Okay: this is probably a very stupid question. But I’m going to ask it anyway. Here you’ve got an example of your basic supply curve. It shows how much of a commodity producers will supply at any given price. Yes?
The shape of the curve is determined by “the conditions of supply”. Using the example of eggs (we all love eggs) my textbook gives examples of such conditions: “Price expectations”; “A change in the prices of factors of production”; “government policy”; etc. etc.
Last, but not least: “(8) The entry of new firms into the industry. If new farms begin to produce eggs, then supply would be increased and the supply curve would move to the right.” (Harvey & Jowsey, p. 41).
Now, forgive me if I’m being slow here – but this point isn’t limited to “the entry of new firms into the industry”, is it? What Harvey and Jowsey mean is: if supply increases, the supply curve changes.
But… uh… supply is one of the axes against which the supply curve is plotted.
In his little intro to economics, Tony Cleaver likes talking about endogenous and exogenous changes. “The distinction between endogenous (internal) and exogenous (external) changes is important and will be referred to continually through this text.” (p. 36).
Can someone explain to me, then, how a change in supply is not both endogenous and exogenous here? If it’s both: how does this not completely fuck up the supply curve?
I realise that there’s a difference between hypothetical and actual supply here; and I realise there’s a difference between the supply curve of an individual firm and of the industry as a whole. But I don’t see how either of these differences resolve my bafflement.
Am I missing something? (Very probable.) Or are the textbooks just assuming I, like, won’t notice this?