question

question

by Makara Zimmerman -
Number of replies: 1
I was reading chapter 7 of the Price of Everything, and it talks about how the seller having the upper hand is a common misconception. According to economists, no one has the upper hand. However, the book then goes on to say both are wrong. Does that mean that while it is beneficial for both, it is more beneficial for the buyer, so the buyer has the upper hand? I guess I'm confused on the point the book was trying to make.
In reply to Makara Zimmerman

Re: question

by Danny Weaver -
Sometimes economists like Russell Roberts and I philosophize too much... In one sense, the seller cannot have the upper hand because they have to sell a product at a price the consumer will buy, and in the same sense, the buyer has to pay the price given or go without, so in that sense, the seller nor the buyer has the upper hand. But, think about over the long term. Professor Lieber used the examples of prices of eggs falling in the book. While producers would have loved to conspire to hold back production, the fear of one producer expanding leads all the producers to expand - drastically lowering the price of eggs. The pursuit of more profits through excellence leads to consumers being benefitted, regardless of whether the entrepreneurs wish they could restrict supply - competition among suppliers means the consumers always win.