Comments on: Journalistic Inanity: Surprised by Supply and Demand http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/27/journalistic-inanity-surprised-by-supply-and-demand/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Delia http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/27/journalistic-inanity-surprised-by-supply-and-demand/comment-page-1/#comment-2752 Delia Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:42:43 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1508#comment-2752 re: "The economists didn’t figure on prices dropping as much, from what I can see. The point remains: supply and demand still works." so then what is the "inanity" you talk about? "Sales of new homes recorded an unexpected increase in September [as a direct result of the fact that, surprisingly,] median home prices dropped to the lowest level in four years" --> it was a surprise that the prices dropped as much as they did and this caused an unexpected increase of the sale of new homes [when compared with the economists' expectations]. As you say yourself:"The economists didn’t figure on prices dropping as much". The fact that this drop in prices resulted in an increase in sales (supply and demand) was not surprising at all... Delia P.S. The phrasing *is* a bit cumbersome -- I suppose you could read it the other way also, but why do that and insult the writer when there is a perfectly logical explanation to that statement? D. re: “The economists didn’t figure on prices dropping as much, from what I can see. The point remains: supply and demand still works.”

so then what is the “inanity” you talk about?

“Sales of new homes recorded an unexpected increase in September [as a direct result of the fact that, surprisingly,] median home prices dropped to the lowest level in four years” –> it was a surprise that the prices dropped as much as they did and this caused an unexpected increase of the sale of new homes [when compared with the economists' expectations].

As you say yourself:”The economists didn’t figure on prices dropping as much”. The fact that this drop in prices resulted in an increase in sales (supply and demand) was not surprising at all…

Delia

P.S. The phrasing *is* a bit cumbersome — I suppose you could read it the other way also, but why do that and insult the writer when there is a perfectly logical explanation to that statement? D.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/27/journalistic-inanity-surprised-by-supply-and-demand/comment-page-1/#comment-2751 Dan Gillmor Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:20:58 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1508#comment-2751 The economists didn't figure on prices dropping as much, from what I can see. The point remains: supply and demand still works. The economists didn’t figure on prices dropping as much, from what I can see. The point remains: supply and demand still works.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2008/10/27/journalistic-inanity-surprised-by-supply-and-demand/comment-page-1/#comment-2753 Seth Finkelstein Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:08:07 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/?p=1508#comment-2753 Dan, I'm puzzled - why are you upset at this? The article doesn't seem stupid: "Economists had expected sales would drop from the August level." The supply/demand is two-factor equation - crashing prices may be overwhelmed by crashing income. So if the expectation of economists was that the supply side would dominate, but it turns out that when the data comes in, the demand side dominates (very slightly), that's not inane at all. Dan, I’m puzzled – why are you upset at this? The article doesn’t seem stupid: “Economists had expected sales would drop from the August level.”

The supply/demand is two-factor equation – crashing prices may be overwhelmed by crashing income.

So if the expectation of economists was that the supply side would dominate, but it turns out that when the data comes in, the demand side dominates (very slightly), that’s not inane at all.

]]>