Since it is too wide for the occasion. Dayton kingery insists that this is the case. Mentioned in the definition should go only to that product, which is involved in the commodity exchange. Therefore, to say specifically – about the product. The more so because not all goods are products (labor, as implied by the authors of the textbook). Should not be, as well say in the definition and on consumers. And without this it is clear that the commodity someone is buying. And the buyer is not always the consumer.
Among other things, criticized the definition of the need to exclude particular, speaking about the prices and period of time. Since it goes without saying that the goods are always bought at a certain price and that it is not sold immediately, and within a certain period of time. Finally, the ability of buyers to purchase goods means that goods can be bought. Therefore, the true definition of demand should be granted as follows: the demand for goods (to sleep) is the amount of goods that can be bought. Moreover, indicate that this is the goods demand, it is necessary. Because the demand is not only for goods but also for money, for example. Thus, the demand for goods – a kind of commodity, a species that differs from that of general bound potential buyers.
Quantity of goods in general is the closest genus to the demand for goods, and species differences in demand acts as a modality of possibilities, depending on buyers. 2. Criticism of the definition proposal of the concept of the proposal in the citation 67.B.11 suffers almost the same drawbacks as the definition of demand.