Supply and demand

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market, and it rests on a deceptively simple promise. Hold everything else equal, and the price of a good in a perfectly competitive market will drift until it lands at one point: the market-clearing price, where the quantity people want exactly matches the quantity producers offer. The concept forms the theoretical basis of modern economics. But the model carries quiet contradictions inside it. Why does the demand curve slope downward for almost every good, yet climb upward for a few stubborn exceptions? How did a phrase that English writers avoided until after the 17th century become the foundation of a discipline? And what happens when a single theorem proves that the tidy intersection of two curves may not predict anything at all? The answers wind through medieval Syria, a poet writing two thousand years ago, and a French mathematician with a pencil.

• 2. When The Curves Break

  ›

  The law of demand insists the demand curve is always downward-sloping. As price falls, consumers buy more. Yet some goods refuse to obey. Veblen goods grow more attractive at higher prices, prized for fashion or signalling rather than utility. Giffen goods are stranger still. These are inferior goods that swallow a large share of a consumer's income, and the classic example is potatoes in Ireland. When the price of potatoes rises, an Irish peasant can no longer afford meat. So he eats more potatoes to replace the lost calories, and quantity demanded climbs as price climbs. The mechanism is a strong income effect. A rising price sharply cuts the purchaser's buying power, pushing him away from luxuries and toward the very good that grew dearer. The supply side hides its own subtlety. A rise in the cost of raw materials shifts the supply curve to the left, because at each price a smaller quantity reaches the market. These exceptions hint that the model's elegant slopes are assumptions, not laws of nature.

• 3. The Demand For The Phrase

  ›

  The 256th couplet of the Tirukkural, composed at least two thousand years ago, frames the whole idea in a single line: "If the world desireth not meat for eating, there will be none to offer it for sale." Translated plainly, no buyers means no sellers. According to Hamid S. Hosseini, the fourteenth-century Syrian scholar Ibn Taymiyyah grasped the force of the relationship long before European writers, observing that when desire rises and availability falls, price rises, and the reverse when goods grow plentiful. English economics writers, by contrast, avoided the phrase until after the end of the 17th century. John Locke, in his 1691 work on lowering interest and raising the value of money, circled the idea without naming it, writing that price rises and falls by the proportion of buyers and sellers. John Law criticized Locke's terminology and gave the demand half its proper title. Francis Hutcheson, in his 1755 A System of Moral Philosophy, tied prices to demand and the difficulty of acquiring. The Scottish writer James Denham-Steuart finally welded the two words together in 1767, in his Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy.

• 4. Pencils On The Page

  ›

  Augustin Cournot drew the first demand curves in his 1838 Recherches sur les Principes Mathématiques de la Théorie des Richesses, a work that also gave its name to Cournot competition. Cournot built a mathematical model of supply and demand complete with diagrams, a rare achievement when the phrase itself still appeared in only a handful of works. Supply curves arrived later. Fleeming Jenkin added them in his 1870 essay on the graphical representation of the laws of supply and demand, publishing the first drawing of both curves in English. Jenkin's work carried comparative statics from a shift of supply or demand and applied the method to the labor market. Alfred Marshall popularized both kinds of curve in his Principles of Economics of 1890. Marshall made one fateful choice. He placed price, normally the independent variable, on the vertical axis, a practice that remains common today even though modern convention would put price on the horizontal x-axis. The diagrams outlived the reasoning behind them.

• 5. Beyond The Marketplace

  ›

  Wages are where the model turns itself inside out. In the market for labor the usual roles reverse: individuals become the suppliers, selling their labor for the highest price, while businesses become the demanders, buying the labor they need at the lowest. The equilibrium price is the wage rate. Yet economist Steve Fleetwood revisited the empirical reality of these curves and concluded the evidence is "at best inconclusive and at worst casts doubt on their existence." He cites Kaufman and Hotchkiss from 2006: for adult men, nearly all studies find the labour supply curve to be negatively sloped or backward bending. The money market bends the model differently. There, interest rates serve as the price. A central bank fixing the money supply regardless of the interest rate draws a vertical, totally inelastic supply curve. A bank targeting a fixed interest rate draws a horizontal, perfectly elastic one. Stranger still, some studies extend the laws beyond people entirely, to social animals and all living things competing in biological markets. The model even describes metabolic systems, where feedback inhibition lets pathways answer demand for an intermediate while damping the effects of variation in supply.

• 6. The Theorem That Bites Back

  ›

  The Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu theorem aims a mathematical critique at the heart of general equilibrium theory. Individual consumers are assumed to follow the law of demand, buying less as prices rise. But the theorem proves that when those individual preferences are aggregated across an entire economy, the resulting market demand curve can take virtually any shape. The aggregate demand function does not necessarily inherit the downward-sloping property of its parts. Three consequences follow, and each one unsettles the model. Uniqueness is not guaranteed, so a competitive economy may hold multiple equilibria rather than a single predictable intersection. Stability is not inherent, meaning a disturbed market carries no mathematical promise of returning to rest, and some equilibria may be unstable. Micro-foundations prove insufficient, because an entire economy cannot be collapsed into a single representative agent without ignoring the distributional interactions the theorem exposes. The result implies the law of demand may fail at the macro level. It stands as a formal internal critique, suggesting that the stability and uniqueness of equilibrium may be a theoretical abstraction rather than a definitive tool for macroeconomic prediction.

• 7. Cleaning Out The Boxes

  ›

  Piero Sraffa aimed his critique at a narrower target: the inconsistency of partial equilibrium analysis and the rationale for the upward slope of the supply curve in a market for a produced consumption good. Partial equilibrium, attributed to George Stigler by Jain, rests on a restricted range of data, the standard example being the price of a single product while all other prices stay fixed. That stringency makes the model tractable. It can also produce results that seem precise but fail to model the real world. Paul Samuelson engaged with Sraffa's critique over many years, writing that a cleaned-up version of Sraffa from 1926 shows how nearly empty all of Marshall's partial equilibrium boxes are. To a logical purist of the Wittgenstein and Sraffa class, Samuelson added, the box of constant cost is even more empty than the box of increasing cost. Modern Post-Keynesians press a different objection. They fault the model for failing to explain administered prices, where firms set retail prices as a mark-up over normal average unit costs and leave them unresponsive to changes in demand up to capacity. Léon Walras first formalized a one-period equilibrium of the whole economic system, a general approach that the partial model was always meant to simplify away.