Vivek Wadhwa Quotes

With less competition to fear, companies are emboldened to raise their mark-ups and profits. That lifts share prices and thus the wealth of already wealthy shareholders.

A common price isn't the lowest price. It will most obviously be the highest price.

As much as I'd love to give everybody a really cheap option, it's just simply not possible in certain sorts of extreme events... I guarantee that our strategy on surge pricing is the optimal way to get as many people home as possible.

Everybody's doing it. In capitalism, you try to get the highest price you can for a product.

When the price of a drug rises, it becomes profitable and the target of new competition.

Predation is part of the everyday life of capitalism, in sectors as mainstream as pharmaceuticals, software and oil - where people's money, their data, their time and their attention are routinely taken in fundamentally asymmetrical exchanges.

Increasingly prices are set by sellers to raise their prices without a loss of sales sufficient to wipe out the gain.

To economists, prices serve as crucial signals to producers and consumers. In a regulated market, the state sets prices high enough for private companies to cover their costs and earn a guaranteed profit for their investors. But in a deregulated market, prices should vary with demand and supply.

Wal-Mart uses technology to increase sales volume, but the more it does so, the more it drives down profit margins - its own and everybody else's. The same logic does not appear to hold for Goldman Sachs.

Value is what people are willing to pay for it.

Higher ebook prices only benefit one group: publishers.

I've seen articles suggesting that Wal-Mart buys at prices lower than our competitors', and that this gives Wal-Mart an unfair advantage. I don't believe it... What we hear is concern that in some circumstances, Wal-Mart may actually be paying more than our competitors.

They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers.

What is “destructive competition” for producers is a bargain bonanza for consumers.

Competition to the economist is predatory pricing to the business person.

When the Internet first appeared, this heated debate developed among economists. One side said the Internet will make it easier for companies to price-discriminate, and it'll be fabulously profitable.

You want supply to always be full, and you use price to basically either bring more supply on or get more supply off, or get more demand in the system or get some demand out.

Rent control created deadweight loss.

Most things that people want already exist, and with Amazon or eBay, there is always someone who is willing to undercut your price.

Competition drives growth in the end as opposed to monopolies.

My worldview says that competition is the consumer's best friend.

Things that price at $4.99 sell very differently than things that price at $5.

We're more familiar with what economists call an English auction - prices start low and rise as people bid. However, there is also the Dutch auction, where prices start high and go lower until somebody bites. Movies are sold to the audience via a very slow Dutch auction, where each phase between price drops can last weeks or months.

'Perfect competition' is considered both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101. So-called perfectly competitive markets achieve equilibrium when producer supply meets consumer demand.

If all you needed to do is to figure out what company is better than others, everyone would make a lot of money. But that is not the case. They keep raising the prices to the point when the odds change.