11.3 hours ago
You tried to sell Business to a standing order but the buyer had no money!

11.2 hours ago
You sold 2 Business for $5939. 22,298 Business remain for sale.

Seriously? 2!

as supply increases, demand decreases and prices decrease.

either collude with everyone else to stop selling so much business tech, or lower your rates to competitive prices.

meh it all sold shortly thereafter - I am a cheap tech whore

/me waits for indignation from the serious techers about me deflating prices

I buy my tech 1 point at a time.

I don't understand how a supply increase causes demand to decrease?

An increase in supply will decrease prices (assuming everything else remains equal). A demand decrease will reduce prices (assuming everything remains equal) but one doesn't cause another, if anything they would have the opposite effect.

As supply increases via a shock, the price will decrease which will act as a positive on demand (a movement down the demand curve, thus showing an increase in demand) due to price and quantity demanded having an inverse relationship.

if there is more supply and less demand, prices will decrease.

if there is less supply and less demand, prices will be slightly higher because of the scarcity of supply.

if there is less supply and more demand, prices will be very high (low scarcity and high demand).

if there is more supply and more demand, prices will be elevated.

the reason why increased supply reduces prices when demand stays the same is because prices become competitively lower to attract buyers.

when there is less supply and demand stays the same, then prices will naturally increase.

increasing price though does lower demand once it reaches a threshold.

point 1: true, but not what you said in your first post

point 2: Untrue, it depends on which effect overwealms the other, which depends on the structure/nature of the supply/demand curves in the specified market. Specifically it comes down to which is stronger: the income or the substitution effect.

Point 3: true obviously, but not what you said in your first post.

Point 4: Untrue, whether price will increase or decrease depends on the nature of the demand curve (aka the elasticity of demand).

Point 5: True, but wasn't an aspect of your original analysis.

Point 6: True obviously, and what should have been said in your initial post. This is a supply shock effect and doesn't have an impact on the demadn curve but is simply a movement along it.

Point 7: False, increasing price will always reduce the demand regardless of any "thresholds" (assuming the good in question is a normal good)

Don't you mean 'high scarcity'?

The economics are strong with this one

Yeah Nuk, that's what I meant. Spacing out. :P

@H4 -

Point 2 rebut: What you said is true to an extent, but scarcity will almost always increase prices. Just because something isn't in demand doesn't mean it's less scarce and thus less valuable. If there were only 2 diamonds left in the world and no one wanted diamonds, yeah the price would be relatively lower than what it is now (because there is high demand for them and supply is controlled) but prices would still be higher than 1 million diamonds when demand is at 0.

Point 4 rebut: Yeah mostly true, but high demand still influences prices. You charge as much as the demand is willing to pay for, which leads to...

Point 7 rebut: You're correct that increasing prices always lowers demand, but there is a certain threshold where you can maintain a price that demand is willing to pay for without too much decrease, but if you go over that price there is a steep drop in demand. I guess I wasn't really being clear on this point.

rebut 2 "scarity will almost always increase price"

No, you can't really say that. Demand has just as much of a role of determining price as supply. Supply is irrelevent if people don't want the product, this is true whether the supply is 2 units or 2 billion units. On the same token Demand is irrelevent if there is no supply, because no transactions are occuring.

Price determination is made through the equalibrium between the 2 forces, with a price floor equating to the marginal cost to produce the suppply (aka if the price is set lower than the marginal cost of production, than the producer will simply choose to produce nothing). This is in perfectly competitive markets of course; Monopoly/oligopoly prices and other non perfect competition scenarios are a different animal due to the capturing of producer and consumer surpluses.

Rebut 4: You cant' say this (refer to my post above, its for the same reasons. Demand on its own makes absolutely no statment about the price, as it is the relationship between demand and supply that determines price).

A good example of this would be the wheat/grains market. There is an extremely high demand for grains globally, in fact it is among the highest demanded commodities in the world (out of things that aren't classed as public or at least quasi-public goods, such as water), yet the price is grain is extremely low, why? This is because the supply is higher than what is demanded. This is the case so much so that the entire market doesn't even clear and grains get dumped into the ocean every year in attempt to keep the prices from bottoming out even moreso.

Rebut 7:"You're correct that increasing prices always lowers demand, but there is a certain threshold where you can maintain a price that demand is willing to pay for without too much decrease, but if you go over that price there is a steep drop in demand. I guess I wasn't really being clear on this point. "

This argument makes no sense to me. Maintaining the price shouldn't see any effect in demand inless there is a exogenous force that shocks the market. Neither prices or demand just fluctuate on their own accord.

The idea that the elasticity of demand increases/decreases as you move above/below the localized inflection point isn't being contested by me (aka the idea the that demand curve is in fact a convex curve rather than a straight line). However, this isnt' particularly revelent to the analysis I was intially criticizing, so I question why it is being mentioned.

Ugh it nearly feels like you need 6 years of bussines management studies to try to keep up with this.

Sooo did not read this :-P

nah you don't need six years of stuff... i've only taken a 200 level Econ course as an arts option 8 years ago and I understood what they're talking about ;)

Business Management?

I have a graduate degree in Economics, don't insult me in such ways :P

TAN has a Foreign Affairs background if I recall, which likely involved economics training.

The only 'elasticity' I know about is that which keeps my tighty-whities from falling below my crotch...

Economics :-P

It made me dizzy in high school it still does. Im happy to know how to pay my bills hah!

And QZ 2750 posts.... you spammer.

pfffttt...qz will tell you that I once had just under a million posts on qzGT one time...

I agree with qz -- Marshall's thoughts aligns with my intermediate micro knowledge as well

but marshall has his masters in economics.... I don't know why people would fight him on it

None of this explains why somebody only bought 2 points of business tech. Though it does imply that H4 is probably the one that bought it . . .

maki needs to invest in some spelling tech.
>;)

/me flees

you've never had situations where people buy small amounts of tech or military units?

I've sold single units of tech before :p
I've sold single units of tech thousands of times, logged into my country and gone "what the hell is this?" when the page is 2 megs in size, due to my tech sales.

That was on E2025 though :p

/me goes to buy 10k points of bus/res one point at a time

jk :)

qz isn't kidding -- he was the guy that bought my business tech in 2008

You guys leave TAN alone, I think he knows what he's talking about since him and OPEC screw the rest of us with oil collusion.

Are you the same person that puts troops on the market one at a time? Cuz that REALLY sucks when I am trying to wall a KR . . . lol

archaic: I've had that happen a couple times already. Put up standing orders and sales and hoping that my goods sell before my orders get filled. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way and my orders get canceled.

Back in E:2025, I once planned a small campaign for Evo to 'FS' the tech market by having countries use all their turns putting 10 of each tech type on the market at just above floor price, then doing it again at price + 1, over and over, stopping at like $100 below current price, then repeating the process, depending on amount of turns left. I just wanted to see what would happen.

Never got anyone of importance to sign off on it tho, so it never happened.

I assume this was suggested back when it didn't cost a turn to put goods on the market?

No.

I once tried to organize several resellers to try to crash the mil market so one of our allies could FS a tag that was doing a CI war prep. It turns out that even as late as 2007, 5-6 theos pouring cheap fluff on the market is not enough to turn all the commies upside down. I fail a LOT at this game.

I buy one or two units of tech at a time to test to see if the tech on the market is my tech...

yea, and now SO's would annihilate the plan =/

I spent all my money on shoes and had none left for tech. :(

Well H4, I can't argue with you much anymore if Economics is your specialty.

You're right -- I studied International Studies (and Political Science), and in International Studies we had to take a few Econ courses, including econ 101..etc and I think the last real econ course I took was IPE (International Political Economy or something like that)...and this was almost 10 (more like 7 or 8) years ago.

I was just arguing from what I can remember.

Since I didn't specialize in Econ like you did, I'll take your word for it. ;)

so i have to start buying tech 1 point at a time?

Boy, am I glad I play a casher now... Considering the amount of tech I buy as a farmer in Team, this kind of thing would crush me.

TJ's market bot :P

pure and simple, economists are retarded

trying to make sense out of that which is abstract and nonsensical - plenty of economists working in the banking sector explaining how we are ALL to blame for them making up bollofluffs theories and misreading the market

</rant>

mmm, actually most economists were claiming the subcredit crisis was going to happen a few years before it actually happened. The problem is that the financial industry didn't listen and/or care (and I can understand their motivations for feeling that way, but regardless).

Economists don't run the financial markets, bankers do (and they are usually finance/MBA people).

stop trying to shift the blame h4!!!!

I remember my business teacher in high school telling us about how land was a great investment because its value kept increasing, and used an example of a house he bought in Virginia for such-and-such, kept for maybe five years, and sold it for double or something, and added that now (a few years later) it was probably worth double or triple again. This was my senior year of high school.

Six months after I graduated, the housing bubble burst. Next time I talked to him, I asked about that house. He didn't have any specifics on prices, but he said that it was "probably" not worth nearly as much as it had been. So much for that theory.

NOTE: I'm not really sure why I posted this, except that it seemed like a good time to. But it doesn't really have much to do with the economist/banker discussion, since the business teacher had his job because he was a former VP of Human Resources at some company, and not a banker OR an economist. Sorry.