-1
$\begingroup$

I am studying basics of economics. I don't understand why a maximum price should be set below equilibrium price and minimum should be above. shouldn't it be the other way round?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If the price ceiling is above equilibrium price, then the market would just settle for the equilibrium price, and the price ceiling would have no effect. Same thing for price floors: if the price floor is below equilibrium, then it'd have no effect. $\endgroup$ – Herr K. Mar 25 '17 at 7:09
  • $\begingroup$ @HerrK perhaps you could post it as an answer? $\endgroup$ – Oliv Mar 25 '17 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Oliv: Thanks. I wasn't sure whether I should answer this question since it is kind of Econ 101-ish, and will likely get closed as such. $\endgroup$ – Herr K. Mar 25 '17 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ @HerrK. What is the difference between providing an answer to a (likely) off-topic question in the comments versus in an actual answer? Are you not giving away the solution to the lazy OP in either case? $\endgroup$ – luchonacho Sep 28 '17 at 10:15
  • $\begingroup$ @luchonacho: As my comment to Oliv says, I wasn't sure if the question would be closed for being too basic; the consensus on closing intro-type questions was not as strong as it is now. I haven't answered many of such questions since. $\endgroup$ – Herr K. Sep 28 '17 at 14:43
2
$\begingroup$

If the price ceiling is above equilibrium price, then the market would just settle for the equilibrium price, and the price ceiling would have no effect. Same thing for price floors: if the price floor is below equilibrium, then it'd have no effect.

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.