Adam Smith
Adam Smith
Adam Smith
he most basic laws in economics are the law of supply and the law of
equilibrium, or they can cut production until the quantity supplied falls to the lower
number of units demanded at the higher price. But they cannot keep the price high
and sell as many units as they did before.
Why does the quantity supplied rise as the price rises and fall as the price falls? The
reasons really are quite logical. First, consider the case of a company that makes a
consumer product. Acting rationally, the company will buy the cheapest materials
(not the lowest quality, but the lowest cost for any given level of quality). As
production (supply) increases, the company has to buy progressively more
expensive (i.e., less efficient) materials or labor, and its costs increase. It charges a
higher price to offset its rising unit costs.
Are there any examples of supply curves for which a higher price does not lead to a
higher quantity supplied? Economists believe that there is one main possible
example, the so-called backward-bending supply curve of labor. Imagine a graph in
which the wage rate is on the vertical axis and the quantity of labor supplied is on
the horizontal axis. It makes sense that the higher the wage rate, the higher the
quantity of labor supplied, because it makes sense that people will be willing to
work more when they are paid more. But workers might reach a point at which a
higher wage rate causes them to work less because the higher wage makes them
wealthier and they use some of that wealth to buy more leisurethat is, to work
less. Recent evidence suggests that even for labor, a higher wage leads to more
hours worked.1
Or consider the case of a good whose supply is fixed, such as apartments in a
condominium. If prospective buyers suddenly begin offering higher prices for
apartments, more owners will be willing to sell and the supply of available
apartments will rise. But if buyers offer lower prices, some owners will take their
apartments off the market and the number of available units will drop.
History has witnessed considerable controversy over the prices of goods whose
supply is fixed in the short run. Critics of market prices have argued that rising
prices for these types of goods serve no economic purpose because they cannot
bring forth additional supply, and thus serve merely to enrich the owners of the
goods at the expense of the rest of society. This has been the main argument for
fixing prices, as the United States did with the price of domestic oil in the 1970s
and as New York City has done with apartment rents since World War II (see RENT
CONTROL).
Economists call the portion of a price that does not influence the amount of a good
in existence in the short run an economic quasi-rent. The vast majority of
economists believe that economic rents do serve a useful purpose. Most important,
they allocate goods to their highest-valued use. If price is not used to allocate
goods among competing claimants, some other device becomes necessary, such as
the rationing cards that the U.S. government used to allocate gasoline and other
goods during World War II. Economists generally believe that fixing prices will
actually reduce both the quantity and the quality of the good in question. In
addition, economic rents serve as a signal to bring forth additional supplies in the
future and as an incentive for other producers to devise substitutes for the good in
question.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Supply.html