[norea-armozel]

You keep using that word, probably, as if it's a quantifiable number by which a firm can and will make their business model upon in such a manner which they can bank on gains/losses to actually turn a profit which they can model precisely (hint: they don't actually do this, I've worked in a restaurant). Seriously, making cute micro-econ models isn't science, it's phrenology. If you want to construct something with known quantities with known and repeatable events in a model then I'll listen. If you're going to give me Friedman's plucking model then I'm going to just put my headphones and ignore anything you have to say.

[TheCowboy]

It's disingenuous to argue that because these simple models do not spit out a specific price that businesses can't and don't make use of them. Most of the time they're implied when reasoning about things. Plenty of data and evidence exist to demonstrate economics is a useful tool. Choosing to ignore empirically grounded knowledge makes you no more clever than a flat earther.

If your restaurant decided to drop the prices on their meals to $1, without changing anything else, would demand increase or decrease? I've worked in a restaurant too, but even if I hadn't I could give you an answer.

You provided no evidence to refute any of them except to make a weak claim of authority based on having worked in a restaurant. These are simple models that make predictions about real world outcomes that can be tested. That is, using observation we can prove or disprove hypotheses that I've mentioned. Provide evidence or move on.