alt Hacker News> Budget brands normally buy older DRAM fabrication equipment from mega-producers like Samsung when Samsung upgrades their DRAM lines to the latest and greatest equipment. This allows the DRAM market to expand more than it would otherwise because it makes any upgrading of the fanciest production lines to still be additive change to the market. However, Korean memory firms have been terrified that reselling old equipment to China-adjacent OEMs might trigger U.S. retaliation…and so those machines have been sitting idle in warehouses since early spring.
This seems to almost be mentioned off-hand, but isn't this a really bad and un-free market, and a much bigger issue? Korean companies are afraid of doing business with Chinese companies because of the US, because of retaliation? This was not the "free and global market" I thought we were supposed to have at this point.
If production lines of DRAM are hindered by the politics of a unrelated 3rd party, then this seems to be a stronger cause of the current shortage than "a very large customer buying a lot in a short period of time".
Replies
I'm not sure any realistic definition of free market would mean your actions are free from consequence.
The global market is anarchy in the literal sense and no one is bound by a higher authority. Coercion and cartels are part of a free market.
Economic efficiency actually requires a lot of rules and regulations to achieve the free market playground we like to imagine.
Err… is there any question that the US is trying to slow down China’s high-tech computer development? I thought that was our open goal.
Countries decided the extent to which they’d like to engage in free trade together. It is a knob that we’d hope our leaders would turn strategically. (Regardless of whether or not we think our leaders actually are doing a good job of it…).
If the free market requires both that companies both ignore that they exist in a world with consequences and that they manage to perfectly predict future demand, that sounds more like an issue with the idea that the free market will solve everything than an issue with the market not being free enough. Otherwise, if you're not happy with the way a company acts, and you don't seem to trust that another company will come and rest their lunch for their perceived poor decisions, your only remaining remedy is to pressure them by non-economic methods to increase production, at which point you don't really believe in the free market either.
We left behind any pretense of a free global market once we entered a post-tariff world. You can't have large universal tariffs or even the threat of them and expect the market to act freely, the two are fundamentally incompatible.
I don't think you can have a "free and global market" when countries participate in large-scale state industrial policy. Given those constraints, you have to either enforce a zero-subsidy environment (the US has no power to do this) or you have to accept that trade control is one arm of your foreign policy goals and surrendering it entirely is unlikely to help your aims.
For the most part, free and open trade is beneficial to the Western world order. But I think it's quite straightforward to imagine conditions under which it is not, many of which are currently in effect.
US control of EUV technology is probably the most obvious present one, but limitations on nuclear proliferation are an obvious case where there is no free market. Even selling civilian nuclear technology is controlled.
You may think of it analogously to Free Speech. The dream is complete and total expression. The reality is that if you allow convincing enough liars, your society starts to falter. Consequently, certain kinds of expression are not permitted - notably defamation. Think of it as more a North Star navigation ideal constrained by the trade winds (I suppose the Westerlies would be more relevant, but I couldn't resist the pun).
If you want a couple of reads, I enjoyed A Splendid Exchange about the history of trade, which I followed by the resurgent-though-once-dismissed Zeihan's Disunited Nations (which is more a hypothesis book than a history book).
Strategically, US+EU should buy them. Will they? Probably too stupid/clumsy to figure it out.
What free market?
> This was not the "free and global market" I thought we were supposed to have at this point.
Perhaps you haven't noticed but the pendulum has been swinging the other way for a while already and has a lot of momentum behind it. It's mentioned off-hand because the ongoing return to a multi-polar global order is covered elsewhere already, across dozens of articles every day.