Equilibrium price?

Those are conception coming from the founders of bourgoise Liberalism, and Liberalism does not exist and it never existed either. Equiliibrum in price in capitalism is only a dream, it will always fluctuate, and even more, on a very unstable economical system that is in constant crisis, and it is always struggling for markets.Nowdays peoples use the expression liberal and liberalism without knowing the meaning ( if the state intervene it is not liberalism ) They have a new conception known as Communist liberal, that is totally wrong, and it is a sign  of ignorance. Now the opposite of right winger is liberalism. Capitalism in its totally is a reactionary economical system, and right winger ( called Conservative, I call them  ractionary ) and left winger come from the same bird known as capitalism, and both are recalcitrant

I think you might have misunderstood.The claim isn't that at any single moment in time every industry is going to have the same rate of profit.But that over time profit rates will tend to converge due to the workings of the market.

Capitalists aren't 'from' any particular industry. What we are thinking about in this case is people investing money where ever they think they will get the most money back. They're not thinking about value or surplus value or constant capital etc, these are just terms that Marx used to explain how the whole thing operates, behind the backs of those operating it.An individual enterprise does not receive the value it produces. In effect all value that is produced in the economy goes into a pot, called the market, and this value is distributed amongst the individual capitals according to market competition.Profit rates are something that is eminently measurable, but there is some debate as how to measure the 'Marxian' rate of profit.But if one sector of industry continually had better returns to invested money, that is the only sector people would bother investing in.Makes sense?

I'm a bit busy now, but it's all explained here. I'd gladly answer any more questions later..https://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/what-transformation-problem/I guess the key bit is this:"All capitalists contribute to the total amount of surplus value according to how much labor they employ.  So if coffee makers have more workers, they contribute more to the aggregate surplus value than car manufacturers. But capitalists withdraw their money profits from this total surplus value according to the average rate of profit- that is, in proportion to the total cost of their production. Regardless of how many workers they actually employ, they all receive the same rate of return on their investment, even if all of their investment goes into machines!Thus the price of a commodity is not the cost of inputs plus surplus value. It is the cost of inputs plus the average return on those investments. We call this price the “price of production”. The total prices of production equal the total amount of value. But individual commodities do not trade at their values. They trade at their prices of production. The price of production is still a function of value, but it is not necessarily directly equal to it."

Each capitalist firm making the same rate of profit is also of course an "equilibrium" position, tending to be brought about as capital flows in search of higher profits flows out of one industry and into another,  but it's one which is never reached as things are changing all the time. Nevertheless it's  the tendency.

As Uncle Charlie noted: "Even a cursory examination of competition shows, furthermore, that under certain circumstances, when the greater capitalist wishes to make room for himself on the market, and to crowd out the smaller ones, as happens in times of crises, he makes practical use of this, i.e., he deliberately lowers his rate of profit in order to drive the smaller ones to the wall. "https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch13.htm