[citation][nom]Robert Pankiw[/nom]I hope this isn't a stupid question, but why would they sell below cost? Is it because no one is buying and they'd rather sell at a loss than not at all, or is it just that competitive? Not to sound like I am encouraging collusion, but why not simply refuse to sell below cost, there are still many millions of computers sold world wide each year, and every one needs RAM, so why agree to sell below cost?[/citation]
Technically you can sell "below cost" without losing money, at least in the short term. The total cost of manufacturing an item includes materials, labor, factory overhead, and various other costs such as R&D and marketing. The costs that are considered variable include mostly materials and labor, essentially any cost that would not incur if that item was not produced. A fixed cost is any expense that a factory would have regardless of them producing anything or not such as the mortgage on the factory/equipment, insurance, non-production worker salaries, R&D, marketing, etc with a tiny portion of each being assigned to every item that comes off of the assembly line. An item that costs $1 to manufacture may include 50¢ in materials, labor, and other variable costs, with the rest being fixed costs. As long as the factory can sell their items for more than the 50¢ in this example they're losing money from an accounting perspective, but they're really not losing money and would end up losing more if they didn't produce anything.
This is how companies like AMD manage to report multi-million dollar losses for several consecutive quarters without running out of money.