Talk:Scissors Crisis

Merge

Substantive content merged in from Scissor crisis. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for editing

"The widening gap in prices also showcased the inelastic nature of trading with the peasants. For example, a peasant did not need to buy a lantern from the state, as they could simply make candles themselves. Whilst on the other hand, peasants were unlikely to respond, according to classic economics, to lower prices by selling more grain to buy more goods; instead farmers would rather either eat more or work less, as they did not require these goods." Isn't this actually an example of elastic Price Elasticity of Demand of peasants for agricultural goods. In other words, industrial prices were hugely increasing (relative to overall inflation) and peasants thus reduced quantity demanded for this goods by a greater proportion. If their demand was inelastic, peasants would continue to buy industrial goods largely regardless of the price increases. Anyone have any thoughts about this/ know about how the original source justifies this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.222.64 (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that looks like nonsense rambling. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

ill.

This article begs for an illustration!211.225.33.104 (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)