Skip to main content


I reserve the right to be wrong.

Supply and demand is the process by which people figure out the price, in money, for an exchange to take place. So supply and demand is the mechanism by which we discover what prices we can charge others if we're selling, or what we should fork out if we're buying. So supply and demand is people in a free market undertake 'price discovery'.


This is the quantity of a product that is produced.
Oh myyy! What an uncurvy curve! Oh well, any line on a graph is apparently good enough to call a curve. Whatevs. 'But Matt!! Why is the price going up in line with quantity???' Well, this represents the increasing cost to get the products to market and so the desire to charge more to offset that cost.


This is the aggregate of all potential desire for a product. That is to say, this curve represents the potential market for whatever is being sold.
'But Matt, why is this one the opposive of the supply curve.' That is because the more plentiful a product is, the less valuable it becomes to individual customers, decreasing the price they are willing to pay for it.


Finally, those two phenomena, supply and demand, must meet wherever buyers and sellers settle on a price; this we call the Equilibrium Price, where Market Equilibrium is to be found.

 To supply more than this would make each further unit produced less valuable and hurt demand, causing inventory to go unsold, whereas under-producing under exploits the opportunity, as customers' demand exceeds supply, leading competitors to enter the market and displace the current participants. This is the essence of market discipline, sticking to the laws of supply and demand because not doing so sentences the enterprise to potential financial losses and even destruction altogether.

All Production and Exchange (Econ 1a and 1b respectively) respond to supply and demand, causing production to ramp up in response to increased demand, and to decrease in response to falling demand.

Resources will be allocated according to where demand is seen to be either high or increasing, and diverted away from where demand is seen to be low or falling.

Graphs above are from

On the next Ecomony Blogtime; Matt spends an hour talking about the black market in woollen socks!


Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …