cant see them dislikes anymore ;-;

u can with browser extentions@@freddy5713

Also congrats on 50k

Hey bro how’s life going

@@mangow8257 good thanks

@@Patrick-cq7ck did you end up doing econ at uni?

Are you done with uni?

Actually I understand now. I was looking at it as if it were a single point at equilibrium, in which case SB = SC so Net SB = 0. However I should have seen it as a continuous line until the point of equilibrium, in which case the Net SB still increases, just with a diminishing rate until the point of equilibrium (past the point of equilibrium the Net SB would start decreasing).

@@justintyme7787 This helped me a lot. Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, that's the problem with non-competitive markets: it's market failure because they're inefficient.

@@billyfox6368 is this still applicable to monopolies/oligopolies then if i reverse the arguments?

@@jamiek8603 Yes, monopolies and collusive oligopolies - non-competitive markets - are examples of market failure because they tend to be allocatively inefficient.

@@billyfox6368 thanks

that is correct marginal cost will need to be equal to price for allocative efficiency

Price = Average revenue (AR), which is represented by the demand curve. Also, the supply curve represents the marginal cost curve. At equilibrium, MR = MC = AR.

Because any point past Q* on the Demand curve (the MSB) will be at a lower price than any point on the supply (MSC) curve. That means that producing a product past Q* will bring only the relevant benefit (expressed by price which will now be getting lower and lower) which will be lower than the price of the MSC (which start getting bigger and bigger past Q*). This means the cost to society will be bigger than the benefit to society which is now getting lower and lower. Imagine building one school in a city of 1 million people. The MSB is going to be massive for the society but the cost is going to be relatively low considering the number of people in the city. So you start building more schools until you get to point Q*. If you go past that by building a school in every street, this will now cause the social cost to be much higher than the benefit. We don't need so many schools.

Well, in a perfectly competitive market, there are no supernormal profits, so marginal cost equals marginal revenue. Marginal revenue is the same as price (as that's basically what price is i.e. how much the consumer pays for the good i.e. how much the producer receives for each good sold). Consequently, yes, the y-axis is all price, costs and welfare (which should equal price for the consumer in order for it to be worth the opportunity cost).

idk

@@maratmammadov6672 so what’s the point in replying then😎

@@rxb177 point is to reply to your answer because all questions have their own answers in this case my point is not to give correct answers t u my point is to give answers for your question

Marginal Private cost represent marginal cost of production And as we know law of diminishing returns,states how mc initially decreases due to specialization then stagnates and then increases tremendously due to congestion.

But if I understood correctly, the assumptions outlined at the end all support the statement that MPC=MSC and MPB=MSB. If one of those factors changes, than MPC and MSC wouldn't be equal leading to market failure. He mentions MPC=MSC as a statement based on those assumptions, I think it's all linked together.

well, Demand = MSB (perfect competition), Demand = AR, AR = Price, so yes in a sense, but not directly

@@loveridgelads That's why I didn't understand the reason for calling things demand if they don't fully represent demand LOL