Talk:Demand

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Demand be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

I added the section discrete goods and tried making it as clear and pedagogical as possible. I failed in the making of a graph of sufficient aesthetics and exactness. I hope somebody can improve the section because even though it requires some improvement I believe that discrete goods have a place in this article. Masalih (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the shifted demand curve represents a new demand equation with a different x-intercept.--75.201.135.158 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)jgard5000--75.201.135.158 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC Firms have a "little" market power Note that if a firm has market power, even a "little bit" then it faces a negatively sloped demand curve rather than the perfectly elastic curve assumed by PC theory = which means the firm would not produce where P equals marginal revenue but would follow the conventional rule produce where MR = MC. As Kreps notes in one of the leading texts on microeconomic theory "firms assume they have no market power when in fact they have a litte bit." Kreps, A Course in Microeconomic Theory (Princeton 1990) at 292. Kreps goes on to note that the perfectly competitive model should be viewed as a first approximation of firms that have and realize they have a small amount of market power." Kreps at 292. Again market power means that the firms face a negatively sloped and highly elastic demand curve it also means that there is a marginal revenue curve at the firm and industry level.--Jgard5000 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)jgard5000--Jgard5000 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested it should read:

Duration: The longer a price change is going to last the more inclinded a consumer is to search for substitutes. Thus elasticity increases with the duration of the price change.

I don't have access to the reference but I think it's much more clear that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatisticSammy (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the change: [1]. The previous version said, "The more time a consumer has to search for substitute goods, the more elastic the demand." I don't have the reference thats given handy, but this is standard, and it means something different than what you wrote. The standard interpretation is something like this: If your landlord tells you 6 months before the lease is up that the rent is increasing, then your PED is fairly high because you have more time to search for alternative housing. If your landlord tells you two weeks before the lease is up, then your PED is fairly low because you're not in a good position to conduct a thorough search. So, "duration" is more about how the consumer interacts with the product. What you wrote does sense in terms of demand generally, but requires a very different way of looking at things because it's considering multiple price changes (the immediate one plus some future change back). I'm guessing you won't find a reference for that and elasticity. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense of course. The problem is that the article Price elasticity of demand also has a list of determinants, among which you'll find duration. The description there is the one I wanted to incorporate in this article. However, I believe they are two different concepts bearing the same name. The description of duration on the linked article applies when a price change is believed to be only temporary. Different from the description on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatisticSammy (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Hmmm. Again, I don't have handy the references used over at that article. The one which is hyper-linked (to some online lecture notes which probably don't qualify as a reliable source, but anyway...) seems to be slightly mis-interpreted in the article. The link isn't really talking about the duration of the price change. It's more talking about the duration of time the analyst is looking at: Is the economist studying how much quantity demand falls in a week, or how much it falls in a year? I should go fix it, but I'm not going to right now and might forget... CRETOG8(t/c) 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please change "demand pinus in the discrete goods case" to demand CURVE. What is pinus? I tried changing it but inadvertently messed up the wiki syntax. Please help. Thanks Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the definition of demand in the first paragraph is incorrect. This definition defines demand in terms of utility, which is an indexing of preferences and is therefore unit-less. Demand has units of quantity, and the definition should reflect that.

The definition given in the second paragraph is correct, and I think the first paragraph should be removed.MiOd373 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your objection is correct, and I will make appropriate changes.--Wirtschaftsverbesserer (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are several editors, even administrators, who feel that they can bypass Wikepedia's strict policiy of Verifiability by repeatedly adding unsourced material in the very first sentence of this article. Please refrain from adding unsourced material into this article. Also, please spare us the unnecessary lecturing of how the lead section of an article should be. WP:LEAD is very clear: "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should .... be carefully sourced as appropriate". Please add your sources or refrain from re-adding this unsourced material". Thank you. 77.4.147.27 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305025546/https://inevitablesteps.com/marketing/needs-wants-and-demands/ to https://inevitablesteps.com/marketing/needs-wants-and-demands/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the section "Criticism" is perfectly off-topic in an article that merely defines "demand". The criticicm points to a normative position, according to which economics should not see fulfillment of demand as an objective. Such a point belongs to an article about the philosophical foundations of mainstream economics--Wirtschaftsverbesserer (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be assessed as C grading. The topic is significant and both concepts and formulas of demand are explained in detail. Unfortunately, most of the paragraphs in this article lack references from reliable articles. Therefore, the accuracy of the article cannot be guaranteed Besides, some contents of the article would be considered less relevant to the topic of demand, and this could consider deleting them, such as subtitle'Criticism'.

In general, the contents of this article provide readers with clearer concepts and explanations, however, not only missing most of the references in related kinds of literature or researches but also having some irrelevant concepts, which may confuse the audiences. S4504955 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]