From the article: > The first of these ideas says that if demand for a product rises and the supply does not then its price is going to increase. Economists wo

From the article: > The first of these ideas says that if demand for a product rises and the supply does not then its price is going to increase. Economists would say this is so basic that no one could really argue with it. So let me do so. First, this assumes that there are no alternative products available. The reality is that there usually are. Few things are so essential now that this is not the case. Secondly, this assumes we will not wait for what we want. We often will, and that smooths demand. That buyers may choose alternative products, and that purchases may be deferred, both seem to be valid observations to me, but neither amounts to an argument against the proposition that the price of a product will increase if demand for that product rises and its supply does not. If buyers purchase alternative products, or defer their purchases, then they are not buying the product in question, and demand for that product therefore does not in fact rise. The author appears to be trying to criticise an orthodox prediction in economics about what will happen under certain conditions not by — as he suggests he is doing — arguing with the logic of the prediction, but instead by asserting that the conditions the prediction applies to do not arise. Regardless of whether his conclusions about price inflation make sense, he does not actually make the argument that he purports to.