A strange thought, please help me with this one.
Now, we know that in ceteris paribus condition with the rise in price of the commodity, the demand decreases. So, no supplier would want to see the demand for his commodity decreasing so he/she would decrease his/her supply. But in ceteris paribus condition, the supply of a commodity increases with the increase in price because it becomes comparatively more attractive to sell. Both these statements are contradicting each other but only one can be true. It seems like then there is some flaw in the definition of ceteris paribus I am making but what is it? I am not able to find any so please help. There is nothing like, "It is subjective" because then that too would be a determinant which is neglected in ceteris paribus condition.
Definition of ceteris paribus:- All the other determinants except own price of rhe commodity is kept constant.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
I'm going to try Raghuram Rajan's Dosanomics, so this might be cringe-y. I'm also using basic assumptions like there is perfect competition and the there are multiple suppliers and buyers.
There are two points you need to consider here.
When a Dosa seller enters the market, what is his primary motive? Does he really care if everyone in the world are Dosa fans, or almost everyone hates Dosas, as long as he has customers? Sure the first scenario might be beneficial to him, but is his primary motive to make everyone in the world Dosa fans?
There a lot of people who sell Dosas. So any individual Dosa seller's contribution to the market is pretty negligible. If he cuts his supply, the total supply of Dosas will effectively be the same. So will a Dosa seller cut his supply in an attempt to reduce supply? Any decision the Dosa Seller will take is to serve his primary motive.
So anyway, if I wasn't able to get point across, my basic argument is that 1. Firms are profit maximizing, not demand maximizing. 2. Firms do not attempt to change global supply and demand since they can't.
It's also easy to see why an increase in price results in an increase in supply by firms.
Suppose there is a Dosa seller Ram. It costs him Rs 3 to make a Dosa and he earns Rs 5 per Dosa. He also can only make 50 Dosas per day, so his total profit is Rs 50(5-3) = 100 per day.
He could make 50 more Dosas per day by hiring another person Shyam to help him make Dosas, but he takes Rs 150 as wages. So if Ram hires Shyam, his profit would only be 100(5-3) - 150 = 50 per day. So he does not hire Shyam. And the total number of Dosas he makes is 50.
But if the price suddenly rises to Rs 10, then Ram can afford to hire Shyam since his profit if he hires Shyam is Rs 100(10 - 3) - 150 = Rs 550, and without Shyam is only Rs 50(10 - 3) = Rs 350. So therefore, the total number of Dosas, he makes now is 100.
Log in to reply
Nice clear explanation and nice argument with examples (+1) but there is still some confusion :- Are all firms profit maximising. Usually it is and this is a determinant of demand and in ceteris paribus condition all other determinants except price are kept constant so maybe it has to be defined it the definition that it is valid for all "profit-maximising" firms and not "welfare-maximising" firms like a government of a socialist economy.
@Abhay Tiwari @Rohit Udaiwal @Jason Chrysoprase anyone?
@Sambhrant Sachan @Hung Woei Neoh @Samara Simha Reddy anyone?
Log in to reply
I'm not good at Quantitative Fianance, i even don't know what is ceteris paribus, but that must have something to do with demand and supply.
Log in to reply
same situation here , i suck at quantitative finance :( .
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
The law of demand: All else equal, when the price of a good increases, the quantity demanded decreases.
Note that quantity demanded is different from demand. Quantity demanded refers to the quantity people are willing and able to buy at a particular price level. Demand is all the different quantities demanded at different price levels. In simpler terms, quantity demanded refers to a point on the demand curve. Demand on the other hand refers to the entire demand curve.
The same thing applies to supply, quantity supplied and law of supply.
Now, imagine if the price of a good increases. The quantity supplied will increase because it is more profitable to sell the goods now. However, the quantity demanded will decrease because, well, you understand why. Then, you will have this situation:
where suppliers produce more goods than what consumers are willing and able to buy.
This leads to a surplus, which is noted as Q2−Q1 in the graph above.
When suppliers have a surplus, it leads to losses and so on, which causes the suppliers to reduce the price of that good, pushing the price back to the equilibrium.
This is an example of how the invisible hand in the market balances things out.
Note: This is a simple, basic analysis based on what I've learned in my introductory courses for Macroeconomics and Microeconomics.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Next, based on economic theories, rational people think at the margin and they respond to incentives. Now, we are assuming that all else are equal. This means that cost of productions remain the same. When the price increases, the profit maximization point on the cost curve shifts to a point where the quantity is higher (this would be easier to understand if you study Microeconomics and learn Costs of Production). As rational people, we compare marginal benefits against marginal costs, and make changes if marginal benefits are higher than marginal costs. In this case, increasing the production increases marginal benefits (profit), therefore suppliers increase the quantity supplied.
Now, when this happens, people naturally will buy less. The quantity demanded reduces. Which leads to the surplus mentioned above. This causes prices to drop, and the quantity supplied and demanded will be eventually pushed back to the equilibrium.
Of course, this analysis is based on the assumption that firm planners and executives are rational people who make decisions based on these theories. I only took introductory courses, so I can only work with these assumptions.
There is an entire field of economics called "Behavioral Economics" which analyzes situations where people pick the "less rational" decisions and why they do so.
Lastly, I just noticed this: if you don't want demand to drop, you reduce the price, not the supply.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
And I think it's the logic you used. To avoid quantity demanded from dropping, firms will reduce prices. The price level affects the quantity demanded. The quantity supplied will affect the price level, which then affects the quantity demanded
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Note: I am not really certain about this. After all, I'm not majoring in finance or economics
Log in to reply
geometry problem?
Umm, after you solve this, you wanna try myLog in to reply
Log in to reply
Many things will afect demand of a customer right. Now if we keep all those factors constant except he price of the good, then the condition is described as ceteris paribus condition.