This article was originally published on June 9, 2008

Asia Sentinel – Malaysia cuts fuel subsidy

One of the recurring themes of this blog is the conflict between good politics and good economics. Most of the time in government, smart economic policy is sacrificed in order to achieve political favor with voters. Whether it’s price ceilings on petrol in China, Zimbabwe’s slashing of food prices, harmful import restrictions to benefit domestic producers, or the proposed suspension of gas taxes in a time when fuel conservation is really what’s needed, politicians often act in economically stupid ways to bolster or hang on to their popularity.

So when a government makes a bold move that is economically sound, it sometimes comes as a surprise, as in the case of the Malaysian government this week. The government in Kuala Lumpur has for years subsidized domestic fuel prices, which at under 2 Malaysian Ringit per liter have been the equivelant of roughly $2.40 US per gallon, far below the average price in the west. Drivers benefited from this subsidy, but were not forced to bear any of the burden of rising oil prices, nor had they any incentive to conserve or switch to more fuel efficient automobiles or alternative forms of transportation. The Malaysian government, on the other hand, has had to allocate more and more of its limited budget towards subsidizing petrol prices.

Well, as of yesterday, all price supports for petrol are cancelled, and the effect will be sweeping in the Malaysian economy:

The government announced Wednesday evening that petrol prices would rise by 78 sen (US24¢) at midnight — a 41 percent jump from RM1.92 per liter to RM2.70. That means those spending RM2,000 per month to fill the tanks of their BMWs will now be paying RM2,820. Regardless of income levels, it is likely most Malaysians will feel the pinch.

The subsidy would have cost the Malaysian government 56 billion ringit (around $17 billion) this year. With the money it will now save by ending the subsidy, the government will begin making public transport cheaper and more convenient for commuters who wish to avoid paying for the more expensive petrol to fuel their personal automobiles:

The government hopes to channel the savings into improving public transportation, as it promised many years and elections ago but with little to show. In Kuala Lumpur, despite having a light rail train service and monorail, public transportation is expensive and inconvenient. Worse, intercity travel is still being serviced by old and slow trains, and accident-prone buses.

Malaysia is not the only country taking measures to end government fuel-price supports:

Indonesia has hiked fuel prices by an average of 29 percent, saving about 34.5 trillion rupiah and kicking off a series of street demonstrations… Similarly, after slashing subsidies, Taiwan will distribute US$659 million to middle and low-income families. The latest to raise oil prices is India, whose government announced Wednesday that gasoline and diesel prices will increase by 10 percent.

Related posts:

1. When markets work…
2. Beijing caves in to the indisputable power of the MARKET!
3. “Living” evidence of a determinant of demand at work in the deserts of Northern India

Op-Ed Contributor – Buy American. I Am. – NYTimes.com

So Wall Street has recently experienced its worst shocks since the great depression. Every day the Dow Jones is like a roller coaster, DOWN 800 points, then  UP 500 points, then DOWN 200 followed by another rally of 600! In just three weeks the Dow has gone from 11,500 to below 900 points. Surely, the wise thing to do is get OUT of the stock market, right? WRONG! At least, so says the richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, someone who should know a thing or two about smart investing.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does holding cash seem like the smart thing to do during periods of volatile stock prices like the last month or so? Why does Mr. Buffet think that holding cash is NOT so smart?
2. Mr. Buffet’s advice is counter-intuitive to some. Buying more of something that is falling in value (American stocks) may appear unwise… but what is Buffet’s rationale for why buying now may in fact be the smartest thing for an investor to do?
3. Does the behavior of investors on the stock market reflect the behavior of consumers in a typical product market? In other words, do the laws of supply and demand apply to the stock market? Discuss…

Related posts:

1. So the stock markets are crashing, what’s the big deal?
2. Advice to Republican presidential nominee on taxes – “raise ‘em!”
3. Some good news for Swiss businesses and workers during hard economic times

FT.com / World – Air fares nosedive amid falling travel demand

Our IB and AP Econ classes here at Zurich International School have just begun our second unit of the year, where the concepts of Demand and Supply are introduced and the effect these have on prices is examined. The first assignment of the new unit was for each student to find an article discussing the demand for a particular good, service or resource, and post it to our Unit 2 wiki page.

If it’s ever unclear whether a change in demand for a good or a service can actually affect the price, the article linked here should make it perfectly clear that demand is a powerful market force. In an industry where it has seemed recently that prices only rise, a recent fall in market demand has driven prices downward, as firms have responded to consumer demand in order to sell their product, which in this case are seats on short and long-haul flights within and from Europe.

Falling demand for business and leisure travel is causing a marked decline in air fares, with UK fares to North America declining by nearly a half, according to American Express.

Air fares peaked earlier this year as a result of rising oil costs. But the slowing global economy has caused that to reverse.

The lowest economy class fares in Europe, the Middle East and Africa fell on average by 12.5 per cent in April to June compared with the first quarter, with long-haul fares down more than a quarter.

But UK fares suffered the sharpest falls, with the lowest economy fares down by an average of 20.2 per cent, including a 49 per cent fall in fares to North America and a 22 per cent decline in fares to Japan, Asia-Pacific and Australia.

Discussion questions:

1. What factors are driving demand for air travel down within, to and from Europe?
2. Why does the price of air travel fall as demand for air travel weakens?
3. Which other industries may have to lower their prices as fewer and fewer people travel between European countries and North America?

Related posts:

1. A supply and demand mystery… to be solved by you!
2. “Living” evidence of a determinant of demand at work in the deserts of Northern India
3. Mali’s Weed: Is this an economic development, economic growth, supply or demand issue??

UN chief warns world must urgently increase food production – Yahoo! News

So you don’t say things that make you sound stupid to people who have studied economics, i.e. AP Econ students. Here’s UN chief Ban Ki Moon speaking at a UN conference in Ghana this week:

“One thing is certain, the world has consumed more (food) than it has produced” over the last three years, he said.

Ban blamed a host of causes for the soaring cost of food, including rising oil prices, the fall of the U.S. dollar and natural disasters.

He said he would put together a special task force to help deal with the problem and called on the international community to help…

“We need a real world and not the world of economic theories,” Ban said. “I will work on this right now with a sense of urgency.”

You know who says things like that? People who don’t understand the basic economic theories. Sadly, the theory Mr. Moon is missing here is one of our science’s most basic and simple to understand: that of supply and demand.

First of all, I’d just like to point out the absurdity of his first statement, that “the world has consumed more than it has produced.” Mr. Moon, I’d like to ask you this: If our world has not produced all the food we’ve consumed, then whose world DID produce it? Can’t we just call up the world where all the extra food we’ve consumed was grown and ask them to send us more?

Next, regarding Mr. Moon’s “task force” that he plans to form to deal with the problem, my question is this: What can a handful of bureaucrats accomplish around a table in New York that the market can’t do on its own? Rising food prices send signals to farmers who grow food; a signal that sends a very clear message: “GROW MORE FOOD!”

I’m sorry, but Mr. Moon and his “task force” can spend all the time and money they want brainstorming ways to get farmers to grow more food, but in the mean time the invisible hand of the market, guided by price signals sent from consumers to producers, will work its magic to allocate more resources towards food production and away from alternative uses of grain crops such as ethanol production, eventually shifting the supply curve of food out, stabilizing food prices.

Mr. Moon’s intentions are honorable, but his means of achieving his goal are misguided in an era of the market mechanism, which underpins most of the world’s agricultural economies today.

No related posts.

How does a growing Chinese middle class threaten duck populations in the American Midwest? Here’s the story:

As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation Program – New York Times

“You can’t pay me NOT to farm this land!”

This is the view being expressed by more and more American farmers today. Since 1985 the US government has paid hundreds of thousands of farmers around $50 per acre of land per year to NOT grow food. In other words, if you were a farmer with 1,000 acres, you could earn $50,000 a year for not doing anything with it at all, just letting it sit idle.

What is the logic of such a program? In the mid-80′s food prices were so low that farmers working their tails off to cultivate and harvest their lands often found themselves losing money when they went to sell their crops. The traditional farming lifestyle was in jeopardy as farmers experienced year after year of economic losses. Improvements in farm equipment, along with the widespread use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides had increased farm yields to levels never before achievable in human history. What increases productivity for all farmers, however, also increases total supply of crops, driving prices to historic lows. All this meant farmers could barely get by in the American heartland.

Enter the government:

…the Conservation Reserve was conceived as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. Participants bid to put their land in the program during special sign-ups, with the government selecting the acres most at risk environmentally. Average annual payments are $51 an acre. Contracts run for at least a decade and are nearly impossible to break — not that anyone wanted to until recently.

Things were great for the farmers. Output fell as millions of acres went into disuse, while farm incomes rose due to rising prices for their outputs and transfer payments from the American taxpayers. Farmers now had to work less to earn more money.

Today, however, farmers are putting millions of idle acres back into cultivation. They are choosing to work harder and farm more land in order to take advantage of the rising world food prices caused by the increasing demand for meat among the world’s emerging middle class and the rising price of grains due to the push to promote ethanol as a renewable energy.

The farmers’ behavior today is a perfect demonstration of the law of supply, which acknowledges the direct relationship between a product’s price and the quantity that producers will bring to market. There are actually two markets at work here: the market for cropland, and the market for wildlands. Farmers face a tradeoff in their decision of whether to farm their land or let it lay fallow. In 1985, the government made the decision that not enough land was lain fallow, so it subsidized farmers who set lands aside for conservation. Since subsidies are a determinant of supply, the supply of idle land increased while the supply of cultivated land decreased, driving up food prices.

In addition to the law of supply, this article also encompasses the concept of market failure. The Farm Bill of 1985 inadvertently corrected a market failure relating to “merit goods”, or those that create positive externalities or spillover benefits for society. In the case of farmland, the less land was used for farming, the healthier the wildlife populations on the now idle lands of the American Midwest. Hunters, environmentalists, and conservation groups had much to cheer about:

,,,hunters had more land to roam and more wildlife to seek out, with the Agriculture Department estimating that the duck population alone rose by two million; and environmentalists were pleased, too. No one disputes that there are real environmental benefits from the program, especially on land most prone to erosion.

At its peak the “Conservation Reserve”, as it was known, saw more than 36 million acres set aside for wildlife. Today, however, farmers are choosing to put this land back into cultivation.

Markets are complicated things. Markets do a fantastic job of assigning values to easily tradeable commodities like corn, soybeans, sunflower seed oil, and wheat, which happen to be some of the crops most commonly grown on the millions of acres set aside for conservation since 1985. What market fail to do, however, is to assign adequate values to the non-tradeable goods in our society. The biodiversity of a wild grassland, the health of a water fowl population, the carbon-sequestration capacity of a standing forest, and the joy a hunter gets from roaming a fenceless wild land.

As food prices continue to rise in response to the shift towards bio-fuels and the growing demand for meat among developing countries’ consumers, there will be more and more pressure for farmers in the industrialized world to take their lands out of conservation and put them into cultivation. This is not only a rich world phenomenon either. In Brazil, farmers are responding to rising sugar prices by cutting down ever growing chunks of the Amazon, one of the world’s last great rainforests, sometimes called “earth’s lungs” because of its ability to trap carbon from the atmosphere.

If balance between conservation and cultivation is to be achieved, it requires a market system that puts a tangible, tradeable value on the sometimes intangible “goods” relating to the environment. For now, a short-term solution might be a new Farm Bill that offers farmers a more substantial payment for keeping lands idle. Such an interventionist approach may stem the loss of wild lands, but does little to address the bigger problem of market failure underlying the degradation of the world’s remaining natural environments.

Related posts:

1. When markets work…
2. Hog Heaven!
3. The opportunity cost of pristine wilderness is…

In recent years coffee consumers may have noticed more and more cafes are offering “fair trade” coffee as an option. Usually, for an extra 10 or 20 cents per cup, you can get a beverage made from beans that were grown by farmers earning living wages and working in safe and sustainable environments. In some cases, “fair trade” coffee is of higher standards, representing a higher quality product. The premium paid by consumers, in theory, will eventually result in better standards of living for coffee farmers and their families.

Mike Munger, chair of Duke University’s economics department, argues that “fair trade” products, while they may represent good intentions, probably don’t do much to help poor farmers. While the full podcast offers even more reasons, the clip below presents one clear explanation of why “fair trade” may actually make poor farmers worse off.

Another interesting point Munger goes on to make relates to one of the models of economic growth we have been studying in IB Economics: the Lewis dual-sector model of structural change. According to the model, the path towards economic growth, which should create conditions that lead to economic development, requires the transition of workers from the low-productivity agricultural sector to the capital-intensive, high productivity manufacturing sector.

China, in its own economic growth, has demonstrated the success of this model, which involved rural to urban migration, employment of surplus labor from the farming sector in the industrial sector, giving workers access to capital, increasing productivity, output, income, saving, and investment, putting an economy on a path towards growth and development.

According to Munger, “fair trade” premiums paid to poor farmers create a disincentive for a farmer to migrate to the higher productivity industrial sector that may be emerging in his country. In essence, coffee drinkers in the rich world are offering a subsidy to farmers in the poor world aimed at keeping them poor. If the path to wealth and prosperity requires the transition to a capital-intensive industrial economy, then subsidies to poor farmers are only reducing the likelihood that they’ll achieve significant increases in income and savings.

Munger’s views are compelling, if a bit hard for a socially conscious, well-intentioned coffee lover like myself to swallow. I like to think that I’m helping farmers in the developing world when I drink “fair trade” coffee. If anything, Munger has at least made me think a bit harder about the true impact of the premium I pay when I choose “fair trade” next time I walk into Starbucks.

For the full podcast, click here: Munger on Fair Trade and Free Trade – EconTalk with Russ Roberts

Related posts:

1. Fair versus Free Trade as means to promote Economic Development
2. Free Trade Debate: to what extent has globalization based on free trade contributed to global economic growth and development?
3. Fair trade vs. free trade: the problem with “dumping”

Well, not exactly, but that’s kind of a dramatic headline, isn’t it? The other day I blogged about the shortages experienced in the petrol market in eastern provinces, evidenced by the long queues at gas stations around Shanghai last weekend.

Petrol stations resorted to rationing their product in small doses (between 20 and 40 litres) as the price of oil hit $92 and Chinese refiners scaled back production due to rising costs that they were unable to pass on to their customers. Beijing had previously imposed a price ceiling on fuel in an attempt to keep inflation low and Chinese consumers content; the actual impact of this price control was predictable: not enough fuel to go around as the quantity demanded exceeded the quantity supplied, leading to shortages and rationing at the pump.

Well, it looks like Beijing is finally catching on to the flawed nature of their iron fisted attempts at overpowering the forces of the free market, sort of:

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China – China pushes up fuel prices

“China raised the price of petrol and diesel by almost 10 per cent on Wednesday as crude oil prices hit a record above $94 a barrel.

The move, the first increase since May 2006, came in spite of a promise by Beijing not to put up state-controlled prices before the end of the year in an effort to keep inflation at bay.

Inflation in China exceeded 6 per cent in the third quarter amid rising food-price increases that some fear could lead to social unrest…

The retail price rise in China could stimulate demand in the short term as refiners resume production, and is unlikely to dampen long-term demand, analysts said.”

That last sentence seems strange to me. In what scenario that we have studied would a price increase ever “stimulate demand”? I suspect what the article means is that the price increase will “stimulate supply” as refiners (the producers of fuel), are now able to sell their output at a higher price (or marginal revenue), meaning that the profit maximizing level of output is greater, or higher along their marginal cost curves.

So, output should increase in the fuel industry, which means there will be more fuel for consumers to buy. But surely consumer demand will not increase; this seems to defy the law of demand! What does seem likely, however, is that the higher price (essentially a less restrictive price ceiling), will increase the quantity supplied, thus increasing the amount of fuel available for consumers to buy, alleviating the shortage and allowing Chinese to consume a greater quantity than when the price ceiling was more restrictive.

In fact, the quantity demanded will go down (as the higher price leads to leftward movement along the demand curve), but the quantity consumed will go up (as the higher price leads to a rightward movement along the supply curve). A shortage is being alleviated, but probably not eliminated, considering the price of the raw material in fuel (oil) has increased 40% in the last year, while the price of fuel has only increased 10% since May of 2006. It seems likely that the government set price is still an effective ceiling, meaning there is still excess demand, and therefore we may be seeing more lines of blue trucks around Shanghai in the future!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. Letting markets work: the Malaysia fuel subsidy goes bye bye
2. Price controls in the Chinese Petrol market – or why you may have to wait in line to fill your gas tank!
3. Burgernomics and Purchasing Power Parity

Mali’s Farmers Discover a Weed’s Potential Power – Sept 6, New York Times

Can it be possible that a new use for an old weed could change the economic health of a nation and at the same time defy the law of opportunity costs? In Mali, farmers are choosing to plant more of weed called jatropha becuase it can now be turned into biofuel. It is a unique plant in that it needs marginal soil and requires little fertilizer. In class we have talked about how discovering a new resource can cause economic growth, how this can shift the PPC curve. But, can a country actually get the benefits of using this new resource with out any opportunity cost? Is what is happening in Mali an example of economic development or economic growth in the first place? Is this a supply or a demand issue?

But now that a plant called jatropha is being hailed by scientists and policy makers as a potentially ideal source of biofuel, a plant that can grow in marginal soil or beside food crops, that does not require a lot of fertilizer and yields many times as much biofuel per acre planted as corn and many other potential biofuels. By planting a row of jatropha for every seven rows of regular crops, Mr. Banani could double his income on the field in the first year and lose none of his usual yield from his field.

You be the judge of why Mali is making the decision to produce more jatropha. Is this a case for demand or supply? Which curve would shift? Which determinant is causing this shift?

But here in Mali, one of the poorest nations on earth, a number of small-scale projects aimed at solving local problems — the lack of electricity and rural poverty — are blossoming across the country to use the existing supply of jatropha to fuel specially modified generators in villages far off the electrical grid.

“We are focused on solving our own energy problems and reducing poverty,” said Aboubacar Samaké, director of a government project aimed at promoting renewable energy. “If it helps the world, that is good, too.”

This is very interesting information for you to consider as you are wondering about environmental sustainability, a real life economic issue.

Jatropha’s proponents say it avoids the major pitfalls of other biofuels, which pose significant environmental and social risks. Places that struggle to feed their populations, like Mali and the rest of the arid Sahel region, can scarcely afford to give up cultivable land for growing biofuel crops. Other potential biofuels, like palm oil, have encountered resistance by environmentalists because plantations have encroached on rain forests and other natural habitats.

But jatropha can grow on virtually barren land with relatively little rainfall, so it can be planted in places where food does not grow well. It can also be planted beside other crops farmers grow here, like millet, peanuts and beans, without substantially reducing the yield of the fields; it may even help improve output of food crops by, among other things, preventing erosion and keeping animals out.

So try to apply what you have learned about opportunity costs, economic growth and development, as well as supply and demand and analyze these economic events in Mali. I look forward to your comments

Related posts:

1. Does economic growth = economic development? Not for China’s rural poor…
2. Lesson Plan: Visualizing Economic Growth and Economic Development
3. Models of Economic Growth and Development

Demand Down, but Rents Up – washingtonpost.com

Alright, AP students… you are economics detectives and you’ve been assigned your first case. The mystery is thus: how can decreasing demand cause prices to go up? In chapter three, we are reading about product markets, the interaction of supply and demand, and market equilibrium price and quantity. You’ve read that prices are affected by the interaction of supply and demand. Clearly, if demand for a product rises, prices should go up unless supply increases a certain amount. On the other hand, if demand falls, then prices should fall unless supply falls at the same time.

So what’s happening in the article above? The headlines seems to proclaim an economic impossibility is occurring: as demand falls, prices rise! How is this possible? Is it? Is the market for apartments in the D.C. area defying the laws of demand and supply? Read the article and see if you can solve this economic mystery!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. Supply and demand shifters and the price of pork in China
2. Return to Shanghai, and a supply/demand paradox
3. Mali’s Weed: Is this an economic development, economic growth, supply or demand issue??

While students and teachers across America settle into their summer routine and look forward to three more weeks of summer vacation, the first week of August marks an unseen exodus of thousands of international students and teachers in countries on every continent. For some reason, international schools all seem to start about two weeks earlier than the post-Labor day start date enjoyed by most public school in the US. Here at Shanghai American school, teachers arrive in droves around the 7th and 8th of August, just in time for our first work day on the 9th.

My wife and I returned to 95 degree heat from the pleasant 70′s of Seattle last night to begin preparing for our second year at Shanghai American School. In a week SAS will welcome around 2900 students, making it one of the largest international schools in the world. As part of our orientation this morning, our director, Dr. Dennis Larkin, shared a bit of SAS’s 95 year history with the faculty, enlightening many of us to the school’s storied past stretching back to the concession era of Shanghai’s “golden age” when thousands of Westerners made their settlements in the city’s center. 100 years ago Shanghai underwent a renaissance unseen in China’s thousands of years of history. European influence brought the city into the 20th century architecturally, culturally, economically, and perhaps more notoriously in the realm of criminal activity as gangsters took over the city through much of the 20′s and 30′s.

With the large Western presence came a demand for Western schools, thus in 1912 Shanghai American School welcomed its first class of 12 students. By the 20′s enrollment rose to 600, and by the 30′s it approached 1,000. In 1937 China was invaded by Japan, and foreign firms and embassies began nervously moving their people out of Shanghai. By 1939 Shanghai had fallen to the Japanese and the school grounds were occupied by Japanese troops. But with the surrender of the Japanese in 1945, the school was back in operation, albeit for only a short time as a civil war between the Chinese Communist Party and the US backed Nationalists brought violence to the streets of Shanghai once more. By 1950 Beijing had fallen to Mao and the Communists, and SAS was shut down “for good”. Its doors would remained closed for 30 years until 1980, when Mao had died and Deng Xiaoping had ushered in the era of “Reform and Opening”, a euphemism for westernization. Once again SAS opened for business.

In the 27 years since the school’s rebirth, the student body has grown from the seven children of American diplomats to 2,900 students from over 50 countries. In the last five years alone the student body has nearly doubled in size, as the school has added a second campus and countless new buildings to serve the growing population of foreigners in Shanghai. Over the same 27 years, around ten other international schools have opened in Shanghai, some with two or three campuses spread across the vast city, several serving over 1000 students also from scores of foreign countries. What impact has the opening and expansion of SAS and other international schools had on tuition paid by foreign students in Shanghai? You may think that with so many schools competing to attract students, each school would have to lower its fees in order to attract students away from its competitors. Well, you’d be wrong. SAS increased its tuition fees by 10% this year, bringing a year’s tuition to around $22,000. Its competitors charge something in the same ballpark, meaning a year of schooling at any of Shanghai’s international schools will cost a family more than a year’s tuition at most state universities in the US.

Discussion Questions:

So, what does all this history and data have to do with economics? Here’s a simple supply and demand question for you. In 1980, international schools in Shanghai had room for, let’s say 20 students total. I am not sure, but I’d guess tuition in 1980 probably ran around $2,000. Today, there are somewhere around 10 international schools with room for probably around 10,000 students, and the average tuition is somewhere in the realm of $20,000.

1. How would an economist explain the 1,000% increase in tuition over the last 27 years, given the fact that today international schools in Shanghai have the capacity to serve 500 times as many students as they could in 1980?
2. Could you draw a supply and demand diagram illustrating the changes that have occurred since 1980 in the market for international education in Shanghai?
3. Let’s be honest, $22,000 is a lot of money for a year of school. What would have to happen in the market for international education in Shanghai for the tuition fees to go down? Identify two scenarios that would result in a tuition decrease. Illustrate these scenarios on your diagram.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. 2,250 Sandpoints = 1 Shanghai
2. A supply and demand mystery… to be solved by you!
3. Mali’s Weed: Is this an economic development, economic growth, supply or demand issue??

Natural gas in Wyoming | Boom and doom | Economist.com

From the latest Economist: an article about the booming natural gas industry in rural Wyoming (as if there’s such a thing as urban Wyoming) and the impact it’s having on the economy of one small town.

You’d think a booming industry offering high wages for low-skilled workers would be a godsend for a remote Western town like Pinedale, Wyoming. Think again; this article points out some of the downsides resulting from the natural gas boom since 2000, when oil shortages led to an increase in the price of gas and lots of new drilling in Wyoming, America’s least populated state.

Pinedale is at the centre of a Rocky Mountain gas boom that began in 2000 and accelerated five years later after Hurricane Katrina knocked out Gulf supplies, forcing up prices. On a mesa south of Pinedale, Wyoming’s busiest field is laced with dirt roads and pock-marked with well-heads and drilling rigs.

The influx of gas workers has increased the population of the area by 40% since 2000. The new business has meant more tax revenues for the county, “In 2001 Sublette county raised $16m in sales and other taxes. Last year it took in $53m.” What does all this mean for residents of Pinedale and the surrounding county? Higher wages and low unemployment.

Next year Pinedale’s school district will pay newly qualified teachers a base salary of $43,000—about the same as in Chicago.Teachers nonetheless earn less than rig hands, most of whom have no more than a high-school education. They are paid at least $49,000 plus overtime, according to a survey last year. The ready availability of well-paid work, albeit hard and dangerous, means that unemployment has almost disappeared (see chart). So have seasonal fluctuations. Jobs used to disappear when the snow fell. But the gas rigs now keep going through the winter.

The wage hikes enjoyed by government employees and gas workers, while good for some, means doom for local businesses not directly linked to the gas business, for whom the tight labor market makes it increasingly difficult to operate. The housing market has also experienced a shock since the gas boom, as properties away from the gas fields have barely increased or even decreased in value.

The interesting connection I see in this article to our Economics course lies in the affect of low unemployment and high wages on the business environment. See if you can identify the connection through the questions below.

Discussion Questions:

1. What led to the increased drilling for natural gas in 2000? Which determinants of demand and supply led to the changes experienced in the oil and natural gas industries?
2. What kind of labor market is the Wyoming gas industry most like, perfectly competitive or monopsonistic? How do you know?
3. Are gas companies in Wyoming wage takers or wage makers? What’s the difference?
4. If low unemployment and high wages are assumed to be good, then why does the article indicate that they are actually bad for some in Pinedale?
5. Why has “the number of retail and entertainment outfits in Sublette county” fallen “even as disposable income soared”?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. The questions no one seems to be asking about the auto industry bailout!
2. Does the funeral industry represent a market failure?
3. Stagflation – a blast from the past could mean trouble for US economy