I've studied macroeconomics... you've got it reversed.
If something moves easily, you RAISE the price as it has a HIGH demand. When the price is raised to a point where the demand starts to drop, you halt raising the price as you have found equilibrium.
If something is not moving easily, you LOWER the price as it has a LOW demand. When the price is lowered to a point where the demand starts to raise, you halt lowering the price as you have found equilibrium.
What stumps me is that if the small plots move so easily, why don't land barrons sell more larger sized plots?
It's clear equilibrium is out of whack on land sales.
If something moves easily, you RAISE the price as it has a HIGH demand. When the price is raised to a point where the demand starts to drop, you halt raising the price as you have found equilibrium.
If something is not moving easily, you LOWER the price as it has a LOW demand. When the price is lowered to a point where the demand starts to raise, you halt lowering the price as you have found equilibrium.
What stumps me is that if the small plots move so easily, why don't land barrons sell more larger sized plots?
It's clear equilibrium is out of whack on land sales.
(*personal attack edited.) And if you studied economics, its obvious you failed.
So let me get this straight... WalMart, a high volume retailer, should charge a premium.
And Nordstroms, a low volume retailer, should switch their strategy to low-cost.
riiiiight.