tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post4412541260747525317..comments2023-10-19T01:30:11.018+11:00Comments on 3POINT8: Giffen Goods - Demand Increases as Price Increases3POINT8http://www.blogger.com/profile/02097881518064438926noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-16156362217817165262010-03-13T09:16:23.195+11:002010-03-13T09:16:23.195+11:00I am not going to be original this time, so all I ...I am not going to be original this time, so all I am going to say that your blog rocks, sad that I don't have suck a writing skillsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-26056054392090695042010-02-24T00:54:39.004+11:002010-02-24T00:54:39.004+11:00Its all in the manual they make you read before th...Its all in the manual they make you read before they download your being into those tiny bodies in those dark wombs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-74784532798107829552010-02-17T08:37:22.375+11:002010-02-17T08:37:22.375+11:00I am reading this article second time today, you h...I am reading this article second time today, you have to be more careful with content leakers. If I will fount it again I will send you a linkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-61240106593759024852009-12-11T12:17:05.173+11:002009-12-11T12:17:05.173+11:00You need think about it. Despite the emails, the o...You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn't changed.<br />"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don't cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-14985399271278348302008-10-10T01:48:00.000+11:002008-10-10T01:48:00.000+11:00[YingYang@QS]Because the price of rice went up, pp...<B>[YingYang@QS]</B><BR/>Because the price of rice went up, ppl are forced to cut back on meat stuff. And since they need to eat the same amount of food each day, they have to buy more rice to compensate for the meat.<BR/>(As long as rice is still the cheapest food source, no matter what the price other 'luxuries' may be, demand would still go up)<BR/><BR/>So, thats why if you raise the price the price of rice, demand will go up. (but this is a very rare case. this only applies to countries that rely heavily on rice)3POINT8https://www.blogger.com/profile/02097881518064438926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-88457768032659019692008-10-07T15:06:00.000+11:002008-10-07T15:06:00.000+11:00It may also because that ppl worried that the pric...It may also because that ppl worried that the price will go up much higher so buy more to keep stock so that don't have to buy at a higher price.Simon Seowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04114322470329271880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-41961397164387177402008-10-07T03:42:00.000+11:002008-10-07T03:42:00.000+11:00But there is something I don't get about this.You ...But there is something I don't get about this.<BR/><BR/>You see right. Using the rice example. If the price of rice increase and while the price of "luxuries" are the same. What would be the result then?<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't it still be the same? UNLESS its assuming all price of foodstuff increase at the same time (and rate).<BR/><BR/>Don't flame me; I don't know anything xD<BR/><BR/>Signing off, DsXYingYang@QShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15275783312896027947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-5215083428905198442008-10-07T03:40:00.000+11:002008-10-07T03:40:00.000+11:00its really against the economic term. in economy ...its really against the economic term. in economy study, when demand high, price high too to lower demand so we can get equilibrium price in market. so demand high come first then price is high, not price is high and then demand is high, maybe for some reason it happen, but mostly not. if substitute, maybe if product A is substitute for Product B, when product B price high, demand for Product A become high too.. :)<BR/><BR/>good post btw..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23793116.post-12598543640211258082008-10-05T18:19:00.000+11:002008-10-05T18:19:00.000+11:00more like a "non-ego deflating moment" r...more like a "non-ego deflating moment" rather than an "ego-fulfilling moment" kawan. Those who have studied form 6 level econ would have come across giffen goods. <BR/><BR/>You didn't say you wanted a proper explanation. So here it is...<BR/><BR/>Definition of terms<BR/>Price=P<BR/>Quantity bought=Q<BR/>Income=I<BR/>Substitution=S<BR/><BR/>Demand for a good can be decomposed into 2 aspects, 1. I effect & 2. S effect... the "Slutsky equation". <BR/><BR/>S effect is the classic inverse P & Q demand identity, i.e. higher P = less Q. <BR/><BR/>I effect depends on the nature of the good, normal goods (higher I= more Q), while inferior good (higher income=less Q). <BR/><BR/>Giffen goods are inferior goods whose I effect is so large as to overwhelm S effect. <BR/><BR/>Hence "higher P=less Q1" is smaller "then lower I=higher Q2". In total Q2>Q1 (i.e. Q2-Q1>0) so what is observed is higher P = higher higher Q. <BR/><BR/>Kif, picking up stocks on the cheap is not the giffen effect. That is related to expectations, a different motivation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com