If there is demand for N chips at $X price, but you only have N/2 chips, then half the people aren't going to be able to buy them. The people who really need the chips, and would be willing to pay a lot more than $X for them, will be competing with people who are only willing to pay $X for them. You will end up getting scalping and shortages and hoarding. Since people know that there are enough people willing to pay a higher price, everyone will try to buy them at $X, even if they don't need them at all. Just buy them at $X, and immediately sell it to one of those companies willing to pay a lot more.
The market is extremely inefficient... since the manufacturer isn't charging enough, you get way too many people trying to buy them from the manufacturer.
So you find the price where the demand is N/2 chips, and everyone who is willing to pay that much will get one, and there is no profit for scalpers so the only people who will buy them will be actual companies that need them.
I don’t believe scalpers are an issue in B2B; these aren’t concert tickets being sold to the general public.
It’s clear you grasp the economic theory as it’s taught, but my comment was meant for you to question it. If someone is hungry you can charge more for food. The market allows and encourages it. But don’t mistake that for “willingness” and don’t mistake raising the prices purely to get extra money from the exchange as some inevitable law of the universe. You’re welcome to love the concept, but don’t whitewash it.
Demand is elastic. If the price of potatoes rises to $1000 / kg most people will switch to using pasta or rice for their dinner instead. There might be a shortage of potatoes at $1 / kg, but not at $1000 / kg.
If my 7-year-old computer were to die tomorrow I would've normally replace the entire thing. It has had a good life, the newer generations of hardware are a decent bunch faster, and it would be nice to get some additional features. With current RAM prices? No way I can afford to upgrade to DDR5, I'll have to get a replacement AM4 motherboard / CPU to fix it.
> I don’t believe scalpers are an issue in B2B
They are called "speculators". DRAM is a commodity and is traded no different from, say, potatoes. It's why there are companies like DRAMeXchange. DRAM module assemblers like Kingston, G.Skill, and Corsair will buy chips from whoever gives them the best deal. Similarly, anyone assembling hardware using DRAM will have stockpiled it when the AI boom became noticeable - with some almost certainly selling it off now that it has become too valuable to use for cheaper products.
In a lottery, the goods are misallocated to a bunch of people who aren't getting the most value out of the goods, creating economic inefficiency. A bunch of GPUs would be sitting in warehouses waiting to be resold (either when the price goes up, or in the inevitable black market), or in my basement screwing around with them, instead of being deployed in a way that the most people can benefit from creating maximum economic value from their deployment.
Your gaming PC isn't as economically valuable as JPMorgan using AI for fraud detection, for example.
Moreover, if you are appointed god and force everyone to sell GPUs at one dollar just because you want cheap GPUs, then this is the last batch of GPUs that will ever be produced and you'll have a shortage until the end ot time.
Sometimes this works and sometimes it does not.
If you happily sell apples for $1 and see a hungry person walking towards you, must you raise the price?
I think that basic thought gets lost sometimes when people talk about shortages causing the price to increase. The shortage didn’t cause anything, some executive decided they want more money. That’s all. There’s nothing inherent in the system that requires it. Whether that’s OK or not is up to the reader, I just think people lose sight of the reality and talk about it like it’s gravity, rather than simple decision making.
I’m confused because this reads like a denial of basic economics. If the price is high enough, the chip will be produced for you.
Do you mean because of the production lead time, higher prices won’t result in increased production? Commodities like corn have been managing this for a long time… what’s special about chips?
What is your actual argument?
Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have a combined market share of 90% - with most of the rest being a very new-to-the-market CXMT. It is a cutthroat market which behaves like a stereotypical "pork cycle". Semiconductor fabs cost billions to build and take years to complete, so you better be damn sure you have buyers before you start constructing one. You and your competition overestimated the demand? You have to pay back the construction cost, so you're now in a race to the bottom and one of you is going bankrupt.
Ever wondered where Intel came from? They started out as a DRAM manufacturer, which dominated their revenue well after the introduction of their first microprocessors. But in the early 1980s the glut of supply from new Japanese manufacturers made it so unprofitable that they had to ditch the memory market altogether. The stories of Texas Instruments and Motorola aren't much different. And that's not even mentioning the likes of Mostek, which once held a 85% market share and was dead less than 5 years later! Oh, and those Japanese manufacturers? All gone, pivoted like Intel or died like Mostek.
So no, the three remaining DRAM manufacturers aren't going behave like headless chickens and start ordering new fabs just because there's a bubble causing a temporary demand peak. Unless those AI companies are going to pay in advance, in cash, for an entire fab, they'll just have to wait and deal with the price increase.
So it's more "what's special about corn". It is also fairly hilarious to claim the parent is denying basic economics and then bring up corn as an example of having successfully managed economics. If the scales were not being thumbed, and "basic economics" were in play, corn would be in very very bad shape.
In the case of DRAM, there is an incredibly long history of these gloom/glut cycles, and they have stayed roughly the same timeframes (~3 years) since the 1990's.
Almost all the ones who have survived this long are either in the same kind of boat as corn - protected in various forms from the downside - or don't increase production and get caught out until they are absoultely forced.
The very temporarily increased profit is not worth going bankrupt for - they make more money long term by being very cautious and know this.
There are a near infinite number of economic studies you could look at (and several sibling comments cite some) - DRAM manufactuers don't chase the price and probably couldn't anymore if they want to.
None of this denies basic economic theory, of course, since economic theory is not exactly "rigorous", even to the degree it could be (IE even the parts that are pure analysis of data rarely reproduce!).
Memory is just too useful now that you can use it to drive cars and write code.
In any other business choosing (2) would mean someone else swoops in and steals all your business. It doesn't look like this is at all possible for memory fabs.
Which directly leads to the next big development: all the big players are investing in silicon with "baked-in" models, like [0,1]. Turns out you don't need an expensive general-purpose GPU with heaps of RAM to contain a model when you can make a custom ASIC around one specific model! Why spend a fortune on DRAM / HBM when all you need is some finetuning parameters which are easily stored in on-die SRAM?
[0]: https://www.theregister.com/systems/2026/08/06/amd-acquires-...
[1]: https://thenextweb.com/news/google-frozen-chip-gemini-silico...
"If the price is high enough" is of course technically true, but the scale of what high means in this context is important.
> Now, you could raise prices to the point where you destroy demand.
You know supply and demand is like a curve right, you can find an optimal equilibrium? It’s not a cliff that you can fall off.