’t better than a M5 just because it’s cheap.
But you've no evidence that that "giant profit" would be more than the increase that the suppliers would apply.
Arbitrage allows the market to find an agreeable price; a middleman arbiter with a warehouse of RAM has an incentive to agree a price with a buyer because he's stuck with that inventory if he doesn't shift it, and he has costs related to financing it.
A supplier has no such incentive, they can just jack the price up and if sales drop off they run the machines at a lower rate, or sack employees. But sales aren't going to drop off, because the baseline for demand has been lifted
Once this "RAM Crisis" is over, what reason would manufacturers have to reduce prices?
reply