Talk:Supply and demand/Archive 1

message: Self nomination.  This article is probably one of the most linked economics article, and I believe it to be high quality. Jrincayc 02:14, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Attempt 

message: I am temporarily without my graphics program and would like to add a couple of diagrams to this article. Can anyone create them for me?
I have re-read the article and now agree with the person that complained about the lack of narrative arc. (I don't know why I didn't see it before. Maybe I just needed to get away from the article for a couple of months.) I plan on restructuring the article a bit (moving some paragraphs around) and add a bit more basics. I would like to have three simple diagrams made if someone can draw them.
# A straight line demand curve with a slope of 2:1 labeled D=100-2Q. Where it crosses the price axis please label it 100. On the line draw a small triangle indicating the rise and the run and identify them as 2 and 1 respectively.
# A straight line supply curve with a slope of 3:1 labeled S=5+3Q. Where it crosses the price axis please label it 5. On the line draw a small triangle indicating the rise and the run and identify them as 3 and 1 respectively.
# Combine the above supply and demand curve into one diagram. Label the demand curve D=100-2Q and label the supply curve S=5+3Q. At the pint of intersection draw a line accross to the price axis and label it 62. Also draw a line down from the equilibrium point to the quantity axis and label it 19.
You can also check my math if you wish. I did the calculations without a calculator : not a prescription for accuracy in this cerebelum.
100-2Q=5+3Q <BR>
95=5Q <BR>
19=Q <BR>
P=100-2(19)<BR>
P=62 <BR>
Thanks, mydogategodshat 17:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams wanted 

message: The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boston link

message: 203.115.78.38, you seem to be removing a lot of text from the article, and you seem to be doing it with more care than the usual vandal. The article is overly long, and could probably be split into seperate pages or some such.  I have no objection to you splitting the article, however, please make it clear that you are doing such in the edit summarys.  Also, if you wish to make edits of that magnitude, it would greatly help if you got a user account so it is easier to discuss your changes.  I have reverted your edits largely because they are removing text and because they  are unexplained.  Thank you.  Jrincayc 14:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text by 203.115.78.38 

message: Does supply and demand theory hold good for software?
:To the extent that the assumptions of the theory hold, yes. To the extent that they don't, no. So some cases in the software markets, say game software, the assumptions may hold reasonably well if not perfectly. Others such as operating sytems they probably don't hold at all. - Taxman Talk 11:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software 

message: The definitions of demand and supply don't make much of a distinction between demand and quantity demanded. Demand is represented by the whole demand curve. A single point on the curve would be quantity demanded. 
I haven't written that very clearly. That's why I haven't edited. If I come up with a better way to say it I will edit.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? who wrote this article anyways? 
Demand represents the quantity of goods or services consumers will buy at EVERY price level, not at a given price as stated in this article. essentially demand is refering to the demand curve and each point on that curve represents the QUANTITY of a good that consumers will DEMAND at the corresponding price level, all other variables held constant. ---this distinction really needs to be made in the definitions
explaining the law of supply and the law of demand directly would probably help. the explanation is in there but not really specified or emphasized 
Demand curve shifts
       "When more people want something, the quantity demanded at all prices will tend to increase. This can be referred to as an increase in demand. The increase in demand could also come from changing tastes, where the same consumers desire more of the same good than they previously did"
ok first of all, this doesn't explain increases in demand. in fact the opening statement describes only one of the factors that causes the demand curve to shift--which is number of buyers.
there also needs to be a single explanation distinguishing changes in demand and quantity demanded: 
what makes the demand curve shift and what causes movements along the demand curve. 
 
what's the point of including demand curve shifts with out properly explaining the determinants of those shifts? 
            "An example of this would be more people suddenly wanting more coffee. This will cause the demand curve to shift from the initial curve D0 to the new curve D1"
this is a weak and vague example--If demand increases ofcourse that means people want more coffee, the question is what causes those increases?
most of these concepts are assumptions--how about adding that these assumptions will occur if all other variables are held constant. 'ceteris paribus' does that ring a bell? otherwise these statements are wrong. 
example: changes in the price level will cause movements along the supply curve, all other things the same
because of these discrepancies, this article does more harm than good, and also diminshes its own credibility as a valid source of information regarding supply and demand. basic concepts are left out or misconstrued, and the explanations of supply/demand conflict with other statements in the article.
I've fixed the definition of supply, which I thought was slightly inaccurate, and I've expanded on the "special cases of supply" section. I've also moved the sections about special cases of supply and demand up below their respective setions (supply and demand) to add continuity to the article. Their inclusion as something of a footnote at the end of the entry made the entire article feel a bit chopped up IMO. Jackson744 19:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can't even tell if this is all comments from you in this section due to the formatting, but I've removed some of the recent additions because they are speculative and aren't backed up with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Here's my diff so the removal is clear and the material isn't lost. Copy it all into the talk page if you wish to justify it's inclusion. Your comments above are reasonably correct, but don't necessarily lead to a more understandable article. - Taxman Talk 22:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions of demand and supply 

message: I'm writing a small section into the FairTax article (currently titled Value of used goods) that contains aspects of supply and demand in relation to the value / cost of used goods in comparison to new goods with the FairTax applied.  I thought this section could use some expertise from the editors of this article.  I currently do not have any references and just a brief explanation.  Thank You Morphh (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance

message: The stuff about how supply and demand would work within highly competitive markets with egoistical rational people and how reality (monopolies, oligopolies) diverts from that doesn't make sense to me. When I look at these curves and imagine everybody to give in as little as one must I only see degrees of monopoly at work there. The side that is less monopoly-like (or monopsony or whatever) gets screwed. To make it more clear: I view artificial scarce products made by scheming humans with intent as well as raw materials that are naturally scarce as having monopoly-likeliness.
What is wrong with my view? --R.H. 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious Question