The demand for toilet paper. On a short-term timescale there’ll be random peaks and troughs (or not so random ones due to people expecting a lockdown). But in the medium-term it’ll be constant, because of each person only needing a fairly constant amount of toilet paper. Although in the long-term there’ll be changes again due to a growing or shrinking population.
The amount of train delays per day in a city. Some days have more, e.g. because of some big event or a random accident, while other days have fewer. But on average over weeks or months it is roughly constant.
The amount of groceries in my fridge. I go shopping roughly once a week, so in between the amount steadily goes down and then jumps up again. There might be some irregularities due to eating out or being especially hungry, but over longer periods of time I mostly eat the same amount.
How the equilibrium gets restored in each direction:
If above equilibrium (people buying lots of toilet paper for a while) the demand will be lower afterwards. If below equilibrium they’ll run out eventually and the demand will tick up again.
If above equilibrium (a lot of delays) over a longer period of time, people might get upset and the operating company might try to improve scheduling, maintenance, number of trains etc. If below equilibrium, the operators might for example get complacent and stop putting in as much effort.
If above equilibrium (eaten a below average amount from my fridge and have a lot of groceries left at the end of the week), I’ll just buy less. If below equilibrium I’ll have to buy more when I go shopping, or maybe go more than once per week.
Lots of great economic examples here. #2 in particular makes some great points about incentives inducing an equilibrium, in ways that a lot of overly-simple economic models wouldn’t capture very well.
The demand for toilet paper. On a short-term timescale there’ll be random peaks and troughs (or not so random ones due to people expecting a lockdown). But in the medium-term it’ll be constant, because of each person only needing a fairly constant amount of toilet paper. Although in the long-term there’ll be changes again due to a growing or shrinking population.
The amount of train delays per day in a city. Some days have more, e.g. because of some big event or a random accident, while other days have fewer. But on average over weeks or months it is roughly constant.
The amount of groceries in my fridge. I go shopping roughly once a week, so in between the amount steadily goes down and then jumps up again. There might be some irregularities due to eating out or being especially hungry, but over longer periods of time I mostly eat the same amount.
How the equilibrium gets restored in each direction:
If above equilibrium (people buying lots of toilet paper for a while) the demand will be lower afterwards. If below equilibrium they’ll run out eventually and the demand will tick up again.
If above equilibrium (a lot of delays) over a longer period of time, people might get upset and the operating company might try to improve scheduling, maintenance, number of trains etc. If below equilibrium, the operators might for example get complacent and stop putting in as much effort.
If above equilibrium (eaten a below average amount from my fridge and have a lot of groceries left at the end of the week), I’ll just buy less. If below equilibrium I’ll have to buy more when I go shopping, or maybe go more than once per week.
I think my browser tab and social interaction examples on the post on stable equilibria fit in better here. They’re much more dynamic than stable.
Lots of great economic examples here. #2 in particular makes some great points about incentives inducing an equilibrium, in ways that a lot of overly-simple economic models wouldn’t capture very well.