<p><strong>What is CS and PS out-of-equilibrium at <span class="math-container">$P=30$</span></strong>:</p>
<p>I think that answer to this question lies in misunderstanding the definition's of consumer and producer surplus.</p>
<p>The consumer and producer surplus are actually (following Mankiw Principles of Economics, 8<sup>th</sup>  ed, pp 135 and 140</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>consumer surplus</strong>:
the amount a buyer is
willing to pay for a good
minus the amount the
buyer actually pays for it</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>producer surplus</strong>
the amount a seller is
paid for a good minus the
seller’s cost of providing it [where Mankiw later in chapter explicitly states cost is here to be interpreted broadly as &quot;the value of everything
a seller must give up to
produce a good&quot;, including the opportunity cost (or more broadly s wilingness to sell)].</p>
</blockquote>
<p>You will note that the definitions above talk about price people pay (i.e. actual market price) not 'equilibrium price'. Some lecture notes or textbooks will include the word equilibrium in the definitions but that is only because virtually all analysis using Supply-Demand is an analysis of some equilibrium.</p>
<p>More rigorously, since the maximum willingness to buy is bounded by the demand curve and willingness to sell by supply curve we can define consumer surplus as the area below the demand curve and above price paid by consumers and</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$CS =  \int^{q_m}_0 D(q) dq − p_mq_m $$</span></p>
<p>where <span class="math-container">$D(q)$</span> is arbitrary demand curve, <span class="math-container">$p_m$</span> is price consumers have to pay in the market, and <span class="math-container">$q_m$</span> quantity sold at the market.</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$PS =  p_mq_m - \int^{q_m}_0 S(q) dq $$</span>
wher <span class="math-container">$S(q)$</span> is some arbitrary supply curve (also if we would want to be even more general we could allow <span class="math-container">$p$</span> to be different for suppliers and consumers e.g. situations with taxation where there would be wedge between price consumers pay and price per quantity suppliers get due to the tax wedge).</p>
<p>Yes, in some chapters or lecture notes the above formula will be defined in terms of equilibrium price but that is only because the market price/quantity is the equilibrium price/quantity in any equilibrium analysis (i.e. in equilibrium <span class="math-container">$p_e = p_m, q_m=q_e$</span>).
However, in an out-of-equilibrium analysis you have to use actual market prices (this would be equivalent of analyzing price floor or price celling (e.g. see Mankiw Principles of Microeconomics, 8<sup>th</sup>  ed, pp. 116).</p>
<p>Consequently, in your case the consumer and producer surplus can be <em>properly</em> visualized as shown on the tikz graph below I made:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ZDJXa.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ZDJXa.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>where the area of consumer surplus (out-of-equilibrium) at price <span class="math-container">$P_m=30$</span> is the blue shaded region below demand and above market price bounded by market quantity, and the producer surplus (out-of-equilibrium) at price <span class="math-container">$P_m=30$</span> is the red trapezoid (area under the market price and above supply bounded by market quantity).</p>
<p>We can also calculate the area of that trapezoid, although to do that we need to know what is the price at which <span class="math-container">$Q_S=0$</span> (or explicitly know what the supply and demand equations are). In your question you don't state what the  price at which supply is equals zero is but if you would provide it we could calculate it (also you seem to have made some mistake when copying down the problem as your demand does not lie on a line since it is given by points <span class="math-container">$(0,40);(15,30);(20,20)$</span> - which simply mathematically cannot lie on a single line - I originally planned to go all the way deriving the linear demand and supply equations based on the points but this mistake in problem set up makes it impossible ).</p>
<p><strong>Why is total welfare maximized in equilibrium?</strong></p>
<p>Well the reason for this is that under all the background assumptions of the stylized partial equilibrium model (e.g. no market failures and other 'shenanigans' that would affect PS and CS in way not shown in the partial equilibrium analysis here), the total combined area of PS and CS is maximized at the equilibrium price and quantity.</p>
<p>I won't be providing a rigorous proof of this as that would require a lot of calculus and this problem is long as it is, but I encourage you to take a look at proofs provided in MWG, Microeconomic analysis pp 328 or Varian, Microeconomic Analysis pp 224 if interested.</p>
<p>However, the reason why the welfare  be easily seen graphically by the following thought experiment: would the total surplus be larger if <span class="math-container">$P&gt;P_e$</span> or if <span class="math-container">$P&lt;P_e$</span>? The answer is no as you can see visualized in the two figures below. As in both figures below the total surplus area will always fit within the big triangle given by area below demand and above supply clearly the total welfare is in both situations lower than the total welfare in a situation where <span class="math-container">$P_m=P_e$</span>.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/8aeMB.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/8aeMB.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>PS:</strong> An important caveat to note is that the above applies when you want to analyze what would be the total welfare outside equilibrium vs the welfare in equilibrium. If you want to compare two situations which are both equilibrium e.g. supply shifts to the right due to technological progress, you have to compare the total welfare in the market in the old equilibrium vs the new one. You should not confuse such situations with market not being in equilibrium.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T18:28:44.673Z
2020-10-31T20:19:24.687Z
2020-10-31T20:19:24.687Z
1muflon1
<p>I see a lot of these posts are very complete, and I think a more direct answer might be beneficial here.</p>
<p>The supply curve represents the amount that producers are willing and able to sell at.
Producer surplus is the space between the existing price and the supply curve.</p>
<p>The demand represents the amount that buyers are willing and able to buy at.
Consumer surplus is the space between the existing price and the demand curve.</p>
<p>The CS and PS are bound to be below the observed Q (that's to the left!), since no one receives anything for units that have not been exchanged in the market. They also must stay above 0 also.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T20:13:39.967Z
2020-11-01T02:33:53.080Z
2020-11-01T02:33:53.080Z
RegressForward
<p>This four page reference shows how producer surplus is defined and calculated using integral calculus:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.math.ubc.ca/%7Emalabika/teaching/ubc/spring11/math105/surplus.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.math.ubc.ca/~malabika/teaching/ubc/spring11/math105/surplus.pdf</a></p>
<p>As quantity increases from q = 0 to q = qe (equilibrium quantity) the price rises at each point on the supply curve S(q).</p>
<p>The equilibrium point (pe, qe) is taken independently by finding the intersection supply curve S(q) and demand curve D(q).</p>
<p>The producer surplus is defined as the area in the rectangle pe x qe minus the area under the rising supply curve AS(q) as quantity goes up from q = 0 to q = qe. When you get to qe you stop doing the calculation so there is no meaning associated with data points to the right of the equilibrium point with respect to producer surplus definition.</p>
<p>I don't know why the terms consumer surplus and producer surplus are used in this context. In a counterfactual world the limits of the calculation might be less than or greater than the equilibrium point, and then consumers would spend less or spend more, and producers would sell less or sell more, but in those counterfactual models one must move the supply and demand curves to a different point of intersection to recognize sales at the same supply and demand price.</p>
<p>In reality goods sell at price times quantity. If the producer drives down the price sufficiently consumers tend to buy in greater quantity. Early adopters of high definition TV or electric cars are willing to pay more so sales occur at higher prices and lower quantities. Producers use the learning curve and invest in fixed costs to drive down prices and increases quantities produced, and demand goes up as prices come down over time. All during this process the supply and demand curves are moving around and do not represent a static calculus solution.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T13:57:39.237Z
the second part of this A is incorrect and the first half is misleading at the best. Consumer and producer surplus are not necessarily defined by equilibrium price -  only when we are doing analysis where market is at an equilibrium they are defined in that way (you can see this explained in any undergraduate 101 economics textbook for example Principles of Economics by Mankiw). Second, it is completely valid to make this sort of analysis without any movements of supply and demand - in fact this is how effects of price roofs/floors are analyzed in any 101 textbook
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T14:26:58.860Z
When innovators introduce new goods, such as electric cars or high definition televisions, the initial price of goods is relatively high and the initial quantity sold is relatively low. Does the 101 textbook model map these actual sales data to points on a supply and demand curve that is static at the time of such sales? Or is the supply and demand curves dynamic such that supply intersects demand at every price where an actual sale occurs? So don't the calculations for consumer and producer surplus change over time as conditions change in the actual market where transactions are data points?
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T14:34:29.437Z
A situation where there is  a new good that is scarce (or limited because supplier is monopolist due to patent etc) would not be out of equilibrium situation. That would have its own equilibrium price and quantity here the question specifically asks about how to calculate consumer/producer surplus when price is not in the equilibrium, the question does not ask what is the CS and PS in a particular equilibrium with new products. It is actually completely valid to do such out of equilibrium analysis and it is done when evaluation some policies
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T14:34:33.700Z
- hence the answer above is incorrect or if you want it could be said it is answer to some another Q not question given here. Here the author of the question is literary stating in the first paragraph: **"I'm trying to understand why the total surplus is maximized at the equilibrium and what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium."**
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T14:50:29.247Z
If the price changes in a market transaction then I would take that as a new equilibrium price which invalidates my model of the equilibrium point causing me do draw either another supply curve, or another demand curve, or another supply and demand curve to account for the new data point. If the change in stated price results in no sales then I would infer that there is no demand at that stated price. If it results in sales I would then know the quantity demanded at that price and this would be a new equilibrium model.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T14:53:38.007Z
again what you describe above is an equilibrium analysis. Again here the user posing question is literary stating that **I'm trying to understand ... what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium."** I honestly don't understand why you stubbornly insist on equilibrium analysis when the user is explicitly asking for out of equilibrium analysis. Of course, when market conditions change market equilibrium changes but here the author is explicitly telling you that they are looking for A about out of equilibrium price - not some new equilibrium.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:03:02.300Z
If the market transaction price changes then one must draw a new supply curve, or a new demand curve, or both a new supply and a new demand curve, and one must then perform another economics 101 calculus exercise to find producer surplus and/or consumer surplus. That is the effect of an actual price change in the market. By definition there cannot be a market transaction away from the equilibrium price so the question should be rejected if the change in price does not refer to a change in price evidenced by sales in a market.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:07:15.837Z
"If the market transaction price changes then one must draw a new supply curve," - this is completely incorrect statement. That is not true at all when you are doing out of equilibrium analysis. Again this statement is completely incorrect: "and one must then perform another economics 101 calculus exercise to find producer surplus and/or consumer surplus." Any chapter on price floors/callings will regularly do such calculation without changing supply/demand curve. I mean this is blatantly false and I dont understand why you are making such statement when clearly almost all textbooks do that.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:09:16.283Z
"By definition there cannot be a market transaction away from the equilibrium price" - please be so kind and provide reputable textbook/paper as a source for this definition. Markets can be out of equilibrium, an out of equilibrium analysis is valid analysis even if its usually not used widely. Also if you would actually have a look at some textbook instead of defending indefensible you should see CS and PS are not even defined in terms of equilibrium price and quantity generally but only within special case of equilibrium analysis
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:18:12.343Z
"Basically, I'm trying to understand why the total surplus is maximized at the equilibrium and what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium." So the equilibrium price is in fact a counterfactual model if transactions occur away from that stated price. This validates what I said in my answer.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:23:06.127Z
1. here the counterfactual to what happens at the equilibrium is not another equilibrium but what happens out of equilibrium. 2. If the user would follow your answer they would get zero at an exam because in this case there is actually a correct answer what a CS and PS would be out of equilibrium (in fact this is a common homework problem and the PS and CS can be easily calculated), I originally did not wanted to answer this Q precisely because here we require more effort put into questions that are homework-esqe but I will do that just to prove that this is incorrect.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:32:24.673Z
I am not interested in whether economic 101 students can solve calculus problems to the satisfaction of their mentors. I am interested in the reasoning from facts that we call "data" and in the construction of counterfactual models. So I look forward to learning something from your answer if it involves more than mere solution for areas under a curve via calculus.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:42:18.333Z
1. This question is about stylized model. If someone asks question suppose that on a market for apples demand is given $D=100-p$ and supply by $S=p+10$ what is eq. price  then it is simply inappropriate to answer - well in reality supply and demand curves for apples  are not linear so lets forget about your problem and let's  discuss more realistic supply and demand curves. If you are not interested in these questions then ignore them instead of providing incorrect answers to them.  In the problem mentioned in this comment the answer would be $p^*=45$.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-31T15:42:22.880Z
Answering $p^*=70$ based on some more realistic demand curve is simply incorrect answer (or if you must, provide correct answer and then add a closing paragraph stating the problem is unrealistic). 2. Even if you would be interested only in reality, your definitions of CS and PS are simply not generally valid and neither is assertion that CS and PS cannot be calculated here. Nor the assertions that out-of-equilibrium analysis is impossible and we always have to change demand and supply (again that would be correct within the equilibrium but out of equilibrium thought experiments are valid).
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-30T17:34:29.290Z
2020-09-30T20:20:22.350Z
2020-09-30T20:20:22.350Z
SystemTheory
<p>Basically, I'm trying to understand why the total surplus is maximized at the equilibrium and what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium. </p>

<p>Say the price of a good is the equilibrium price. Now make it more expensive. I know that after a while the price will adjust to the equilibrium again, but what will happen before that? I'm trying to use an example but there are things I can't fill in:</p>

<p>The equilibrium price of the good is \$20 and the equilibrium quantity is 20. Given a straight demand and supply curve and a maximum buyer's imposed value of \$40, the consumer surplus is $\frac{1}{2}(40-20)\cdot20=200$ and the producer surplus is $\frac{1}{2}(20-0)\cdot20=200$.</p>

<p>Now make the good \$30. The quantity demanded falls to 15 and the quantity supplied rises to 25. Now, the consumer's surplus is the triangle I marked in blue, $\frac{1}{2}(40-30)\cdot15=75$ (because only 15 items will be sold), but what about the producer's surplus? Is this the triangle I marked in red? I think not, because that seems to imply that the price is only \$10. But if not, what <em>is</em> the producer's surplus, and why?</p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/3mte9.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/3mte9.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>Thanks in advance and my apologies for the possibly confusing phrasing.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-18T09:38:21.270Z
This question boils down to "what is producer's surplus?" which, without the homework element is a much better question in my opinion.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-18T11:12:50.837Z
Maybe you could think about who ends up with the rectangular chunk between p=10 and p=30.
Dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-18T11:20:33.897Z
@Dan I don't really know. If the price rise were due to a tax, that area would be the tax revenue, but I don't know what the area means when there is just a price change not due to taxes.
Sudera
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-18T11:26:48.837Z
@Sudera It seems like you're close.  If the price rise were due to a tax, that chunk of money would go to the government.  If it's just because the producer put the price up, where does that money go to?
Dan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-18T11:45:30.070Z
@Dan Oh I guess it just goes to the producer then. Thanks for your help!
Sudera
<microeconomics><supply-and-demand><price><consumer-surplus><producer-surplus>
What are the (immediate) effects of changing a good's price on consumer and producer surplus?
Sudera
# What are the (immediate) effects of changing a good's price on consumer and producer surplus?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-18)

Basically, I'm trying to understand why the total surplus is maximized at the equilibrium and what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium.

Say the price of a good is the equilibrium price. Now make it more expensive. I know that after a while the price will adjust to the equilibrium again, but what will happen before that? I'm trying to use an example but there are things I can't fill in:

The equilibrium price of the good is \$20 and the equilibrium quantity is 20. Given a straight demand and supply curve and a maximum buyer's imposed value of \$40, the consumer surplus is $\frac{1}{2}(40-20)\cdot20=200$ and the producer surplus is $\frac{1}{2}(20-0)\cdot20=200$.

Now make the good \$30. The quantity demanded falls to 15 and the quantity supplied rises to 25. Now, the consumer's surplus is the triangle I marked in blue, $\frac{1}{2}(40-30)\cdot15=75$ (because only 15 items will be sold), but what about the producer's surplus? Is this the triangle I marked in red? I think not, because that seems to imply that the price is only \$10. But if not, what *is* the producer's surplus, and why?

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/3mte9.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/3mte9.jpg)

Thanks in advance and my apologies for the possibly confusing phrasing.

**Tags:** microeconomics, supply-and-demand, price, consumer-surplus, producer-surplus

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question boils down to "what is producer's surplus?" which, without the homework element is a much better question in my opinion.  
> **username_2**: Maybe you could think about who ends up with the rectangular chunk between p=10 and p=30.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I don't really know. If the price rise were due to a tax, that area would be the tax revenue, but I don't know what the area means when there is just a price change not due to taxes.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 It seems like you're close.  If the price rise were due to a tax, that chunk of money would go to the government.  If it's just because the producer put the price up, where does that money go to?  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Oh I guess it just goes to the producer then. Thanks for your help!  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-10-31. Score: 2

**What is CS and PS out-of-equilibrium at $P=30$**:

I think that answer to this question lies in misunderstanding the definition's of consumer and producer surplus.

The consumer and producer surplus are actually (following Mankiw Principles of Economics, 8th ed, pp 135 and 140

> **consumer surplus**:
> the amount a buyer is
> willing to pay for a good
> minus the amount the
> buyer actually pays for it

> **producer surplus**
> the amount a seller is
> paid for a good minus the
> seller’s cost of providing it [where Mankiw later in chapter explicitly states cost is here to be interpreted broadly as "the value of everything
> a seller must give up to
> produce a good", including the opportunity cost (or more broadly s wilingness to sell)].

You will note that the definitions above talk about price people pay (i.e. actual market price) not 'equilibrium price'. Some lecture notes or textbooks will include the word equilibrium in the definitions but that is only because virtually all analysis using Supply-Demand is an analysis of some equilibrium.

More rigorously, since the maximum willingness to buy is bounded by the demand curve and willingness to sell by supply curve we can define consumer surplus as the area below the demand curve and above price paid by consumers and

$$CS = \int^{q\_m}\_0 D(q) dq − p\_mq\_m $$

where $D(q)$ is arbitrary demand curve, $p\_m$ is price consumers have to pay in the market, and $q\_m$ quantity sold at the market.

$$PS = p\_mq\_m - \int^{q\_m}\_0 S(q) dq $$
wher $S(q)$ is some arbitrary supply curve (also if we would want to be even more general we could allow $p$ to be different for suppliers and consumers e.g. situations with taxation where there would be wedge between price consumers pay and price per quantity suppliers get due to the tax wedge).

Yes, in some chapters or lecture notes the above formula will be defined in terms of equilibrium price but that is only because the market price/quantity is the equilibrium price/quantity in any equilibrium analysis (i.e. in equilibrium $p\_e = p\_m, q\_m=q\_e$).
However, in an out-of-equilibrium analysis you have to use actual market prices (this would be equivalent of analyzing price floor or price celling (e.g. see Mankiw Principles of Microeconomics, 8th ed, pp. 116).

Consequently, in your case the consumer and producer surplus can be *properly* visualized as shown on the tikz graph below I made:

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ZDJXa.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ZDJXa.png)

where the area of consumer surplus (out-of-equilibrium) at price $P\_m=30$ is the blue shaded region below demand and above market price bounded by market quantity, and the producer surplus (out-of-equilibrium) at price $P\_m=30$ is the red trapezoid (area under the market price and above supply bounded by market quantity).

We can also calculate the area of that trapezoid, although to do that we need to know what is the price at which $Q\_S=0$ (or explicitly know what the supply and demand equations are). In your question you don't state what the price at which supply is equals zero is but if you would provide it we could calculate it (also you seem to have made some mistake when copying down the problem as your demand does not lie on a line since it is given by points $(0,40);(15,30);(20,20)$ - which simply mathematically cannot lie on a single line - I originally planned to go all the way deriving the linear demand and supply equations based on the points but this mistake in problem set up makes it impossible ).

**Why is total welfare maximized in equilibrium?**

Well the reason for this is that under all the background assumptions of the stylized partial equilibrium model (e.g. no market failures and other 'shenanigans' that would affect PS and CS in way not shown in the partial equilibrium analysis here), the total combined area of PS and CS is maximized at the equilibrium price and quantity.

I won't be providing a rigorous proof of this as that would require a lot of calculus and this problem is long as it is, but I encourage you to take a look at proofs provided in MWG, Microeconomic analysis pp 328 or Varian, Microeconomic Analysis pp 224 if interested.

However, the reason why the welfare be easily seen graphically by the following thought experiment: would the total surplus be larger if $P>P\_e$ or if $P? The answer is no as you can see visualized in the two figures below. As in both figures below the total surplus area will always fit within the big triangle given by area below demand and above supply clearly the total welfare is in both situations lower than the total welfare in a situation where $P\_m=P\_e$.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/8aeMB.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/8aeMB.png)

---

**PS:** An important caveat to note is that the above applies when you want to analyze what would be the total welfare outside equilibrium vs the welfare in equilibrium. If you want to compare two situations which are both equilibrium e.g. supply shifts to the right due to technological progress, you have to compare the total welfare in the market in the old equilibrium vs the new one. You should not confuse such situations with market not being in equilibrium.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-10-31. Score: 1

I see a lot of these posts are very complete, and I think a more direct answer might be beneficial here.

The supply curve represents the amount that producers are willing and able to sell at.
Producer surplus is the space between the existing price and the supply curve.

The demand represents the amount that buyers are willing and able to buy at.
Consumer surplus is the space between the existing price and the demand curve.

The CS and PS are bound to be below the observed Q (that's to the left!), since no one receives anything for units that have not been exchanged in the market. They also must stay above 0 also.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2020-09-30. Score: -2

This four page reference shows how producer surplus is defined and calculated using integral calculus:

[https://www.math.ubc.ca/~malabika/teaching/ubc/spring11/math105/surplus.pdf](https://www.math.ubc.ca/%7Emalabika/teaching/ubc/spring11/math105/surplus.pdf)

As quantity increases from q = 0 to q = qe (equilibrium quantity) the price rises at each point on the supply curve S(q).

The equilibrium point (pe, qe) is taken independently by finding the intersection supply curve S(q) and demand curve D(q).

The producer surplus is defined as the area in the rectangle pe x qe minus the area under the rising supply curve AS(q) as quantity goes up from q = 0 to q = qe. When you get to qe you stop doing the calculation so there is no meaning associated with data points to the right of the equilibrium point with respect to producer surplus definition.

I don't know why the terms consumer surplus and producer surplus are used in this context. In a counterfactual world the limits of the calculation might be less than or greater than the equilibrium point, and then consumers would spend less or spend more, and producers would sell less or sell more, but in those counterfactual models one must move the supply and demand curves to a different point of intersection to recognize sales at the same supply and demand price.

In reality goods sell at price times quantity. If the producer drives down the price sufficiently consumers tend to buy in greater quantity. Early adopters of high definition TV or electric cars are willing to pay more so sales occur at higher prices and lower quantities. Producers use the learning curve and invest in fixed costs to drive down prices and increases quantities produced, and demand goes up as prices come down over time. All during this process the supply and demand curves are moving around and do not represent a static calculus solution.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: the second part of this A is incorrect and the first half is misleading at the best. Consumer and producer surplus are not necessarily defined by equilibrium price -  only when we are doing analysis where market is at an equilibrium they are defined in that way (you can see this explained in any undergraduate 101 economics textbook for example Principles of Economics by Mankiw). Second, it is completely valid to make this sort of analysis without any movements of supply and demand - in fact this is how effects of price roofs/floors are analyzed in any 101 textbook  
> **username_5**: When innovators introduce new goods, such as electric cars or high definition televisions, the initial price of goods is relatively high and the initial quantity sold is relatively low. Does the 101 textbook model map these actual sales data to points on a supply and demand curve that is static at the time of such sales? Or is the supply and demand curves dynamic such that supply intersects demand at every price where an actual sale occurs? So don't the calculations for consumer and producer surplus change over time as conditions change in the actual market where transactions are data points?  
> **username_3**: A situation where there is  a new good that is scarce (or limited because supplier is monopolist due to patent etc) would not be out of equilibrium situation. That would have its own equilibrium price and quantity here the question specifically asks about how to calculate consumer/producer surplus when price is not in the equilibrium, the question does not ask what is the CS and PS in a particular equilibrium with new products. It is actually completely valid to do such out of equilibrium analysis and it is done when evaluation some policies  
> **username_3**: - hence the answer above is incorrect or if you want it could be said it is answer to some another Q not question given here. Here the author of the question is literary stating in the first paragraph: **"I'm trying to understand why the total surplus is maximized at the equilibrium and what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium."**  
> **username_5**: If the price changes in a market transaction then I would take that as a new equilibrium price which invalidates my model of the equilibrium point causing me do draw either another supply curve, or another demand curve, or another supply and demand curve to account for the new data point. If the change in stated price results in no sales then I would infer that there is no demand at that stated price. If it results in sales I would then know the quantity demanded at that price and this would be a new equilibrium model.  
> **username_3**: again what you describe above is an equilibrium analysis. Again here the user posing question is literary stating that **I'm trying to understand ... what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium."** I honestly don't understand why you stubbornly insist on equilibrium analysis when the user is explicitly asking for out of equilibrium analysis. Of course, when market conditions change market equilibrium changes but here the author is explicitly telling you that they are looking for A about out of equilibrium price - not some new equilibrium.  
> **username_5**: If the market transaction price changes then one must draw a new supply curve, or a new demand curve, or both a new supply and a new demand curve, and one must then perform another economics 101 calculus exercise to find producer surplus and/or consumer surplus. That is the effect of an actual price change in the market. By definition there cannot be a market transaction away from the equilibrium price so the question should be rejected if the change in price does not refer to a change in price evidenced by sales in a market.  
> **username_3**: "If the market transaction price changes then one must draw a new supply curve," - this is completely incorrect statement. That is not true at all when you are doing out of equilibrium analysis. Again this statement is completely incorrect: "and one must then perform another economics 101 calculus exercise to find producer surplus and/or consumer surplus." Any chapter on price floors/callings will regularly do such calculation without changing supply/demand curve. I mean this is blatantly false and I dont understand why you are making such statement when clearly almost all textbooks do that.  
> **username_3**: "By definition there cannot be a market transaction away from the equilibrium price" - please be so kind and provide reputable textbook/paper as a source for this definition. Markets can be out of equilibrium, an out of equilibrium analysis is valid analysis even if its usually not used widely. Also if you would actually have a look at some textbook instead of defending indefensible you should see CS and PS are not even defined in terms of equilibrium price and quantity generally but only within special case of equilibrium analysis  
> **username_5**: "Basically, I'm trying to understand why the total surplus is maximized at the equilibrium and what happens if the price isn't at the equilibrium." So the equilibrium price is in fact a counterfactual model if transactions occur away from that stated price. This validates what I said in my answer.  
> **username_3**: 1. here the counterfactual to what happens at the equilibrium is not another equilibrium but what happens out of equilibrium. 2. If the user would follow your answer they would get zero at an exam because in this case there is actually a correct answer what a CS and PS would be out of equilibrium (in fact this is a common homework problem and the PS and CS can be easily calculated), I originally did not wanted to answer this Q precisely because here we require more effort put into questions that are homework-esqe but I will do that just to prove that this is incorrect.  
> **username_5**: I am not interested in whether economic 101 students can solve calculus problems to the satisfaction of their mentors. I am interested in the reasoning from facts that we call "data" and in the construction of counterfactual models. So I look forward to learning something from your answer if it involves more than mere solution for areas under a curve via calculus.  
> **username_3**: 1. This question is about stylized model. If someone asks question suppose that on a market for apples demand is given $D=100-p$ and supply by $S=p+10$ what is eq. price  then it is simply inappropriate to answer - well in reality supply and demand curves for apples  are not linear so lets forget about your problem and let's  discuss more realistic supply and demand curves. If you are not interested in these questions then ignore them instead of providing incorrect answers to them.  In the problem mentioned in this comment the answer would be $p^*=45$.  
> **username_3**: Answering $p^*=70$ based on some more realistic demand curve is simply incorrect answer (or if you must, provide correct answer and then add a closing paragraph stating the problem is unrealistic). 2. Even if you would be interested only in reality, your definitions of CS and PS are simply not generally valid and neither is assertion that CS and PS cannot be calculated here. Nor the assertions that out-of-equilibrium analysis is impossible and we always have to change demand and supply (again that would be correct within the equilibrium but out of equilibrium thought experiments are valid).  

---

