Maybe not the main point of the article, but I have a doubt about the author's introduction to commoditized markets:
> - Supplier A will sell 10 units of the commodity for $20, earning $10/unit
> - Supplier B will sell 10 units of the commodity for $20, earning $5/unit
> - Supplier C will sell 5 units of the commodity for $20, earning $0/unit
> ...
> Bankruptcy risk is where fixed costs come back to the forefront: Supplier C has both fixed costs (like potentially R&D spend) and also may have taken on debt [...] It can’t price its commodity with these costs in mind — remember, the market-clearing price approximates the marginal cost of the highest-cost unit needed to satisfy demand [...]
Why can't Supplier C price their fixed costs and debt into their product? The entire reason Suppliers A and B are earning $10 and $5 per unit, and not more, is because they cannot meet demand by themselves and are therefore at the mercy of how much Supplier C is willing to charge. Couldn't Supplier C just refuse to offer 5 units of the product at a price that would bankrupt them?
Sincerely, an interested observer of business/economics.