<p>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.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-25T17:00:41.520Z
2017-03-25T17:00:41.520Z
Herr K.
<p>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?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-25T07:09:46.153Z
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.
Herr K.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-25T08:38:15.623Z
@HerrK perhaps you could post it as an answer?
Oliv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-25T17:13:00.263Z
@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.
Herr K.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-28T10:15:21.000Z
@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?
luchonacho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-28T14:43:14.380Z
@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.
Herr K.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-28T21:26:45.640Z
@luchonacho I believe your comment is uncalled for.  This question was written by a user that is new to economics and (obviously) new to the site.  If you disapprove of the question or how it was asked, gently explain to the OP on how to improve the question, instead of disrespecting them.
Mathematician
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-29T07:30:25.183Z
@Mathematician Not sure what you mean about the comment is uncalled for (it was directed to Herr K, not to OP). Regarding asking the OP to improve the question, that should have happened in Mar 25th. The OP got the answer already. S/he is clearly not interested in adding further information.
luchonacho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-29T11:47:42.563Z
@luchonacho My fear is that you may have been rude to the OP. In your original comment, you accused the OP of being lazy, without giving them the benefit of the doubt or how to best improve the question. I believe that was uncalled for. Also, as mentioned above, this thread is 6 months old. There was no need to revive this thread yesterday, since the point was moot, and there was definitely no reason to disrespect the OP.
Mathematician
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-29T12:04:38.333Z
@Mathematician Oh, I see. Maybe I should have not called the OP lazy (it is however a stark contrast with so many other new questions where the asker does elaborate on the problem). Notice that I did not revive this thread. The user Huzaifa Ali wrote yesterday two bad quality answers with are now deleted (apparently you need 2k rep to see them; see [here](https://imgur.com/a/O5Nm6)). I found pertinent to highlight to Herr K that giving away answers in comments and as answers make no difference.
luchonacho
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-09-29T13:05:06.407Z
@luchonacho Thank you for clarifying. Regardless of how this question compares to others, I believe that we should still treat all users will respect. I did not realize that someone else had already revived the thread. Perhaps a better way to address answers in comments vs answers as answers would be a Meta post and discussion there.
Mathematician
<microeconomics><public-economics><price>
price floor and price ceiling
vidya
# price floor and price ceiling

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-25)

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?

**Tags:** microeconomics, public-economics, price

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 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.  
> **username_2**: @HerrK perhaps you could post it as an answer?  
> **username_1**: @username_2: 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.  
> **username_3**: @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?  
> **username_1**: @username_3: As my comment to username_2 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.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 I believe your comment is uncalled for.  This question was written by a user that is new to economics and (obviously) new to the site.  If you disapprove of the question or how it was asked, gently explain to the OP on how to improve the question, instead of disrespecting them.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Not sure what you mean about the comment is uncalled for (it was directed to username_1, not to OP). Regarding asking the OP to improve the question, that should have happened in Mar 25th. The OP got the answer already. S/he is clearly not interested in adding further information.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 My fear is that you may have been rude to the OP. In your original comment, you accused the OP of being lazy, without giving them the benefit of the doubt or how to best improve the question. I believe that was uncalled for. Also, as mentioned above, this thread is 6 months old. There was no need to revive this thread yesterday, since the point was moot, and there was definitely no reason to disrespect the OP.  
> **username_3**: @username_4 Oh, I see. Maybe I should have not called the OP lazy (it is however a stark contrast with so many other new questions where the asker does elaborate on the problem). Notice that I did not revive this thread. The user Huzaifa Ali wrote yesterday two bad quality answers with are now deleted (apparently you need 2k rep to see them; see [here](https://imgur.com/a/O5Nm6)). I found pertinent to highlight to username_1 that giving away answers in comments and as answers make no difference.  
> **username_4**: @username_3 Thank you for clarifying. Regardless of how this question compares to others, I believe that we should still treat all users will respect. I did not realize that someone else had already revived the thread. Perhaps a better way to address answers in comments vs answers as answers would be a Meta post and discussion there.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-03-25. Score: 2

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.


---

