For microeconomic theory, the purchase of a product is the same as its consumption? That means that purchase is consumption theoretically? If satisfaction comes from consumption, how can one tell what happens after the purchase?
Conrado Krivochein: For microeconomic theory, the purchase of a product is the same as its consumption? That means that purchase is consumption theoretically? If satisfaction comes from consumption, how can one tell what happens after the purchase?
I don't know for sure, so please, bear with me here. Let's say I buy a melon in the local market, but as soon as I get home I throw it away. I didn't consumed the melon per se, but in economic terms, the melon I bought is not there anymore for anyone to buy. So, in economic terms, consumption and purchase are the same thing, not in semantic terms. That is what I think.
Yes, I kinda agree with you. You can see it didn't matter what happens after the act of purchase, for the theory. But it is a problem when it uses the idea of satisfaction immediately when a person buy something, don't you think? I know that it is an aproximation and all but I think it is also logically correct to say that the theory puts the act of purchase as something that gives you satisfaction, because it cannot tell what people will actually do with that product. And I'm not saying that is wrong to say that. I'm just trying to interpret this pressupose with another perspective, that it is also correct within the theory.
I'm no expert on this subject but I don't think purchase and consumption are the samething in regards to microeconomic theory. For example lets say you purchase a melon from me but instead of consuming said melon directly you turn around and sell the melon to purchase some bread you do directly consume. In this scenario it doesn't seem as if purchase is consumption.
Conrado Krivochein: Yes, I kinda agree with you. You can see it didn't matter what happens after the act of purchase, for the theory. But it is a problem when it uses the idea of satisfaction immediately when a person buy something, don't you think? I know that it is an aproximation and all but I think it is also logically correct to say that the theory puts the act of purchase as something that gives you satisfaction, because it cannot tell what people will actually do with that product. And I'm not saying that is wrong to say that. I'm just trying to interpret this pressupose with another perspective, that it is also correct within the theory.
I see what you mean, but I do think that people find satisfaction after purchasing, because if the person bought something, it's because he/she wanted to, so he/she satisfied his/her wish. The other question is, what the person is going to do with the product? Well, in the melon case, the person could eat it, or could throw it away, or whatever. Any way you cut it, they would be acting towards achieving satisfaction. I know, it seems silly to think that people would buy a melon to throw it away, but people have different wishes. Remember that guy that was the first to buy the ps3 in a store as soon as it launched, just to destroy it in front of everyone? I would argue that he achieved satisfaction (however crazy this may be), and the purchase of the ps3 was a mean to this achievement.
Yes Mens Rea, this is what I was trying to understand. I think we can come with different examples and see that they are different aspects of economic behaviour, as the theory seeks to represent. But also this could show that some ideas about preferences, choice and utility, besides showing different types of consumers, can actually be interpreted as, how can I say, kinda metaphysical assumption. You can say that people consume things from distinct manners, and you can say that they gain different levels of satisfaction in return, yes, but you cannot say that purchase is consumption, because it may not be destined to that. You can believe that it is.
Yes, I have to agree with you on that. No matter how we see it, how one will consume something, even if it's throwing away, the purchase means a sort of satisfaction. But ironicaly, I think besides being consumers, peoples are buyers in a general representative way. And this relation in the consumer behaviour comes first. Supposing that the person didn't get free samples, of course.