> Imagine a city with acute food shortages and controlled prices (e.g. Caracas, Pyongyang). People join long queues before bakeries daily, and still only averag

> Imagine a city with acute food shortages and controlled prices (e.g. Caracas, Pyongyang). People join long queues before bakeries daily, and still only average half their calorie needs. The supply of bread then improves so that they average 60% of their calorie needs instead. Would we really expect the queues to wither away? Of course not. They might not even get discernibly shorter. Does this mean that demand for bread is in some peculiar and distinctive sense ‘induced’? Section 1 ceases to make sense if a local frame of reference is chosen rather than a global frame. If you have a country where every city in the country is able to supply 50% of the caloric needs of it's citizens, and then one city is able to satisfy 60% of the calories of it's citizens, you would expect people to want to move to that city until the caloric satisfaction approaches a new equilibrium. Globally, induced demand is not useful, but for the person who bought 10% more food in a particular city it is very useful. So the argument that the author is trying to makes is wrong. Induced demand is true, locally. Induced demand is less useful when things are addressed globally. If a city housed every single homeless person their city, you would expect homeless people from other cities to migrate. In the global sense demand is not induced, but in the local sense it is.