I don't understand

Are you a fucking retard?

As the price per unit goes down, people want to buy more of it (demand); as the price per unit goes up, people want to make and sell more of it (supply). The equilibrium is where the two meet. How is that so hard to understand?

because suppliers will supply more as the price increases
consumers will buy more as the price decreases

this isnt supposed to be an accurate graph representing a change over time, its just a general look at the way people would ideally adapt to price

this is like the y=mx+b of economics
its not a very useful graph, but it is the most simple starting point

when you get into it, you will see it make more sense, where "higher price" doesnt always mean the supplier can afford to supply more

0 demand 0 price 0 quantity 0 capitalism, already did spainbro

If price is artificially decreased(price ceiling) the QD will increase and QS will decrrase

>faggots instead of muslims
>implying

Attached: 1492702477360.jpg (356x321, 33.47K)

"quantity of supply goes up, price goes ... where?"
You fucking tard.

This is your brain on common core. Click the fucking link I posted and educate yourself.

OP is a fag because xhe mislabeled it.

Attached: Freedom.png (241x195, 8.17K)

Same, I did math/physics and when I see this I always felt like it must be a 2D projection of a 3D graph of some shit. I understand the mechanism qualitatively, but the graph always seemed goofy.
>Quantity
Maybe this is the issue, since my brain just sees this as a synonym for supply.

I want an apple. The store has 100 apples. One apple costs 1 Euro. Tomorrow the store has 10 apples and can't get more. As a consequence one apple costs 10 Euros. Why is this so hard?

just to clarify:
"supply" and "demand" represent the seperate behaviors of consumer (demand) vs supplier (supply)

Radical change user

Attached: 1654564161274.png (611x786, 53.92K)

Is this really the master race's board?

Attached: 0016274557.jpg (504x360, 26.31K)

I try, but idk if I'm even right.
At the start the demand is high and production is low, so since there are 1k people willing to buy your product for 1$ you sell it for 1$, but now production cranks up, you have factories that can produce 10k, but the demand went down to 100, so to cover the expenses of the extra supply, you charge more for the little demand, so you sell it for 10$. Still doesn't really make sense, since the market regulates themselves, and rivalry between different companies bring the price down if we aren't in a cartel situation or luxury products. Is just that when a new product is born the demand is high and the production is low, while in it's late stage of production the supply is high, the production price is cheap, so you can profit more from it and the demand is low because everyone has it

When the supply is going down, the price is also lower? Are you retarded?

LOL! Did you steal that off of grindr?!?!?

No tic marks, no numbers, it's just a conceptual illustration, fuckwit.
Stop your pseudo-intellectual jewish posturing that means jack diddly shit.

Think about it for a while. Read it as Quantity of Supply, and Quantity of Demand. Suppliers increase quantity of Supply to meet the demand, but as the supply increases, the market becomes satiated and thus the demand goes down. The logical continuation of the graph would be the price going down.

>expecting europeans to have knowledge of anything but the shit languages they speak

>As the price per unit goes down, people want to buy more of it (demand)
Except it isn't represented by this nigger graph at all - less demand you have on the graph, the lower the price for some reason

English is a European language.

Think of Supply = Producers and Demand = Consumers.
1. As prices increase, Producers will provide more quantity.
2. As prices increase, Consumers will demand less quantity.
3. As prices decrease, Producers will provide less quantity.
4. As prices decrease, Consumers will demand more quantity.

Equilibrium between Producers and Consumers is in the middle where the lines cross, which is the price that Producers and Consumers can agree on which results in a quantity of goods that they also agree on.

I agree it's horseshit. I trade commodities and understand supply and demand implicitly.
The only thing I can think is that the intersection is reversion to the mean.
As the saying goes "high prices fix high prices".

You stupid fucking shit head.
I said, "the lines are mislabled."
You stupid fucking shit head.

wtfhappenedin1971.com/

- this will answer your question

one is from the perspective of a buyer. the greater the price the less people willing to pay for it.
The other is the seller the greater the price the MORE people willing to pay for it. Where they intersect (or there about) is the price (ideally).

>just a conceptual illustration, fuckwit.
What do you think this whole fucking concept is? This site isn't for children

It is a foundational truth about business in a simple and symbolic form. It says that there is a point where supply and demand intersect, and if you know where that point is for whatever you sell, you will know how much you should be selling and how much to charge for it.

When I want to sell things that are I abundance then I have to sell them at a lower price. If I sell them with a higher price, nobody will want to buy them from me. If I want to sell something rare, then I sell them at a higher price. If I sell the rare thing at a low price, I basically rip myself off.

You missed the part that when price gets too high, no-one buys it anymore so the price falls due to a decline in demand. See my post above.

It still doesn't make sense if you flip the labels = it is inconsistent

XD

Attached: fractalized bullshit.png (508x508, 442.31K)

Just google "equilibrium point economics"

be careful introducing micro 2 concepts in a thread confused by the op chart

demand is the party demanding it (buyers)
supply is the people supplying it (sellers)

Пoшeл нaхyй, я пpeкpacнo пoнимaю экoнoмикy, я нe пoнимaю этy дayнcкyю eбaнyю тaблицy нa кoтopoй нe пoнятнo нихyя. Heyдивитeльнo чтo я нe пoнимaл экoнoмикy дo 20 лeт

yeah but no-one is buying your shitty ten euro apples so the apples get rotten and then the supermarket finds a supplier who isn't retarded.
Then the price goes down.
Please show me on the graph where the apples hurt people.

but it's not your primary language, and the UK isn't europe

>"supply" and "demand" represent the seperate behaviors of consumer (demand) vs supplier (supply)
Too simplistic. Look at mining. If the price is too low to justify mining, the miners will stop mining.
Supplier costs have to be factored in as well.

It's my mother tongue. And you're an idiot.

Attached: ed9d252e64b9ca749ea6c4715f9c4b39.jpg (720x766, 70.31K)

>Is this really the master race's board?
If we work hard enough, yes.

Equilibrium is the stable system state. Always remember is that this is the behaviour aggregate, but price is always fluctuating through individual transactions. think of a party with lads and lasses trying to get laid. If there are few girls they will get a lit of attention and will demand more for putting out. If all the certain more girls join then they have to lower their demands if they want to get laid before the night is over. If you visualize this in 3d with a T axis it will become more clear. You can angle for an opportunity further from the equilibrium price, and you might get a sucker. But the more outrageous your price, the longer it will take. The equilibrium point is there where both seller and buyer can go to someone else in a heartbeat for the price proposed. Deviation from the intersection can be expressed in T, and with some volatility, some momentum/lag, some trend. Does that help?

> going up while price increases
Yes. Higher profit = more business produce the good.

>then the quantity is decreasing at the same time as price is going up?

Not the supply. Supply constantly increases hence the yellow bar. But as the price gets high enough less people will want it and therefore less will be sold..

>Too simplistic.
a concept made for high school students is simplistic? get out of here

What are you not understanding exactly? The lines cross at the equilibrium price, disturbances to either price or quantity provide a new equilibrium.

So if this graph is for a commodity, and suddenly there is a glut in supply, the price will go down (assuming competition) and the demand will increase as a response to the lower price (assuming elasticity).

The opposite is also true, a restriction in supply increases the price which lowers the demand.

Alternatively, an increase in demand acts the same as a reduction in supply, driving the price up (and vice versa) Etc etc

Kek

It's worth as much as saying "in an hour 60 minutes pass" and trying to sell it a a profound ideology.

Have you ever learned at school how to draw a Graph with an XY-Axis? The Drawing basically says that high supply means low demand, while high demand means low supply, as in people buy the product like crazy.

well the supplier costs is factored into the amount of people willing to sell at that price. This would change things like the actual amount, to the curvature of the line.

For a foundational truth, it’s interesting that markets have never been observed to behave according to equilibrium pricing. Even something as simple as branding makes the model useless.

It's almost like it doesn't need the x axis at all.

Except what I said still applies if you switch the labels you retarded mongrel - if the purple line is now supply, it still represents the price going down as the supply is decreases, which still makes no fucking sense, literally rope

has there ever been a true "free" market in America or has the government always intervened in some way

Attached: currencies.jpg (561x373, 35.81K)

well its like the free market model. The real world isnt the same as the models. Price ceilings and variables like peoples cyclical moods would deviate from the models.

Economist here.

>Like, wtf is that - supply going up while price increases

Yes. Because the higher the price, the more sellers want to sell it.

>but then the quantity is decreasing at the same time as price is going up?

I don't get what you're trying to say. That isn't happening at all. You need to look at the middle of of the graph, where S and D intersect. That is the price per quantity. Different factors will either move those lines (or curves in reality) up or down, left or right and that changes the intersection point. Think of it that way.

Like with gasoline. If a company found a new well, and it provided a bunch more oil, what would that do to this graph? It would increase the supply, which moves the supply curve to the right. Now look at where the it is now intersecting with the demand curve. Now see where that aligns on the price and quanity axis. Lower price, more quantity. Logically that makes sense no?

Use a 4 quadrant graph, the middle is 0, where the treasure is, anything below x axis is artificial.

Attached: 1654754068465.jpg (1024x1024, 87.44K)

yeah but thats where your confusion lies its not the actual supply of objects being bought or sold, its the amount of people. thats the quantity.

Пoдyмaй oт лицa пoтpeбитeля.

Cпpoc oтнocитcя к тoмy, кaкoe кoличecтвo тoвapa пoтpeбитeли гoтoвы пpиoбpecти пo paзным цeнaм в тeчeниe oпpeдeлeннoгo пepиoдa вpeмeни.

цeнa зa литp/ кoличecтвo литpoв
$1.80 40
$1.65 50
$1.50 60

Для пpoдaвцa нaoбopoт.

>a concept made for high school students is simplistic?
Indeed but this is pretty much a common core graph right?
Unless it's explaining mean reversion (which might be fair), it's very very dumb.
It might be better to plot this using linear regression, but I'm just an autistic trader and analyst, what do I know.

Great. Another retard. The apple was just an example for dumb children. If you want something more akin to really then look the current CPU chip crisis.

>b-b-but
cope euromongrel