Is there such a thing as “Perfect Competition?” Some would say that those two words don 't go together but Economists would beg to differ. This video series has been very valuable in breaking down the meaning of “Perfect Competition” and in teaching the foundation of what is Inelastic Demand.
Elasticity versus Inelastic Demand
When I think of “Elasticity” the first thing that comes to mind is the waist of a pair of pants or the amount of stretch in something but when we speak about Elasticity from an economic standpoint we are talking about an entirely different thing. Before we go any further I want to take some time out to share the meaning of some of these terms and give you a few examples. First let 's examine what Elasticity actually …show more content…
One of the greatest causes of the farmers’ depression was the over production of crops and the failing demand for those crops on the market. Thanks to Herbert Hoover 's “relief effort”After WWII farmers increased their productivity to meet the high demand and profited more than ever before. So why did they keep falling short? “The simple answer, I suppose, is that they were too productive for their own good.” The answered the WW@ demand for more production and once the surplus of farmers answered the call the demand disappeared leaving them with an over abundance of perishing crops. The federal government subsidized farmers in order to even out the highly unstable rises an drops in the farming industry but most Americans had to leave farming because “the cost of farming in America has risen drastically and the demand for most agriculture is Inelastic.” If you think about it you might conclude as I have that the federal government has negatively affected farmers by subsidizing agriculture. The unjust system of subsidizing the larger farms of much richer farmers and farming investors created a form of oppression for the local small town farmer. Richer farmers where raising production without worries about elasticity or demand because their risks were covered by abundant subsidies while the average farmer was getting the least farm subsidies and struggling for their crops to meet their needs to …show more content…
The only way for a farmer I the 20th century to survive is to either ow all of his farm and create a niche market for himself or to confor to major market demands and leave the demand for production to be subsidized. Given the everlasting demand for agriculture in our and most countries it seems to me that this is a cycle that will continue to repeat it self time after time after time. The best weapon for the farmer is knowledge of the system and the best tool is going to be the power to see each crop as an opportunity for
Elasticity versus Inelastic Demand
When I think of “Elasticity” the first thing that comes to mind is the waist of a pair of pants or the amount of stretch in something but when we speak about Elasticity from an economic standpoint we are talking about an entirely different thing. Before we go any further I want to take some time out to share the meaning of some of these terms and give you a few examples. First let 's examine what Elasticity actually …show more content…
One of the greatest causes of the farmers’ depression was the over production of crops and the failing demand for those crops on the market. Thanks to Herbert Hoover 's “relief effort”After WWII farmers increased their productivity to meet the high demand and profited more than ever before. So why did they keep falling short? “The simple answer, I suppose, is that they were too productive for their own good.” The answered the WW@ demand for more production and once the surplus of farmers answered the call the demand disappeared leaving them with an over abundance of perishing crops. The federal government subsidized farmers in order to even out the highly unstable rises an drops in the farming industry but most Americans had to leave farming because “the cost of farming in America has risen drastically and the demand for most agriculture is Inelastic.” If you think about it you might conclude as I have that the federal government has negatively affected farmers by subsidizing agriculture. The unjust system of subsidizing the larger farms of much richer farmers and farming investors created a form of oppression for the local small town farmer. Richer farmers where raising production without worries about elasticity or demand because their risks were covered by abundant subsidies while the average farmer was getting the least farm subsidies and struggling for their crops to meet their needs to …show more content…
The only way for a farmer I the 20th century to survive is to either ow all of his farm and create a niche market for himself or to confor to major market demands and leave the demand for production to be subsidized. Given the everlasting demand for agriculture in our and most countries it seems to me that this is a cycle that will continue to repeat it self time after time after time. The best weapon for the farmer is knowledge of the system and the best tool is going to be the power to see each crop as an opportunity for