Professor Preston McAfee on Price Discrimination

(you must have RealPlayer to view this video. Mac users can download it here)

CalTech Economics professor Preston McAfee is an expert on prices. His research spans three decades and examines the pricing behavior of firms in various market structures. In the lecture linked above the professor shares several examples of firms practicing price discrimination. I was surprised to see that many of the examples he discusses are ones that I have been using in my own lectures on price discrimination for the last few years.

McAfee presents a mathematical formula for monopoly pricing, which no AP or IB text that I’ve seen has included:

Monopoly Price = [PED/(1-PED)] x MC where PED is the price elasticity of demand of the customer and MC is the firm’s marginal cost of production.

The basic idea is that the more inelastic the customer’s demand, the higher price the monopolist should charge over its marginal cost. The implication, therefore, is that a monopolist prefers to charge higher prices to customer’s whose demand is inelastic and lower prices to customers who are “price sensitive” or whose demand is elastic. The charging of different prices to different consumers for the exact same product is what economists call price discrimination.

McAfee begins talking about price discrimination at minute 8:44 in the video. His examples include:

• Movie theaters: Charge different prices based on age. Seniors and youth pay less since they tend to be more price sensitive.
• Gas stations: Gas stations will charge different prices in different neighborhoods based on relative demand and location.
• Grocery stores: Offer coupons to price sensitive consumers (people whose demand is inelastic won’t bother to cut coupons, thus will pay more for the same products as price sensitive consumers who take the time to collect coupons).
• Quantity discounts: Grocery stores give discounts for bulk purchases by customers who are price sensitive (think “buy one gallon of milk, get a second gallon free”… the family of six is price sensitive and is likely to pay less per gallon than the dual income couple with no kids who would never buy two gallons of milk).
• Dell Computers: Dell price discriminates based on customer answers to questions during the online shopping process. Dell charges higher prices to large business and government agencies than to households and small businesses for the exact same product!
• Hotel room rates: Some hotels will charge less for customers who bother to ask about special room rates than to those who don’t even bother to ask.
• Telephone plans: Some customers who ask their provider for special rates will find it incredibly easy to get better calling rates than if they don’t bother to ask.
• Damaged goods discounts: When a company creates  and sells two products that are essentially identical except one has fewer features and costs significantly less to capture more price-sensitive consumers.
• Book publishers: Some paperbacks cost more to manufacture but sell to consumers for significantly less than hard covers. Price sensitive consumers will buy the paperback while those with inelastic demand will pay more for the hard cover.
• Airline ticket prices: Weekend stayover discounts for leisure travelers mean business people, whose demand for flights is highly inelastic, but who will rarely stay over a weekend, pay far more for a roundtrip ticket that departs and returns during the week.

McAfee also goes into a fascinating discussion of price dispersion which is essentially a theory of oligopoly pricing. All Econ teachers should watch this video and find examples of price discrimination and oligopoly pricing that they can incorporate into their own class.

If you’re up for a challenge, try deciphering some of the mathematics in McAfee’s free, downloadable intro to economics text, available here.

In  IB Economics, we are currently learning about how firms in imperfectly competitive markets differentiate their products in order to increase their market power and their price-making power.

In a market with a few large firms such as the laptop computer market, companies must do what they can to increase demand for their own products over those of their competitors. Apple Computer is an example of a company that has successfully differentiated its line of laptop computers in recent years, regularly improving the features of its line of MacBooks to attract consumers away from its competitors and into the world of Macs.

Last year Apple launched the MacBook Air, the lightest and thinnest laptop on the market, creating a huge buzz in the technology world and converting millions to Apple’s line of laptops. This year, Apple has launched yet another innovation in laptop computing, in the hope of once again increasing demand for its products, and making consumers think they cannot live without the sleek, shiny Apple computers. This year’s innovation? The “MacBook Wheel”… watch:

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

The goal of an imperfectly competitive firm like Apple is to increase its market power by increasing demand for its particular product through product differentiation, advertising, developing brand loyalty, and “hype”: all forms of non-price competition. If Apple were to simply charge a lower price than its competitors for its products, it would also succeed in increasing the amount of computers it sells to consumers, but may also end up accepting lower profits due to the lower prices it must sell for.

Through differentiation, which means making its products unique and attractive to consumers, Apple attempts to increase market demand for its computers, while simultaneously making demand less elastic. With higher, more inelastic demand, Apple gains price-making power over the laptop computer market, as can be seen in the graphs below, which show that after the successful launch of a new product like the MacBook wheel Apple is able to charge a higher price, produce a similar quantity, and earn greater economic profits.

In the video, one customer says that he’d buy “buy almost anything if it’s shiny and its made by Apple”. Such statements reflect that among loyal customers, demand for Apple’s products is highly inelastic. While the firm is certainly not a monopolist in the market for laptop computers, Apple has surely succeeded to increase its market power and thus its power over prices through product differentiation, brand loyalty, and the “hype” surrounding the launch of new products like the MacBook Wheel.

Discussion questions:

1. In the graphs above, the slopes of the demand curve increases after successful product differentiation by Apple. Why does this happen?
2. Assuming the market for laptop computers is monopolistically competitive, what will likely happen to Apples economic profits over time? What must Apple do if it wishes to maintain its profits in the long-run?
3. What are some real ways companies like Apple and its competitors have attempted to differentiate their products over the years? Would YOU buys a MacBook Wheel if it were real?

NPR : Farmers May Switch Crops Due to Labor Shortage

Pure competition forces firms to produce their output in the most efficient manner. Productive efficiency is achieved when producers achieve their minimum average total cost. Any increase in costs may lead to economic losses for a firm, and if costs increase too much a firm may be forced to shut down.

Farmers May Switch Crops Due to Labor Shortage [ 5:12 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (62)

The scenario above is basically a textbook explanation of the reality faced by farmers in the American Southwest this very day. Hundreds of fruit and vegetable farmers are facing higher variable costs as tougher border security and immigration laws has led to a shortage of cheap labor, which the farmers depend on in the labor-intensive fruit and vegetable industry.

Listen to the podcast above, then study the graphs that accompany this article.

Rising costs for in a perfectly-competitive (PC) industry: Click on the thumbnails of the graphs to see the full-sized versions

Discussion Questions:

1. What changes have occurred in the American fruit and vegetable industry?
2. What are the possible outcomes for Southwest farmers?
3. How might technology help save these growers from having to shut down their operations?
4. What other alternatives do they have to shutting down in the long run?

This week the CEOs of the “Big Three” US auto makers boarded their private jets in Detroit and touched down in Washington to beg and plead in front of Congress for a “low-interest bridge loan” from the US government to help them avoid bankruptcy. They are asking Congress for $25 billion of taxpayer money to give them the chance to re-structure and re-equip themselves for the future.

Below are eight arguments based on basic economic principles for why a bailout of the United States automobile industry is a bad idea and is bound to fail:

1. Incentives matter: A bailout of the US auto industry ignores the basic economic principle that incentives matter. Individuals and firms respond to incentives, pursuing behavior that is likely to bring them the greatest rewards. In the face of falling demand for their product and ever-increasing competition from more efficient foreign producers, providing a $25 billion bailout creates a disincentive to drastically reduce costs and increase competitiveness, and an incentive to continue using tired old techniques and providing the same old models for which demand has declined among Americans for over a decade.
2. Comparative advantage: The basic economic principle of comparative advantage states that in an era of free trade and globalization, countries should produce the types of goods for which they have the lowest opportunity cost. Since the average American car of a particular class costs the Big Three $2000 more in wages and benefits for workers than its Japanese counterpart, it makes sense that Japan (and other lower-cost countries) produce more cars, and the Big Three produce less.
3. Efficient allocation of resources: The United Auto Workers Union has a member ship of over 400,000 workers. Since the 1970s the union has lost over 1 million workers. Clearly the US auto industry has been in decline for decades, a fact that should be taken as a sign: resources employed in America’s car industry are inefficient and represent a over-allocation of resources. A drastic down-sizing of the auto industry, while resulting in (In macroeconomics): The period of time over which wages and prices are relatively inflexible. A fall in aggregate demand will lead to unemployment and recession in the short-run. Due to the inability of the nation's producers to reduce wages paid to worker, they must lay workers off to reduce costs as demand falls.');" onmouseout="tooltip.hide();">short-run hardships for the hundreds of thousands whose jobs will be lost, will in the long run strengthen the US economy as labor and other resources will be freed up to be employed in sectors in which the US has comparative advantage.
4. Economic Darwinism or “the survival of the most efficient”: America has stood for free trade in the world since helping found GATT in 1948 and later the WTO. The gains from embracing free trade are shared among all stakeholders in the economy. Consumers enjoy lower prices (thus higher real income), firms enjoy access to cheaper inputs and larger markets for their products, and governments enjoy the increased tax revenues from rising incomes driven by export-led economic growth. To bail out an uncompetitive, inefficient, and long-declining industry is to spit in the eye of free trade and denies America any moral suasion it may hold in the future over potential trading nations in our attempt to open their markets to our nation’s products. To protect our own dying industry now will send a clear message to our trading partners. “America does NOT stand for free trade”. If we believe in free trade and the allocative power of markets, then we must let the dinosaurs of American industry meet the fate the natural selection of the marketplace has determined for it.
5. The benefits enjoyed by the few represent costs born by the many: A bailout by the US government of the auto industry will protect a few hundred thousand jobs for a few years at the most but spells a reduction in the disposable incomes and spending power of millions for years to come. The US does not have $25 billion laying around to give the Big Three, which means the money must be borrowed. Increased government borrowing raises interest rates now (further tightening the credit markets) and will result in increased taxes down the road. All government debt must eventually be paid off, and in the immediate future interest on this debt must be paid directly from tax revenue. A $25 billion bailout is the same as a subsidy, meaning it redistributes income and welfare from consumers to producers. Millions are asked to sacrifice for the continued survival of a few hundred thousand in an industry that has failed to evolve in a global auto market that has seen increased competition and efficiency from foreign firms for decades.
6. Moral hazard: Bailing out the Big Three today represent a classic case of moral hazard. When American industries fail to take steps to increase their efficiency and remain competitive in the face of increased global competition, they find themselves not surprisingly on the brink of collapse. To reward these firms by taking money out of Americans’ pockets and handing it to them to do as they will, we send the wrong message and create the wrong incentives in the American economy. The message is: “Don’t worry, the market doesn’t choose the winners and losers in the economy, the government does, and certain industries are too big to fail”.
7. Market failure, or Firm Failure?: The fate of the auto industry is in the hands of the US government. But so is the fate of the free market. My fear now is that the pendulum will swing too far to the left in America’s state of panic over the ill-fated downfall of the financial markets, rooted in the irrational exuberance and over-leveraging of big financial institutions. The failure of the financial markets, however, is an entirely different story from that of a dinosaur industry like automobiles. The Big Three have had decades to reform themselves, lower their costs, improve their products, and remain competitive. THEY have failed, NOT the market. Government intervention is necessary in instances of market failure, but NOT IN CASES OF FIRMS’ FAILURE TO COMPETE IN A WELL FUNCTIONING MARKET like the global auto industry.
8. Inflexible labor markets: I saw the president of the UAW on the news today giving 101 reasons why the government should approve a bailout deal for the Big Three. In fact, the unions that supposedly represent American Auto Workers are a big part of the problem the industry is facing. For decades the UAW has fought against wage and benefit cuts for auto workers, lobbying instead for higher tariffs and other barriers aimed at keeping foreign cars out of the country. This anti-competitive behavior is a major reason the Big Three cannot compete with European and Asian car makers today. Wage inflexibility leads to higher unemployment. Unions keep wages from going down, leaving the Big Three with one of two choices: Drastically downsize your workforce and employ fewer high paid auto workers, or beg the government for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to that the unions can be placated and you can survive for a couple more years until you’re in the same situation all over again. The unions helped cause the problem, now they should pay the price by experiencing the downsizing their demands inevitably foretold.

The US government should allow the free market to function and let the dinosaurs go extinct. Cars will still be made in America, they’ll just be made by the better, more efficient firms that emerge from bankruptcy when this is all over, as well as the numerous foreign firms already making cars in the US. Survival of the most efficient, that’s what markets are all about. Allowing the market to work will strengthen the US auto industry far more than a “short-term low-interest bridge loan” ever will, it will free up labor and capital resources to be employed by industries the country is better at, and make sure household income is NOT reallocated to inefficient firms to be squandered on the manufacture of a product for which demand has steadily declined for the last decade plus.

FT.com | The Economists’ Forum | The case for forward-looking protectionism in the US

Free trade is an ideal. This is a theme of my IB Economics class which I emphasize repeatedly during year two of the course. Free trade, defined as the exchange of goods, services, resources, and financial assets based on the principle of comparative advantage, results in a more efficient allocation of the world’s resources, an increase in total world output and welfare, and increases the opportunity for growth and development for all countries that prescribe to its principles. This is the ideal, at least.

In the real world, free trade is rarely practiced. Free trade agreements between nations represent managed trade; the selected removal of protections such as tariffs, quotas and subsidies on the exchange of particular goods does not represent free trade, rather managed trade. The problem with free trade in the real world is simply that it has never been truly practiced, therefore the adjustments that both developed and developing countries would have to undergo to adopt widespread free trade would be extremely disruptive both economically and socially. Entire industries would disappear from the developed countries as manufacturing resources were reallocated to low cost countries. Poor countries trying to build their manufacturing industries would lose any competitive advantage offered by protectionism, forcing their “infant industries” to wither and die in the face of global competition from countries that long ago achieved economies of scale in manufacturing. Farmers used to heavy subsidies would see their livelihoods disappear as the world’s food would be sourced from the countries with true comparative advantages in agriculture. Simply stated, the social costs of the widespread adoption of free trade are not politically palatable, thus leaders have only hesitantly pursued this ideal on the world stage.

For decades, America has stood for the ideal of free trade, proselytizing its advantages and urging developing countries to reduce or remove their barriers to the free flow of resources and goods from nation to nation. Today, however, the United States faces the very fate free trade prophesized as its own automobile industries teeters on the edge of collapse. As many as 3 million American jobs stand to be lost if the auto industry goes under. Today, America faces the ultimate test of its will to stand for and defend free trade in the world. Should America erect new barriers to trade, bail out its auto industry, and save this dying sector from collapse to avoid the political hardships its death would incur? Or should America stand for the ideal of market liberalization and allow the auto industry to disolve as the principle of comparative advantage indicates it should?

The question is dire, and it’s one that Barack Obama will be forced to address early in his term as president. Cambridge economcis professor Ha-Joon Chang argues the case for protectionism by America in this time of economic turmoil:

Mr Obama’s trade policy… is already causing controversy. He has vowed to protect American jobs and even argued for re-negotiating the NAFTA. There is already some hand wringing among free-trade economists, worrying that his protectionist policies may destroy the world trading system in the same way the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930 did after the Great Depression. They counsel that the US should maintain its historical commitment to free trade.

However, contrary to what most people think, the US is the true home of protectionism. Between the 1830s and the 1940s, against superior European competition, the US developed its industries behind literally the highest tariff wall in the world, with the average industrial tariff rate ranging between 35% and 55%. Even the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs were not an aberration – the average US industrial tariff in 1931 was, at 48%, well within the historical range.

Moreover, the theory that justified such protectionism, namely, the ‘infant industry’ argument, had been first developed by none other than the first Treasury Secretary of the US – Alexander Hamilton (that’s the guy you see on the $10 bill). Hamilton argued that producers in relatively backward economies needed to be protected and nurtured through tariffs, subsidies, and other government policies before they mature and can compete with producers from more economically developed countries.

Of course, the protectionism that Mr Obama is advocating is protection to ease the adjustment of mature industries, rather than to promote infant industries. The case for such protectionism is not as overwhelming as that of infant industry protection. However, well-designed and time-bound protection of mature industries can facilitate, rather than hinder, trade adjustment and industrial upgrading. Japan and some European countries in the aftermath of the 1970s Oil Shocks come to mind.

Mr Obama should use protectionism in a similarly forward-looking way. Industries that can be revived through re-tooling of its factories and re-training of its workers should be given protection, but only if they fulfill certain conditions regarding investment and training. Industries that have no future should be given strictly temporary protection to ease phasing-out through orderly liquidation and redundancy.

…Keeping its market open is not enough for the US to play a genuinely positive role in the world trading system. The US should also stop pushing for trade liberalization in developing countries and give them the chance to use (intelligently-designed, of course) infant industry protection, which it invented and benefited so much from. Mr Obama should take a lead in creating a world trading system that allows asymmetric protectionism between the rich countries and the poor countries, with the latter protecting their markets more and gradually opening up in line with their economic development.

All these call for a much more activist role for the US government than it has been the norm. Providing protectionism to facilitate structural changes, and not just to protect existing jobs, would require a much closer coordination between trade policy and those policies to upgrade American industries, such as R&D support and worker training. Redesigning the welfare state as a vehicle to promote skills upgrading and labor mobility would push the US government into an uncharted territory.

These are big challenges. However, the US cannot continue its peculiar mixture of free-trade mythology and uncoordinated, ‘reactive’ protectionism that has served ordinary Americans and the developing nations so poorly.

Mr Obama has turned a new chapter in US history by becoming the country’s first Afro-American president. He will turn a new chapter in world history if he can come up with a forward-looking protectionist strategy that that both protects American jobs better in the long run and help developing countries develop faster.

Discussion Questions:

1. What is the difference between the protectionism America needs today and the protectionism it used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
2. How could protectionism be used responsibly by developing countries to promote economic growth and development?
3. Professor Chang argues that responsible protectionism should allow industries with no future to be phased out “through orderly liquidation and redundancy”. What does he mean by this and why is such a policy so hard to accomplish politically?

“Anger”, more so than “fear”, is perhaps the most often expressed emotion by U.S. citizens, Congressmen, and media analysts when discussing the proposed $700B federal bailout of the U.S. financial system. “Anger” is the primary emotion because the $700B will be put at risk by the American taxpayer to bailout the very same financial institutions that have become increasingly reckless and greedy regarding their investing and borrowing practices.

In America, especially over the last two weeks, the discussion of a bailout to save our financial system and economy from ruin has become logically intertwined with a concurrent discussion of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation packages. Many are outrgaged, especially in light of the horrendous financial results and excessive risk taking, when finding out about the lucrative CEO compensation packages consisting of base pay, bonuses, stock options, and termination (severence) pay.

Let’s analyze this topic by comparing the compensation packages of basketball superstar Kobe Bryant and recently fired AIG CEO Martin Sullivan.

In 2007, Kobe Bryant earned $20 million dollars playing basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers while Martin Sullivan earned $14 million dollars in 2007 running AIG, one of the largest insurance companies in the world.

In 2006, Bryant also earned $20 million for the year, whereas Sullivan earned $27 million as AIG’s financial performance was much stronger in 2006 versus 2007, causing Sullivan’s 2006 incentive-based compensation to be higher than 2007.

Now the big one: Sullivan’s 2008 termination or severence pay upon his firing as AIG CEO was $47 million dollars (two years pay)! Pretty nice “goodbye present” for Sullivan given the fact that AIG failed causing its owners (the stockholders) and potentially our country (taxpayers via bailout) to be crushed! Although Bryant has no termination or severence bonus built into his contract, his contract is guaranteed through 2011 which is somewhat similar to Sullivan’s “severence deal” in that Bryant is guaranteed payment should he be injured.

Thus, both compensation packages (Bryant and Sullivan) are somewhat similar in dollar amount, but beg the question: Is anyone worth that much money?

So the primary question of this blog is to discuss whether private market compensation, should be somewhat controlled or limited by governmental law, and if so, how.

Let’s start with Bryant.

If we passed a law taking the position that Bryant’s salary could not exceed $5 million per year, he would likely go play in Europe where European contracts are becoming more competitive and similar to U.S. contracts. Even if Bryant did stay with the Lakers, despite the new law, at $5 million per year, the $5 million savings (reduced salary) would go to the Lakers owner, Jerry Buss, so Buss would be making $5 million more at Bryant’s expense. In summary, we would have passed a compensation limiting law taking money from Bryant and giving it to the owner! Through the study of economics we ultimately understand that Bryant is, in essence, being paid by you and I whenever we see him at the arena (ticket prices) or watch him on TV (ad revenues). Ultimately, Bryant gets $20 million because we, not Buss, pay him $20 million! This is the private market at work, where voluntarily owners (Buss) pay their employees (Bryant) what they believe they are worth. Said one last way, Buss pays Bryant $20 Million per year because Buss thinks he can make more profit than if he doesn’t and loses Bryant to another team.

Let’s go to Sullivan now.

If we passed a law limiting executive salaries to some arbitrary number, say $5 million per year, the same thing would happen that happened to Bryant. The Harvard & Yale MBAs would not pursue American companies but would go to work at Canadian, European and Asian companies whose compensation would be “free market”. The U.S. would lose its best talent and our companies would become mediocre, fail at an increasing rate, and our standard of living would deteriorate as our leadership quality would deteriorate. It is the CEO that is at the helm of companies helping American businesses to produce an average 10.4% return for their owners (stockholders).

Now we get to the toughest question which is “should CEOs be paid a multi-million dollar severence payment after they have failed and been fired?” The obvious answer seems to be no! But sometimes, what appears to seem to be the obvious answer becomes less obvious in a free market. Any smart, Harvard or Yale MBA knows that they have a 50/50 chance of failing and being fired within their first 3 years as CEO. Statistics bear this out as CEOs are fired all the time as it is easier to fire the CEO than all of the employees. Large firms need the best talent and a talented CEO knows that sometimes their companies fail quickly often for reasons beyond their control no matter how talented they are. Thus, CEOs demand an “insurance payment” called severence pay to compensate them for their high risk and rate of failure. Once the CEO fails it becomes increasingly difficult to get that next CEO job as their reputation in the market place sours. Thus, a CEO looks at the entire compensation package (salary, incentives, and severence) when deciding where to work. If the risk is too high (dedicating their life to their business in lieu of their families) relative to the reward, they will take their talents elsewhere or to a new career.

What is my suggested government solution regarding trying to protect shareholders from excessive executive compensation? I suggest that our government only pass new law to increase ”disclosure requirements” on executive compensation to provide a better ”check and balance” on the Board of Directors who set the pay and severence amounts for the CEOs. The Government (SEC) should not get involved, in my opinion, with compensation limits or restrictions on severence pay, but they should pass a new law to provide greater visibility for the owners (stockholders) on their CEO’s (and other key management) compensation. For example, even though today all executive compensation is publicly accessible by the owners by examining publicly filed documents, the Government could pass new legislation making it mandatory for companies to send an annual letter directly to its owners (stockholders) outlining only their CEO’s and Board’s compensation.

But , please Government, be careful and don’t do anything stupid like setting maximums for CEO compensation.

Discussion Questions:

1. In your opinion, should the Government limit CEO salaries to some maximum? What about their severence payments, should they be limited? If so, how would you set the maximum amount?
2. Is it fair that Kobe Bryant makes more than a police offer? Why or why not?
3. What specific action should the Government take, if any, regarding executive compensation?

Is international trade really as good for a nation’s standard of living as economists say? And, what the heck is comparative advantage anyway? And what about the foreign currency market and those confusing supply & demand curves? Yes, the quest to understand the economic benefits of international trade is enough to make any citizen or first-year economic student vomit, tremble, get a headache, or at least curse.

Having been an AP Economics’ teacher for 8 years now, I must candidly admit that it took me a few years of study and research to try to reduce international trade to pure simplicity and understanding. Let me give it a shot below. I love simplicity.

The average “Joe Citizen” in almost any country in the world is suspicious of trade, and rightfully so, since he reads or observes factories being closed, jobs lost, and the feeling that somehow his country is going down the toilet as his own home fills up with foreign-made products. Unfortunately, what Joe Citizen does not understand is that the money his own nation is spending for those foreign products (imports) is spent right back into the pockets of his own country, increasing employment and income.

Let’s take a single, real-world, international trade example being careful to accurately explain the whole economic story:

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy several shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying those same shirts from a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). As a US AP Economics’ teacher I am one of about only 47 Americans in Fairfax County Virginia, which not coincidentally ties to the number of AP Students I taught this year, that quickly understand that the decision to purchase the shirts from China, in lieu of the US manufacturer in North Carolina, is actually BETTER for America and will make my home country better off in the long run! What? Mr. Latter, are you Benedict Arnold, the American traitor, reincarnated?

Let me explain how the US benefits (and China too!) in simple terms ignoring foreign currency transactions, which will just confuse the discussion and cause the student to lose sight of what is really happening:

The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China!

The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has actually traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a global positioning system (GPS) from FleetMatics out of Waverly, Massachusetts (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid FleetMatics (USA) $400 directly for the shirts!

Yes, the “punch line” is that all home-currency spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent right back to the domestic nation increasing the domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living. (Note; this is shown in a nation’s balance of payments schedule which always nets to zero, but, yuk, who cares about that right now with summer coming!)

And, yes, let’s not forget that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Our nation loves competition (ready for the Olympics?) and I am excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart or some other firm! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down.

If you are still reading this post at this point, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy that GPS system from FleetMatics for $400”. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received back into America in lieu of buying US products. Said another way, China is not buying as many GPS’ as the US is buying shirts and, of course, we call that phenomenon the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really no problem at all! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for the war in Iraq, the war against terrorism, and several other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and buy that GPS system or build more plants to employ more Americans!

Now one last thing. Promise! Let’s get back to why trade is really so economically advantageous to any nation that pursues it. And by advantageous, I mean how it increases our incomes and standards of living. In one word, the answer is “productivity”. If we go back to the original example of the US buying shirts from China and China taking the US dollars to buy the GPS, we remember that the shirt manufacturer from North Carolina was “left out in the cold” because Wal-Mart did not buy the shirts from them. We can logically conclude that perhaps some Chinese manufacturer of GPS systems was “left out in the cold” because some Chinese business elected to buy from FleetMatics in the USA, and not the Chinese GPS manufacturer. Wow, I love global competition! What a great way to incent businesses in both the USA and China to compete against each other and increase their productivity and conserve our nations’ scarce resources, increase our choice, and lower our costs!

Discussion Questions:

1. Which basic economic principles underly the emergence of international trade as a global economic force.
2. Who are the winners and losers of trade between the US and China as explained above?
3. Why do you think free trade is such a controversial topic among certain groups of Americans an other Western nations’ people?

FT.com / World / Americas – US economy threatens Dominican Republic

Trade based on comparative advantage… the theory originally articulated by Adam Smith, later fine-tuned by David Ricardo, the theory that suggests that if each nation specializes its economic activity on the products for which it faces the lowest opportunity cost, then trades with its neighbors, total world output and efficiency can be maximized: today this theory represents the philosophical underpinning of all free trade agreements signed between and among the nations of the world.

Through trade, countries can exchange their extra output with other nations for the goods specialized in by others, enabling all nations to enjoy a level of consumption beyond what they’d be able to achieve if they tried to produce all goods domestically.

For many developing countries, with their abundance of either land or labor, comparative advantages tend to lie in either agricultural goods or low-skilled manufactured goods. Since global prices for food are highly unstable and dependency on healthy harvests, good weather, and stable rainfall are all highly risky endeavors for a poor country, developing nations prefer to foster the growth of manufacturing sectors in their path towards economic development.

Strategies for economic growth available to developing nations include export-oriented and inward-oriented growth. A country like the Dominican Republic, the largest economy in the Caribbean, has pursued a predominantly export-oriented growth strategy, promoting through “free zones” the growth of a textile industry aimed at producing goods for consumers in developed countries, primarily the US.

To the Domincans, producing textiles for export to America has successfully given the people of this poor nation a grip on a rung of the ladder towards economic development. The import of capital has taken previously unproductive workers out of agriculture and put them into an industry where productivity, thus income, has risen, leading to improvements in living standards. Export-led growth, however, runs some serious risks of its own, as is being realized by the people of the Dominican Republic today.

It had been clear for some time that Luis Caraballo’s textile factory, in one of the Dominican Republic’s largest “free zones”, was struggling.

Finally, last December, he closed the factory gates for the last time: cut-throat competition from China and Vietnam, a weakening US dollar and unsustainable costs had become too much.

Once a hot destination for American companies looking for a cheap place to “off-shore” production of labor intensive textiles, the Dominican Republic today faces new competition, and is finding its comparative advantage slip slowly away from textiles…

The Dominican Republic depends heavily on the US, which is the destination of more than 85 per cent of exports. But textile exports – these days accounting for less than a third of total exports – fell by 32 per cent over 2007.

Although other countries in the Caribbean are also suffering from Asian competition – with Chinese textile exports to the US tripling between 2000 and 2005, while Vietnam’s multiplied almost 117 times – the Dominican Republic has been worst hit.

Here’s the thing: a nation’s comparative advantage may shift over time (from land to labor to capital intensive goods) as the structure of the global economy evolves. Once an economy like the Dominican Republic’s has undergone a period of structural adjustment, away from agriculture and towards industry, the flow of low wage workers from farm to factory begins to slow to a trickle, leading to rising wages and increased competition from countries with more abundant supplies of cheap labor.

The challenge for policy makers is to manage the structural changes as they come, minimizing the deleterious impact such global shifts of productive resources has on the citizens of a country like the D.R. Clearly, it is in the country’s interest to prepare its citizens for a “new economy”, one in which skilled labor will play a larger role. The problem is, this requires a solid education system, which the D.R., it turns out, does not yet have:

There is widespread acceptance of the need to develop a better-educated workforce, but so far education spending has been inadequate.

“The government simply doesn’t have enough resources,” said Mr Montás. About 40 per cent of its budget goes on debt obligations and another 15 per cent is dished out through subsidies. Just 1.5 per cent goes towards education.

It also turns out that this is a balance of payments story:

Mr Montás calculated that for every percentage point the US economy contracted, the Dominican Republic’s GDP would shrink by 0.4 per cent.

Not only will exporters be hit, but also the huge tourism sector and remittance flows…

One possible result of the decline in exports and flows of remittances from the US will be a depreciation of the D.R. peso, as demand for pesos by Americans falls. A weaker peso might make the country’s exports attractive once again, assuming the exchange rate is allowed to adjust on foreign exchange markets. A weaker peso should help slow the decline in the D.R.’s exports to the US, at least until new competition emerges, perhaps elsewhere in Asia, maybe even from Africa or other Latin American countries.

In all likelihood, given the increased competition from Asian textile manufacturers, continued economic growth in the Dominican Republic will depend on the country’s ability to educate and train its workforce to adapt to a more capital, technology and information-based economy, which, if successful, will eventually lead to rising incomes and higher standards of living for the people of the this rising Caribbean nation.

Comparative advantages evolve with the emergence of new competition among developing and developed countries. The negative impacts this evolution has on a particular economy can be managed if wise policy actions are taken to assure a country’s workforce is educated and trained to participate in tomorrow’s economy, rather than yesterday’s or today’s.

How do Chinese granite quarries and a decline in the US death threaten a family business in rural Vermont?

Listen and find out…

Chinese headstones [ 4:09 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (5)

Source: NPR Economy Podcast, 2/29/2008 

Pepsi Tests ‘Naturally Sourced’ Beverage – Advertising Age – News

Pepsi is just about to launch its first new beverage since 1992.  The drink, called “RAW” will present consumers with a healthier alternative to the artificially flavored soft drinks that dominate the oligopolistic market.

Apple extract, sparkling water, grapes, coffee leaf, raw cane sugar. The list of ingredients sounds like it belongs to a health drink, but those are the components of Pepsi’s newest variant.

Pepsi Raw, being launched in U.K. test markets, is meant to be a more healthful alternative to the traditional cola. A type of Pepsi made from only “naturally sourced” ingredients, it taps into demand for premium, less-processed products.

Sounds great, right? But would you be willing to pay more for a “natural” Pepsi than for the good old fashioned artificially flavored Pepsi and Cokes you grew up with? Pepsi is betting the drink will appeal to young hipsters, and is launching it primarily at clubs and bars in six UK cities to test out the market.

So when can Americans expect to  enjoy the natural goodness of Pepsi RAW? Unfortunately, Pepsi seems to think Americans are a bunch of fat tightwads:

 ”It makes sense to launch first in the U.K. because health concerns are a bigger issue there,” Ms. Dornblaser said, adding, “It might not fly as well in the U.S. because of the price.”

Oh, and if you’re too young to remember what Pepsi’s last attempted new product launch was, allow me to jog your memory:

Hey, I LOVED Crystal Pepsi! So, would you be willing to pay more for a healthier Pepsi?