Deriving Demand

Lecture

The victory over the Hypno Hippo had left the crew of the Crimson Barnacle exhausted but exuberant. Critical thinking had proven, once again, to be the villain's Achilles' heel — the moment enough people started asking "wait, what am I actually giving up for this dopamine?" the Hippo's hypnotic hold shattered like cheap sugar glass. Now, with the ship's dimensional drive humming and Socks the GOAT plotting a course toward the year 2026 and the planet Naebob, the mood aboard was celebratory. There was, after all, a birthday to plan.

"Socks turns seven next cycle," Pirate Pete announced, banging a fist on the galley table. "And I'll be keelhauled through a black hole before we let our navigator's birthday pass without the finest chocolate cake in the galaxy." First Mate Orpheus, wiping his hands on his apron, nodded gravely. "Naebobbian cake," he confirmed. "That oat-y, grassy aroma. Nothing on Earth compares. But chocolate is dear, Captain. Only two planets in the whole galaxy can grow the cacao. It costs."

Petunia Pareto floated in, eyes distant, already scribbling derivatives in the air with a glowing stylus. "It costs," she repeated dreamily. "But how much is a slice of that cake actually worth to Socks? Worth is inside his head — a feeling, a warm glow of utility. Cost is out in the market — a number, a price. How do we get from the invisible feeling to the visible price?" She frowned. "My famous cousin Vilfredo always said preferences reveal themselves through choices. But I could never quite see the bridge from utility to a demand curve."

Stella Starlight, the dreamy third-class goat they'd fished from the North Atlantic, tilted her head. "You mean there's a way to draw how badly someone wants cake?" Socks the GOAT looked up from the navigation console, a slow, clever grin spreading across his muzzle. "There is, Stella. And by the time we dock at Naebob, Petunia is going to build that bridge herself — from a utility hill, across a budget line, down into demand space, where X marks the spot and the price of chocolate finally means something. Everyone grab a stylus. This is the most important trick in all of microeconomics."

Before we set sail into the mathematics, two short lessons from the ship's archive will orient you. Alex Tabarrok's "Graphing a Demand Curve from a Demand Schedule, and How to Read a Demand Graph" ^[1] shows you the destination — what a demand curve is once we've built it. Tyler Cowen's "Change in Demand vs. Change in Quantity Demanded" ^[2] guards against the single most common error you will make once you can draw one. Watch both, then come back to build the bridge yourself.

1. From the Unobservable to the Observable: What Are We Even Doing?

Petunia's frustration is the deepest puzzle in consumer theory, and it is worth naming precisely before we solve it. Somewhere inside Socks's furry skull is a private, un-measurable sensation of pleasure when he eats Naebobbian chocolate cake. Economists give that sensation a deliberately clunky, honest name: utility. Utility is satisfaction, well-being, the warm glow — and we measure it, when we have to, in imaginary units called utils. Nobody can see a util. Nobody has ever exported one, taxed one, or put one on a scale. And yet the entire logic of markets — every price you have ever paid, every demand curve Tabarrok ever drew — is built on this ghost.

1.1 Modeling is a chain of translations

The great trick of economics, the one Petunia is about to learn, is that we do not need to see utils to use them. We build a chain of translations. First we model the idea (Socks likes cake, but each additional slice thrills him a little less). Then we turn the idea into variables (\(X\) = slices of cake, \(Y\) = everything else). Then we put the variables into a table. Then we draw the table as a graph. Then we read meaning off the graph — and, crucially, the last link in the chain, demand, is entirely observable. We can watch how many slices Socks buys at each price. The invisible feeling has left a visible footprint.

1.2 Two goods, so we can draw it

To keep the picture two-dimensional, we do what every economist does: we collapse the whole universe into two goods. Let \(X\) be slices of Naebobbian chocolate cake and let \(Y\) be a composite good — "all other spending," measured in galactic credits. Socks has a fixed amount of money, called income and written \(M\), to split between cake and everything else. Everything we build — the budget line, the utility hill, the tangency, and finally demand — lives in this two-good world. It generalizes, but the picture is where the intuition lives.

1.3 Where we are headed

By the end of this lecture you will be able to do what Socks promised Petunia: start with a hill of utility, lay a budget line across it, find the single best bundle, then change the price of cake and watch a brand-new best bundle appear — and by plotting price against the cake quantity at each best bundle, you will have derived a demand curve from utility. This is the classic price-consumption derivation formalized by Hicks in his theory of consumer choice ^[3]. Let us build it link by link.

{"title":"The chain of translations","placement":"Section 1.1, after 'The invisible feeling has left a visible footprint.'","prompt":"A clean instructional diagram styled as a five-link chain drawn as arrows: 'Idea' → 'Variables' → 'Table' → 'Equation/Graph' → 'Demand (observable)'. Above the first link float faint ghostly 'util' sparkles inside a cartoon goat's head; above the last link a solid price tag reading in generic currency. Dystopian-civic educational style, muted dark palette, no real logos. Exclude pirates-as-marauders imagery, sentient cars, and racing references.","alt_text":"A five-stage arrow chain labeled Idea, Variables, Table, Equation and Graph, and Demand, showing how an invisible utility idea is translated step by step into an observable demand curve.","caption":"Consumer theory as a chain of translations from invisible feeling to visible price.","character_slugs":[]}

2. Utility and the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility

Before we can spend money well, we have to describe wanting. Socks does not merely "like" cake; he likes it in a very specific, very human pattern that shows up in almost every good you have ever consumed.

2.1 Total utility versus marginal utility

Total utility is the whole stack of satisfaction Socks gets from all the cake he eats. Marginal utility — the star of this section — is the extra satisfaction from one more slice. Formally, marginal utility is the change in total utility divided by the change in quantity:

The first slice of cake, after a long villain-fighting day, is glorious. The second is wonderful. The third is very nice. By the sixth, Socks is a goat who has eaten a lot of cake, and the seventh slice barely registers. This near-universal pattern — each additional unit adds less extra satisfaction than the one before — is the law of diminishing marginal utility.

2.2 A cake utility schedule

Let us make it a table, because a table is the second link in the chain. Here is Socks's satisfaction from Naebobbian cake.

Simplified example: Socks's utility from chocolate cake (pedagogical utils, not empirical).

Notice how total utility keeps rising — more cake is still more satisfaction — while the marginal column falls steadily: 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5. Rising total, falling marginal. That is diminishing marginal utility written in numbers.

2.3 Why the hill is curved

The concavity of that total-utility curve — the way it bends over like a hill — is not decoration. It is the reason demand slopes downward, as we will see. Stella asked Socks the obvious question: "If more cake is always better, why not eat infinite cake?" The answer is in the marginal column. More cake is better, but each slice is worth less to you than the last, and cake is not free. The moment the extra pleasure of one more slice is no longer worth the money, you stop. We just need to compare that falling pleasure to a price — which requires the budget line.

3. The Budget Constraint: Scarcity Made Into a Line

Utility describes what Socks wants. The budget constraint describes what he can afford. Where they meet is where choice happens. Scarcity — the crew's old friend from the shoals of the North Atlantic — becomes, here, a straight line.

3.1 The budget equation

Socks has income \(M\) to spend on cake at price \(P_X\) and on everything else at price \(P_Y\). Every credit he spends on one good is a credit he cannot spend on the other. His spending on cake is \(P_X X\), his spending on everything else is \(P_Y Y\), and the two must add up to his income:

This is the budget constraint, presented here in the textbook's standard form. Read it aloud: money spent on cake, plus money spent on everything else, equals total income. Simple accounting. But watch what happens when we solve it for \(Y\) — because that turns the accounting into a line we can graph, the third and fourth links of our chain.

3.2 Slope-intercept form, step by careful step

We want the budget constraint in slope-intercept form, the familiar \(y = mx + b\) from algebra, where \(m\) is the slope and \(b\) is the vertical intercept. Here \(Y\) plays the role of the vertical axis and \(X\) the horizontal. Start from Eq. 2:

Step 1. Write it down: \(P_X X + P_Y Y = M\).

Step 2. Subtract \(P_X X\) from both sides to isolate the \(Y\) term: \(P_Y Y = M - P_X X\).

Step 3. Divide every term by \(P_Y\) to get \(Y\) alone: \(Y = \dfrac{M}{P_Y} - \dfrac{P_X}{P_Y} X\).

Now read the pieces. The intercept is \(b = \dfrac{M}{P_Y}\): if Socks buys zero cake, that is how much "everything else" he can afford. The slope is \(m = -\dfrac{P_X}{P_Y}\): the number multiplying \(X\). That slope is the whole game, so it gets its own section.

3.3 The slope IS the relative price

The slope of the budget line, \(-\dfrac{P_X}{P_Y}\), is the relative price of cake — how many units of "everything else" Socks must give up to get one more slice. The library records this ratio directly:

This is opportunity cost made numerical. If cake costs 4 credits and everything-else costs 1 credit per unit, then \(P_X/P_Y = 4\): every slice of cake costs Socks 4 units of everything else. The market does not care how many utils the cake gives; it only quotes this trade-off. The relative price is the exchange rate between the two goods, and its negative is the slope of the line Socks must live on.

3.4 A worked budget line

Suppose Socks has \(M = 24\) credits, cake costs \(P_X = 4\), and everything else costs \(P_Y = 1\). Using Step 3, the budget line is \(Y = 24 - 4X\). Let us tabulate the whole affordable frontier.

Simplified example: Socks's budget line at \(M=24\), \(P_X=4\), \(P_Y=1\).

Every row spends exactly 24 credits — that is what "on the budget line" means. The horizontal intercept, \(M/P_X = 24/4 = 6\), is the most cake he could possibly buy. The vertical intercept, \(M/P_Y = 24/1 = 24\), is the most "everything else." And between them, the line falls at slope \(-4\).

4. Putting Wants and Means Together: Utility Maximization

Now we lay the utility hill and the budget line on the same map. Socks wants to climb as high up the hill of utility as he can — but he is chained to the budget line. He can only pick bundles on the line (spend everything) and he wants the one that sits highest.

4.1 Indifference curves: the hill seen from above

Because a three-dimensional hill is hard to draw, economists slice it horizontally and look from above, exactly like elevation lines on Socks's navigation charts. Each indifference curve connects all bundles of cake and everything-else that give Socks the same total utility — he is indifferent among them. Curves farther from the origin are higher up the hill: more of both goods, more satisfaction. Socks wants the highest indifference curve he can still afford. This apparatus is Hicks's ordinal reworking of consumer theory ^[3].

4.2 The tangency condition

The highest affordable indifference curve just touches — is tangent to — the budget line at exactly one point. At that tangency, the slope of the indifference curve equals the slope of the budget line. The slope of the indifference curve is the marginal rate of substitution, the rate at which Socks is willing to trade everything-else for cake while staying equally happy:

And the slope of the budget line is the relative price the market demands, Eq. 3. Setting the willingness-to-trade equal to the must-trade gives the tangency condition for utility maximization:

4.3 The equimarginal principle: the same idea, more usable

Cross-multiply the tangency condition Eq. 5 and you get the form you will actually compute with, the equimarginal principle:

Read it as: "utility per credit must be equal across all goods." The last credit spent on cake must buy exactly as much extra satisfaction as the last credit spent on everything else. If cake gave more utils-per-credit, Socks should shift a credit toward cake; that very shift, thanks to diminishing marginal utility, lowers cake's \(MU\) and raises the other good's \(MU\) until they balance. The optimum is where no reshuffle helps.

4.4 A worked utility-maximization

Simplified example: Socks chooses cake (X, \(P_X=4\)) and everything else (Y, \(P_Y=1\)), income \(M=24\). Marginal utilities:

Spend credit by credit on whichever column offers more utility-per-credit, until the 24 credits are gone. Buying 3 slices of cake (\(3\times4 = 12\) credits) and 12 units of everything else (\(12\times1=12\) credits) exhausts income, and at that bundle \(MU_X/P_X = 12 = MU_Y/P_Y\). The equimarginal condition Eq. 6 holds: this is the optimum.

At this optimum the third slice of cake yields \(48/4 = 12\) utils per credit and the twelfth unit of everything-else yields \(12/1 = 12\) utils per credit — equal, so Socks cannot do better. He buys 3 slices of cake. Hold that number. We are about to change the price and watch it move.

5. Deriving Demand: The Bridge Petunia Wanted

Here is the payoff. Petunia asked for a bridge from utility to demand. We build it by doing one thing over and over: change the price of cake, re-solve for the best bundle, and record how much cake he buys. Each price gives one point on the demand curve. This price-consumption derivation is the standard construction in Hicks's theory of ordinal choice ^[3], and it is the heart of the episode.

5.1 Rotating the budget line

When the price of cake \(P_X\) changes, the budget line rotates. Look again at the intercepts. The vertical intercept \(M/P_Y\) does not move (income and \(P_Y\) unchanged). But the horizontal intercept \(M/P_X\) does move, because \(P_X\) is in the denominator. Cheaper cake pushes the horizontal intercept out (Socks can afford more cake); pricier cake pulls it in. The line pivots on its fixed vertical intercept. And because the slope is \(-P_X/P_Y\), a change in \(P_X\) is precisely a change in the steepness of the line.

5.2 Three prices, three best bundles

Keep \(M=24\), \(P_Y=1\), and let cake's price take three values. At each price we solve for the utility-maximizing cake quantity (using the equimarginal logic of Section 4).

Simplified example: how Socks's chosen cake quantity responds to price.

Read the last column against the first. As price falls from 6 to 4 to 2, the quantity Socks chooses rises from 2 to 3 to 5. That inverse relationship — higher price, less cake; lower price, more cake — is the law of demand, and it fell out of utility maximization automatically. We never assumed it; we derived it.

5.3 The two-panel logic

Picture two graphs stacked, sharing the horizontal cake axis. Top panel: the utility hill with three budget lines of different steepness. When the price of cake rises relative to everything else, the budget line rotates inward (steeper), and each such line is tangent to a lower indifference curve at a different optimal cake quantity. Bottom panel: for each of those best bundles, we read off the price that produced it and the utility-maximizing cake quantity — plotting price against chosen cake gives the demand curve. The top panel speaks the invisible language of utils; the bottom panel speaks the visible language of price and quantity. Below are the two panels, one on top of the other.

First, the top panel. As \(P_X\) rises from 2 to 4 to 6, the budget line rotates inward around the fixed vertical intercept at \(Y=24\), and each budget line is tangent to an indifference curve at the optimal bundle. The three optima are the coordinates \((X^*, Y^*)\): at \(P_X=2\), the bundle \((5, 14)\); at \(P_X=4\), the bundle \((3, 12)\); at \(P_X=6\), the bundle \((2, 12)\). (Each bundle spends the full 24 credits: e.g. \(2\cdot5 + 1\cdot14 = 24\).)

Simplified example — top panel: three budget lines and their tangency bundles.

Now, the bottom panel, sharing the same horizontal cake axis. For each optimum above, we plot the price of cake against the utility-maximizing quantity \(X^*\). Dropping a vertical line from each top-panel optimum down to its price yields one point of the demand curve; connecting the points gives Socks's demand for cake.

Simplified example — bottom panel: derived demand for cake.

6. Substitution and Income Effects: Anatomy of the Rotation

When cake gets cheaper and Socks buys more, why exactly does he buy more? The rotation of the budget line bundles two distinct forces, and separating them is one of the sharpest tools in the consumer-theory kit — and, as Petunia would remind you, exactly the kind of decomposition her cousin Vilfredo loved.

6.1 The substitution effect

The substitution effect is the change in cake bought that comes purely from cake becoming relatively cheaper, holding satisfaction constant. Even if we magically stripped away any change in Socks's real wealth, he would still tilt toward cake simply because its exchange rate against everything-else improved — the slope \(-P_X/P_Y\) got flatter. The substitution effect always pushes consumption of a good up when its price falls. It is the reliable workhorse behind the law of demand.

6.2 The income effect

The income effect is the change in cake bought that comes from the price drop making Socks effectively richer — his same 24 credits now command more total stuff. For a normal good, being richer means buying more, so the income effect reinforces the substitution effect. For an inferior good, being richer means buying less, so the income effect works against it. Cake is a treat; for Socks it is emphatically normal, so both effects point the same way and demand slopes firmly downward.

6.3 Why the decomposition matters for elasticity

The relative strength of these effects, and the curvature of Socks's utility, determine how responsive his cake-buying is to price — which is exactly what price elasticity of demand measures. If Socks's indifference curves are gently bowed (cake and everything-else are easy substitutes), a small price cut triggers a big jump in cake: elastic demand. If cake is nearly a necessity to him — a flat, insistent craving — even a big price cut barely moves quantity: inelastic demand. We are foreshadowing here, but the seed is planted: the shape of utility determines the shape of demand determines the elasticity.

7. Different Shapes of Utility, Different Elasticities

The episode asked us to foreshadow elasticity, and this is the natural place. The abstract lesson is that the curvature of the utility hill controls how demand responds to price. Let us make that concrete without leaving the cake.

7.1 Elasticity in one breath

Price elasticity of demand measures how much quantity demanded responds to a price change, as a ratio of percentage changes. Demand is elastic when a 1% price change causes more than a 1% quantity change (buyers are very responsive), inelastic when it causes less than 1% (buyers barely budge), and unit elastic right at the border. The number falls straight out of the demand curve we just derived — it is a property of how fast \(X^*\) moves as price moves.

7.2 Computing an elasticity from Socks's demand

Use the midpoint (arc) method between two of our derived points so the answer does not depend on direction. Between (\(P=4, X=3\)) and (\(P=2, X=5\)):

Quantity rose by 2 on an average base of 4, a 50% increase. Price fell by 2 on an average base of 3, a 66.7% decrease.

The elasticity is the ratio: \(0.50 / 0.667 \approx 0.75\) in absolute value. Because \(0.75 < 1\), Socks's cake demand over this range is inelastic — he really does love that oat-y Naebobbian cake, so even a big price cut only moderately raises how much he buys. A different goat, with flatter indifference curves and easy substitutes, would have shown a number above 1.

7.3 The foreshadowing, made explicit

Hold two goats side by side. Socks, the cake devotee, has steeply curved utility toward cake — his demand is steep and inelastic. Stella, who would happily eat grass instead, has gently curved utility — her demand is flat and elastic. Same market price, same budget algebra, wildly different responsiveness, all because the shape of the utility hill differs. When we study elasticity formally, remember it was born here, in the curvature of Section 2's utility table.

8. Chocolate in the Real World: Scarcity, Price, and Data

Petunia's bridge was built on imaginary utils, but the destination — price and quantity — is gloriously real. The crew's whole quest is premised on chocolate being scarce, and scarcity is what makes a price high. Let us leave Naebob for a moment and look at Earth's own chocolate prices, drawn from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' average retail price series carried by the Federal Reserve.

8.1 Reading real chocolate-chip-cookie prices

The BLS series APU0000702421 records the U.S. city average retail price of chocolate chip cookies (dollars per pound). Here are exact monthly values from the reviewed data.

Table 8.1 — U.S. average retail price of chocolate chip cookies, selected months (USD per pound) ^[4].

Notice these are observed market prices, not utils. Somewhere behind each number is a whole galaxy of consumers running the equimarginal logic of Section 4, and a whole industry of bakers running cost calculations — and where those meet, X marks the spot, and a price appears. That is the point of the entire bridge: utils are private and invisible; this price column is public and recorded monthly.

8.2 Scarcity shows up as price

When cacao harvests fail — drought, disease, or the two-planet bottleneck of the Naebobbian galaxy — supply falls and, along an unchanged demand curve, the price rises. When cacao is abundant, price falls. Every wiggle in that real cookie-price series is the market re-solving for the point where buyers' willingness to pay (rooted in utility) meets sellers' willingness to sell (rooted in cost). The high price of Naebobbian cake is not villainy; it is scarcity, honestly reported by a number.

Between the October 1993 low of $2.325 and the April 1996 value of $2.754, the retail price of chocolate chip cookies rose about 18.4% ^[4] — the kind of move a scarcity of cacao, higher costs, or stronger demand can produce.

8.3 Utility explains willingness to pay; cost explains willingness to sell

Our whole lecture built the demand side — how utility and budgets generate a downward-sloping demand curve. The real price series reminds us there is a supply side too, rooted in the cost of growing cacao and baking cake. The market price is where the two meet. In later episodes the crew will chase that meeting point directly — where X marks the spot — but you now own half the map: you can derive, from pure preference and a budget line, exactly how much cake a consumer will buy at every price.

{"title":"Petunia's finished bridge","placement":"Section 8.3, closing image of the lecture","prompt":"A dramatic two-tier bridge diagram: the upper tier is a glowing 'utility hill' with a small goat at its tangency point on a budget line; a vertical support column drops down to the lower tier, which is a stone bridge labeled with a downward-sloping demand curve and a price tag. A young inventor character (Petunia Pareto) stands on the bridge holding a glowing stylus, looking satisfied. Dystopian-civic educational aesthetic, muted dark palette, no real brand logos. Exclude pirates-as-marauders imagery, sentient cars, and racing references.","alt_text":"An illustration of a two-tier bridge: the top tier shows a utility hill with a goat at a budget-line tangency, and a support column drops to a lower tier showing a downward-sloping demand curve with a price tag, symbolizing the derivation of demand from utility.","caption":"Petunia's bridge, complete: from the invisible utility hill above to the observable price-quantity demand curve below.","character_slugs":[]}

Key Takeaways

• Utility is unobservable, but demand is observable — the entire project of consumer theory is a chain of translations from private feeling to public price and quantity.
• Diminishing marginal utility (rising total utility, falling marginal utility) is the engine that ultimately makes demand slope downward.
• The budget constraint \(P_X X + P_Y Y = M\) becomes a graphable line in slope-intercept form \(Y = \frac{M}{P_Y} - \frac{P_X}{P_Y}X\); its slope \(-P_X/P_Y\) is the relative price and the opportunity cost of cake.
• Utility maximization occurs where the highest affordable indifference curve is tangent to the budget line, i.e. where \(MU_X/P_X = MU_Y/P_Y\) — the equimarginal principle.
• Demand is derived by changing \(P_X\), which rotates the budget line, re-solving for the best bundle, and plotting each price against the chosen quantity; the inverse relationship falls out of the model rather than being assumed.
• A price change is a change in quantity demanded (movement along the curve), decomposable into a substitution effect and an income effect — not a change in demand.
• The curvature of utility drives price elasticity of demand: steeply curved (necessity-like) preferences give steep, inelastic demand; gently curved preferences give flat, elastic demand.

Check Yourself

Discussion Questions

1. The Hypno Hippo grew powerful by giving away "free" content that hijacked attention. Using the equimarginal principle and the idea of opportunity cost, explain what a zombified TokPod user fails to compute — and why an honest price for that content would break the Hippo's hold. Is "free" ever really free?
2. Socks's cake demand turned out to be inelastic because he adores the oat-y Naebobbian flavor, while Stella's grass-substitutable demand would be elastic. Describe two goods in your own life — one with steeply curved (necessity-like) utility and one with gently curved (easy-substitute) utility — and predict how your demand for each would respond to a 20% price hike.
3. Petunia wanted a bridge from the invisible world of utility to the visible world of price and quantity. Walk through the two-panel derivation in your own words, and then argue: does the fact that we can derive a downward-sloping demand curve from utility maximization make the law of demand a discovery or merely a definition? What would it take to observe a violation?

Glossary

utility

The satisfaction or well-being a consumer derives from consuming goods and services.

utils

Hypothetical units used to quantify utility for analysis, even though satisfaction cannot literally be measured.

composite good

A single stand-in good representing all other spending, used to keep consumer choice analysis two-dimensional.

income

The total amount of money a consumer has available to spend across goods.

total utility

The overall satisfaction a consumer gains from all units of a good consumed.

marginal utility

The additional satisfaction from consuming one more unit of a good.

law of diminishing marginal utility

The principle that each additional unit of a good tends to add less extra satisfaction than the previous unit.

budget constraint

The combinations of goods a consumer can afford given prices and income, where total spending equals income.

slope-intercept form

Writing a linear relationship as vertical variable equals intercept plus slope times horizontal variable.

relative price

The price of one good expressed in units of another, equal to the ratio of their prices and the opportunity cost of one good in terms of the other.

indifference curve

A curve connecting all bundles of goods that give a consumer the same level of total utility.

marginal rate of substitution

The rate at which a consumer is willing to trade one good for another while remaining equally satisfied.

tangency condition

The utility-maximizing point where the highest affordable indifference curve just touches the budget line and their slopes are equal.

equimarginal principle

The rule that a consumer maximizes utility when the marginal utility per unit of money spent is equal across all goods.

substitution effect

The change in quantity demanded due to a good becoming relatively cheaper or more expensive, holding satisfaction constant.

income effect

The change in quantity demanded due to a price change altering a consumer's effective purchasing power.

normal good

A good for which demand rises when the consumer's real income rises.

inferior good

A good for which demand falls when the consumer's real income rises.

price elasticity of demand

A measure of how responsive quantity demanded is to a change in price, expressed as a ratio of percentage changes.

change in quantity demanded

A movement along a demand curve caused by a change in the good's own price.

change in demand

A shift of the entire demand curve caused by a non-price factor such as income, tastes, or the price of a related good.