No, retard. The supply curve is women. When women start ignoring 80% of the population they are restricting themselves, shifting the supply curve way over to the left. This pushes the equilibrium to much higher price (most women out of reach) and much less quantity (fewer men are dating). We are in this situation precisely because supply has not remained static.
The supply curve has been static for at least 50+ years currently. The static cost has been what drove demand down because it was set too high in the 70s. Like I said, if a ps5 is 50k the demand will diminish over time because the price is static. Men walking away hasn’t lowered the price, so yes, women are indeed the static factor.
Most women are average, dude. Most women are mid. That's how bell curves work.
Yes, which makes 4s and below in what percentage range again?
The supply curve has been static for at least 50+ years currently. The static cost has been what drove demand down because it was set too high in the 70s. Like I said, if a ps5 is 50k the demand will diminish over time because the price is static. Men walking away hasn’t lowered the price, so yes, women are indeed the static factor.
You have no idea how supply and demand curves interact. If suppliers simply increase price, then the market will still settle back to the same equilibrium because nobody's buying their product.
Women have restricted their own supply. The number of available women on the market has plummeted.
Yes, which makes 4s and below in what percentage range again?
If 5 is the average woman, then 4s are well within 1 standard deviation. Very close to average.
You have no idea how supply and demand curves interact. If suppliers simply increase price, then the market will still settle back to the same equilibrium because nobody's buying their product.
False, you will see diminishing returns, but people will still buy the product, especially if the product is a monopoly.
Women have restricted their own supply. The number of available women on the market has plummeted.
Also false, there’s an over abundance of supply, if you can afford the cost.
If 5 is the average woman, then 4s are well within 1 standard deviation. Very close to average.
False, you will see diminishing returns, but people will still buy the product, especially if the product is a monopoly.
Of course there's a segment of the population that will still buy the product, but the product will be overproduced, creating a surplus situation, which then collapses back to equilibrium price and quantity. You can't force people to buy your product.
This also applies to monopolies, although the initial equilibrium is more profitable to the monopolist. Monopolies can't force people to buy their product either.
Also false, there’s an over abundance of supply, if you can afford the cost.
No kidding, this is exactly what happens when the supply curve shifts. If you want to spend an absurd amount of money you can always buy as much product as you want. But most buyers don't want to pay that.
Equilibrium quantity depends on buyer WILLINGNESS TO PAY.
Which is again, not the majority
Who are not the majority? Women within 1 standard deviation of the average attractiveness? What are you saying exactly?
Of course there's a segment of the population that will still buy the product, but the product will be overproduced, creating a surplus situation, which then collapses back to equilibrium price and quantity. You can't force people to buy your product.
And that “surplus” hasn’t crashed or lowered prices in over 50 years despite demand lowering.
No kidding, this is exactly what happens when the supply curve shifts. If you want to spend an absurd amount of money you can always buy as much product as you want. But most buyers don't want to pay that.
I wouldn’t agree here, the cost to get in is the only actual cost here. It’s like getting into an exclusive country club, the one time cost is egregiously high, but once you get access the supply is near unlimited.
Who are not the majority? Women within 1 standard deviation of the average attractiveness? What are you saying exactly?
25-30% of married men end up in an affair, 25-30% of women are in the 2-4 range. It’s not perfectly linear, but men having affairs are egregiously more likely to do so if they don’t find their partner attractive.
The supply curve has been static for at least 50+ years currently. The static cost has been what drove demand down because it was set too high in the 70s. Like I said, if a ps5 is 50k the demand will diminish over time because the price is static. Men walking away hasn’t lowered the price, so yes, women are indeed the static factor.
Yes, which makes 4s and below in what percentage range again?
You have no idea how supply and demand curves interact. If suppliers simply increase price, then the market will still settle back to the same equilibrium because nobody's buying their product.
Women have restricted their own supply. The number of available women on the market has plummeted.
If 5 is the average woman, then 4s are well within 1 standard deviation. Very close to average.
False, you will see diminishing returns, but people will still buy the product, especially if the product is a monopoly.
Also false, there’s an over abundance of supply, if you can afford the cost.
Which is again, not the majority
Of course there's a segment of the population that will still buy the product, but the product will be overproduced, creating a surplus situation, which then collapses back to equilibrium price and quantity. You can't force people to buy your product.
This also applies to monopolies, although the initial equilibrium is more profitable to the monopolist. Monopolies can't force people to buy their product either.
No kidding, this is exactly what happens when the supply curve shifts. If you want to spend an absurd amount of money you can always buy as much product as you want. But most buyers don't want to pay that.
Equilibrium quantity depends on buyer WILLINGNESS TO PAY.
Who are not the majority? Women within 1 standard deviation of the average attractiveness? What are you saying exactly?
And that “surplus” hasn’t crashed or lowered prices in over 50 years despite demand lowering.
I wouldn’t agree here, the cost to get in is the only actual cost here. It’s like getting into an exclusive country club, the one time cost is egregiously high, but once you get access the supply is near unlimited.
25-30% of married men end up in an affair, 25-30% of women are in the 2-4 range. It’s not perfectly linear, but men having affairs are egregiously more likely to do so if they don’t find their partner attractive.