A method of indirect proof that one set of goods is preferred to another. Consider three sets of goods, A, B, and C. An individual, who could have afforded something slightly better than B, chooses A: A is thus clearly preferred to B. If the consumer chooses A but could not afford C, it can in some cases still be shown that A is preferred to C. This is so if B is chosen when something slightly better than C could have been afforded: B is thus preferred to C. With consistent preferences, if A is preferred to B and B is preferred to C, A is revealed preferred to C, even if this could not be shown by direct comparison between A and C.

• Say's law
• scale
• scarce currency clause
• scarcity
• scatter diagram
• scenario
• Schedule A tax
• scope, economies of
• screening
• scrip issue
• SDR
• SEAQ
• search unemployment
• seasonal adjustment
• seasonal unemployment
• SEC
• secondary market
• second-best
• second-degree price discrimination
• second derivative
• second-hand
• second-order conditions
• second order of magnitude
• sector
• secular stagnation