You would be surprised how oversimplified most economic models are, particularly those taken as gospel. For instance, I won't deny that there are certain situa

You would be surprised how oversimplified most economic models are, particularly those taken as gospel. For instance, I won't deny that there are certain situations in which supply and demand curves are predictive (we all know how commonly they are cited to explain pricing in a market), but consider how many conditions must be assumed in order for them to apply as originally constructed: 1. The good is a commodity, i.e. its labeling has no effect on perceived value 2. The selling firms are perfectly competitive (i.e., no partial or complete monopolies that allow price-fixing) 3. The buyers are perfectly competitive (i.e., no purchasing groups) 4. All sellers can sell to all buyers equally easily 5. All parties in the market have equal access to information 6. All parties act rationally and based only on the marginal utility of each individual transaction etc., etc., and a whole litany of other things that we know are rarely true. Since the theory is so "squishy" in practice, one could even protest that it does more harm than good when treated as a de facto starting point for price modeling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#Criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand#Criticisms So this model, even if it too is sadly oversimplified, may still be useful simply by starting from a different set of assumptions than whatever is typical in the field, and seeing how the modeled behavior differs from existing theories. There's basically no hope of experimental validation for any of this, though.