<p><a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer_surplus.asp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Consumer surplus</a> is an economic measurement of consumer benefits. A consumer surplus happens when the price consumers pay for a product or service is less than the price they're willing to pay. It's a measure of the additional benefit that consumers receive because they're paying less for something than what they were willing to pay</p>
<p>From the same website, Investopedia has an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For example, suppose consumers are willing to pay 50 dollars for the first
unit of product A and 20 dollars for the 50th unit. If 50 of the units are
sold at $20 each, then 49 of the units were sold at a consumer
surplus, assuming the demand curve is constant.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>It is really strange for me, it should be that only the first unit is sold at a consumer surplus because the consumer is willing to pay for $20 for the last 49 units, similar to the sold price, only the price of the first unit is different.</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:34:48.793Z
(-1) The quoted text does not say that "*the consumer is willing to pay for $20 for the last 49 units, similar to the sold price, only the price of the first unit is different*". Or did you mean to write "could" instead of "should"?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:39:04.083Z
@Giskard . I think the quoted text said the same as my summary. "**If 50 of the units are sold at $20 each, then 49 of the units were sold at a consumer surplus**" means that all 50 units will be sold at 20 while the consumer is willing to buy 50 for the first item and 20 for the last 49 items
Phil Nguyen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:39:31.203Z
Please let me know if my explanation is incorrect
Phil Nguyen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:39:47.567Z
If you want to write \$20, you have to put a backslash before the dollar sign, so \\$.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:40:15.600Z
"*all 50 units will be sold at 20*" is correct, "*the consumer is willing to buy 50 for the first item and 20 for the last 49 items*" is incorrect, and I don't know where you get this interpretation.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:41:33.860Z
ahhh, I see, do you mean that the first 49 units will be sold at the consumer surplus?
Phil Nguyen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:42:06.763Z
I am afraid this is - once again - an issue with English language, not economics.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:46:27.583Z
P.s.: I generally dislike Investopedia, because it is not precise and confounds things. It is not a good source in my opinion. (It also accepts advertisments from rather dubious businesses.)
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-17T08:49:23.720Z
@Giskard Normally I am not allowed to cite Investopedia to my paper but sometimes it is a quick source to learn some new theories
Phil Nguyen
<consumer-surplus>
Curiousity about the accuracy of an example about consumer surplus
Phil Nguyen
# Curiousity about the accuracy of an example about consumer surplus

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-08-17)

[Consumer surplus](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/consumer_surplus.asp) is an economic measurement of consumer benefits. A consumer surplus happens when the price consumers pay for a product or service is less than the price they're willing to pay. It's a measure of the additional benefit that consumers receive because they're paying less for something than what they were willing to pay

From the same website, Investopedia has an example:

> For example, suppose consumers are willing to pay 50 dollars for the first
> unit of product A and 20 dollars for the 50th unit. If 50 of the units are
> sold at $20 each, then 49 of the units were sold at a consumer
> surplus, assuming the demand curve is constant.

**It is really strange for me, it should be that only the first unit is sold at a consumer surplus because the consumer is willing to pay for $20 for the last 49 units, similar to the sold price, only the price of the first unit is different.**

**Tags:** consumer-surplus

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: (-1) The quoted text does not say that "*the consumer is willing to pay for $20 for the last 49 units, similar to the sold price, only the price of the first unit is different*". Or did you mean to write "could" instead of "should"?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 . I think the quoted text said the same as my summary. "**If 50 of the units are sold at $20 each, then 49 of the units were sold at a consumer surplus**" means that all 50 units will be sold at 20 while the consumer is willing to buy 50 for the first item and 20 for the last 49 items  
> **username_0**: Please let me know if my explanation is incorrect  
> **username_1**: If you want to write \$20, you have to put a backslash before the dollar sign, so \\$.  
> **username_1**: "*all 50 units will be sold at 20*" is correct, "*the consumer is willing to buy 50 for the first item and 20 for the last 49 items*" is incorrect, and I don't know where you get this interpretation.  
> **username_0**: ahhh, I see, do you mean that the first 49 units will be sold at the consumer surplus?  
> **username_1**: I am afraid this is - once again - an issue with English language, not economics.  
> **username_1**: P.s.: I generally dislike Investopedia, because it is not precise and confounds things. It is not a good source in my opinion. (It also accepts advertisments from rather dubious businesses.)  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Normally I am not allowed to cite Investopedia to my paper but sometimes it is a quick source to learn some new theories  

---

## 0 answers

