FT.com / Asia-Pacific / India – Camel demand soars in India

In a principles of economics course such as AP or IB Econ, we learn about the determinants of demand. I teach my students the acronym “TOEISS”, which stands for consumer tastes, other related goods’ prices, expectations, income, size of the market and special circumstances. A change in any of these determinants will shift the demand curve for a particular product.

“Other related goods” refers to the effect that a change in price for a substitute or a complement of one good will have on the demand for that good. An example might be the effect of an increase in the price of pork on demand for beef. Clearly, these two goods are substitutes in consumption, and if pork becomes pricey, consumers will demand more beef.

In an era of soaring gasoline prices, many consumers have made the switch from large, inefficient, gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs to smaller, more efficient hybrids and compact cars, a reasonable substitute for the average commuter. For some drivers, however, a hybrid just won’t meet their everyday needs.

In northern India, where farmers rely on tractors to till their arid fields, rising gas prices have made expensive tractors, dependent as they are on large inputs of fuel, less attractive to farmers. As gas prices have risen, demand patterns have shifted among farmers in the northern state of Rajasthan:

As the cost of running gas-guzzling tractors soars, even-toed ungulates are making a comeback, raising hopes that a fall in the population of the desert state’s signature animal can be reversed.

It’s excellent for the camel population if the price of oil continues to go up because demand for camels will also go up,” says Ilse Köhler-Rollefson of the League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous Livestock Development. “Two years ago, a camel cost little more than a goat, which is nothing. The price has since trebled…

”Market prices for these “ships of the desert”, which crashed with the growing affordability of motorised transport, are rising again as oil prices soar.

A sturdy male with a life expectancy of 60-80 years now fetches up to Rs40,000 ($973), compared to Rs5,000-Rs10,000 three years ago, according to Hanuwant Singh of the Lokhit Pashu-Palak Sansthan, a non-profit welfare organisation for livestock keepers. Entry-level tractors cost around $4,000.

Camels, the ultimate “alternative energy vehicle”. In fact, the only fuel these vehicles need is the occasional bite of grass and a weekly sip of water; talk about fuel economy!

While it may seem funny to those of us so used to the motor vehicle, animals represent a viable substitute for farm machinery in the developing world, and it is likely that as fuel costs continue to soar, more poor farmers will switch back to traditional means of tilling their soil. Water buffalo, cattle, camels, these are all substitutes for the gas powered tractor. Demand for these “alternative vehicles” will rise as fuel costs climb.

Discussion Questions:

As Clinton Seeks Gas Tax Break for Summer, Obama Says No – New York Times

Times are tough for American consumers. Rising food and fuel prices have increased the proportion of household incomes that must be allocated towards these two necessities, both for which demand is highly inelastic, meaning that as their prices rise, the quantity demanded by consumers remains relatively high.

In response to the pinching of Americans’ pocketbooks, two presidential candidates are advocating action at the federal level.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season.

Sounds like a good idea, right? If Americans are finding it burdensome to pay more at the pump, and the government can do something to relieve that burden, why shouldn’t they do it?

Let’s do a little calculation here: At 18.4 cents per gallon, how much per fill-up will Americans save?

I drive a ’94 Toyota pick-up, has a 15 gallon tank and gets notoriously poor mileage. I’ll save $2.76 per tank of gas I buy. I usually fill up my truck about once a week during the summer, meaning I’ll save that much each week. McCain wants to suspend the gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day, or for a total of about 12 weeks. If Clinton and McCain get their way, I could very well save as much as $33.12 this year! ASTOUNDING!! What a deal for Americans!

Clearly, repealing the gas tax will have only a minor impact on disposable incomes in America. Obama seems to understand this better than the other candidates:

Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports…

Mr. Obama derided the McCain-Clinton idea of a federal tax holiday as a “short-term, quick-fix” proposal that would do more harm than good, and said the money, which is earmarked for the federal highway trust fund, is badly needed to maintain the nation’s roads and bridges.

The decision to suspend or not suspend federal gas taxes is essentially a cost-benefit decision. The benefit? Well, apparently around $30 per driver, or about half a tank of gas, compliments of the US government. The cost? Read on…

The highway trust fund that the gas tax finances provides money to states and local governments to pay for road and bridge construction, repair and maintenance. Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton propose to suspend the tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day, the peak driving season, which would lower tax receipts by roughly $9 billion and potentially cost 300,000 highway construction jobs, according to state highway officials.

There you have it; $9 billion dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs that won’t be created in order to put half a tank of gas in each American’s car, which if you think about it, will only lead to Americans driving more this summer. Repealing the gas tax may actually induce Americans who weren’t planning road trips to go ahead and take one, increasing the overall demand for gas and driving the price up to the level it would have been with the tax.

And what about the much needed government revenue the tax creates? Hillary has another plan for recouping that loss:

Mrs. Clinton would replace that money with the new tax on oil company profits, an idea that has been kicking around Congress for several years but has not been enacted into law. Mr. McCain would divert tax revenue from other sources to make the highway trust fund whole.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton needs a refresher course in basic microeconomics. If she had paid attention in AP Economics (did she even take AP Econ?), Clinton would know that a tax on producers of a highly inelastic good such as oil can be passed almost entirely onto the consumers. In this case, the oil companies, when faced with additional federal taxes on profits, will respond by restricting output, which reduces overall supply in oil market, raising the price of the main input for gasoline. Higher input costs for gasoline refineries will reduce overall supply of gasoline, increasing the price paid by consumers at the pump, negating any price-reduction induced by the suspension of the gas tax.

Ultimately, all taxes are borne by the consumers of an inelastic product: gasoline in this case. Whether the tax is levied on drivers directly, or the oil companies “upstream” in the production process, the outcome is the same: supply is restricted and price is higher.

The suspension of a gas tax that only costs Americans $30 over 3 months appears to impose a much greater cost to society than benefit. At least Obama seems to understand the basic economic reasoning behind this fact.

Obama on State Gas Tax Suspension

Inflation gets a new focus along with recession worries – Feb. 21, 2008

As we begin our studies of the theories underlying the aggregate demand/aggregate supply model in AP Macroeconomics, it is useful to look in the news to see if we can try and understand how these theories apply to the real world. In the US, it appears as if a dangerous economic phenomena that plagued the country in the early 1970′s may be returning to wreak its havoc among households and policymakers.

Stagflation, “the unwanted combination of stagnant economic growth and destructive inflation”, has emerged in America today, in the face of weak aggregate demand and rising unemployment, combined with rising costs to firms thanks to energy costs and food prices.

Recession has been getting so much attention lately that it’s been easy to forget about the threats posed to the U.S. economy by inflation.But inflation worries are now back in focus in a major way. Oil prices hit a record of $101.32 a barrel in trading Wednesday, and was briefly above $100 again Thursday

Meanwhile, the Consumer Price Index, the government’s key inflation reading, showed a 4.3% rise in overall prices over the past 12-months. That reading has risen steadily from only 2.0% last August. Even stripping out volatile food and energy prices, the so-called core CPI posted the biggest seasonally-adjusted one-month jump in 19 months.

Continue Reading »

Greg Mankiw’s Blog: The Pigou Club Manifesto

Here’s a good question to bring up around the dinner table with mom and dad tonight: “When is more taxes good?” Most individuals in society despise taxes; what is it the cynics say? “The only things guaranteed in life are death and taxes.” Clearly, the thought of giving money to the government is as miserable for some as the thought of dying!

But when might more taxes be good taxes? The answer, as you may have guessed, has to do with the concept of negative externalities and the idea that a tax may be used to correct a market failure of too many resources being allocated towards a particular product. One such product towards which too many resources have been allocated in the last several decades is gasoline; that’s right petroleum gas, the life blood of our beloved automobiles, the symbols of our very freedom and prosperity we cherish so much. How do we know too many resources have gone towards the production of gasoline? Simple, there’s too much of it and it’s too cheap. Evidence? Just look around:

• Congested roads
• Urban smog
• Auto accident fatalities
• Shortage of parking spaces in most cities
• Noise pollution
• Sprawling road systems that ugly the landscape
• Global warming

All of the above ills in some way are the result of cheap gasoline. The market failure here is simple: too much gas has been produced and it sells for too cheaply, hence, lots of people drive lots of huge, gas-guzzling SUVs, trucks, vans, sports cars, luxury sedans, Hummers, and not enough small, economical, fuel-efficient automobiles that would put way less a strain on our urban and natural environments.

So what do we do now to fix this problem? Should be dismantle all the oil refineries, shut down the gas stations, and blow up the pipelines that facilitate the production of gasoline? Well, that would be one option, although it’s not ideal. Another might be to require that all auto makers achieve a certain level of fuel-efficiency among their automobiles. That’s what the US government has done by adopting the “Corporate Average Fuel Economy” (CAFE) standards. This sort of direct control creates market distortions of its own, however. One economist has said, “the CAFE standard was a failure and said it was like trying to fight obesity by requiring tailors to make only small-sized clothes”

Continue Reading »

Oil worker shortage could lead to supply squeeze – Nov. 2, 2007

Lately I’ve blogged about the impact of higher oil prices on the petrol market in China (here and here). As the main input in petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel, the price of oil affects the costs of fuel producers, such as China”s SinoPec and PetroChina, the two large state-owned petroleum companies, as well as the scores of smaller competitors in that provide fuel to China’s thirsty economic machine.

As the price of oil has approached $100 per barrel, fuel manufacturers have had to cut back output as their costs have soared, putting upward pressure on the market price of fuel here in China. But what determines the price of a barrel of oil? Is the increase in the price of oil due to an outward shift of demand or an inward shift of supply? Actually, it’s probably both. This article helps answer part of our question, and it does so by discussing one of the determinants of supply of oil, resource costs. Continue Reading »

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.

Gas hits record high price for eighth straight day – May. 20, 2007

According to CNN.com:

“The run-up in prices is a big concern for store chains, according to the retailers’ trade group. Its survey of consumers released early Friday found the average consumer believes that the price of gas will reach $3.32 per gallon by Father’s Day… As a result, 40.2 percent of consumers are taking fewer shopping trips, while 37.9 percent told the survey they plan to shop closer to home.”

“To offset the effects of higher prices, more consumers are giving their wallets a little extra cushion by cutting back on discretionary spending or choosing to frequent retailers closer to home.”"

And this is a bad thing? To big chain stores, perhaps, but what about the neighborhood businesses (are there still any of those?) that will benefit after years of losing business to big box retailers like Wal-Mart and Home Depot? Consumers driving less may harm major retailers whose stores tend to be clumped together in mega shopping strips on the outskirts of towns, but surely the benefits of less driving outweigh the costs.

Fewer cars on the road mean less traffic, less noise, more space for cyclists, less hazard to pedestrians and children playing ball in their yards, cleaner air and a deceleration of global warming, more customers at neighborhood businesses, and perhaps even more quality time with family and friends (if we can assume less time shopping means more time with each other).

So if high gas prices result in so many improvements in our environment, relationships, communities and health, why are they such a bad thing? Perhaps because higher gas prices overburden the poor. Since fuel makes up a larger proportion of a poor family’s budget than a rich one’s, higher gas prices put a bigger dent in the disposable incomes of the poor than the rich. Economic theory would indicate that the poor’s demand for gas is more elastic than the rich’s, meaning that price increases are met with a greater decrease in consumption than someone for whom gas makes up a relatively small part of their overall budget. This, again, may not be so bad. Perhaps the poor will begin limiting their outings to those that are deemed most necessary (such as to and from work, school, child care or clinic) and cut back on unnecessary trips (such as to mall, the movie theater, the go cart track or the Wal-Mart across town). Less consumption may not lower overall standard of living when we consider that much of the consumption going on by Americans (rich and poor alike) is frivolous and ostentatious.

Even acknowledging the regressive nature of the burden of high gas prices, it still seems to me that higher prices are necessary to achieving a cleaner, healthier, better functioning society. The problem is, if prices are kept artificially high through price gouging, as the Democratic leadership in Congress seems to believe, then the full benefits of higher gas prices are being passed on to oil companies rather than society, as could be achieved with an effective gas tax.

CNN presents their own solution to the problem of high gas prices:

From higher taxes to more drilling, ways to cut gas prices – May. 10, 2007

1- Pass a carbon tax
2- Increase efficiency
3- Push alternatives
4- Require oil companies to make more gas
5- Build a gasoline reserve
6- Drill more oil

It’s too bad my AP class has finished for the year. I think a great quiz would be to hand them this list and ask, “What’s missing?” Anyone who’s completed a semester in a Principle of Microeconomics course should be able to get an A on such a quiz. Can you tell what’s missing? If so, please post your comment here. (Hint- fill in the blank: Supply and ______?_______)

Powered by ScribeFire.

Here’s a follow-up to the previous post about stupid Americans acting stupid. Looks like the stupidity is not limited to the idiotic idea of boycotting gas for a day, rather it is alive and well among America’s leaders. Here’s the Democrats’ solution to the high gas prices faced by Americans today:

Join the Campaign to Change America / John Edwards ’08 Blog

“The ENERGY PRICE GOUGING PREVENTION ACT will provide immediate relief to consumers by giving the Federal Trade Commission the AUTHORITY to investigate prices–focusing on the causes, the burdens they put on American families and businesses, and solutions.”

And here’s an insightful and entertaining critique of the Democrat’s proposed bill by economist Tim Haab:

Environmental Economics: All politicians are idiots and other obvious thoughts on high gas prices

“There are two possibile explanations for the Democrats proposal of the STUPID bill. 1) They think the public is too stupid realize they are trying to “do something” by proposing a STUPID bill, or 2) They are idiots. Since Env-Econ readers obviously represent a cross-section of the public, and since Env-Econ readers are smart enough to know that this bill is STUPID, I have to conclude that 1) is logically impossible and therefore, 2) must be true. So we’ve now proven that Democrats are idiots. We’re halfway there.”

The stupidity of this proposed bill lies in the fact that Democrats seem to champion environmental protection, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and a solution to the global warming problem, while simultaneously fighting for regulations that REDUCE the price of greenhouse gas emitting fuel, the repeal of gas taxes, the expansion of oil refineries’ capacity, and other measures that will assure the cheapest gas possible for American drivers. The two goals are incompatible, as the solution to the greenhouse gas problem requires HIGHER gas prices, not lower gas prices.

What policy makers don’t realize is that “high gas prices are NOT an economic or political problem.” Markets allocate resources efficiently when markets are allowed to work. Higher gas prices reflect the basic economic law of scarcity, supply and demand. With developing countries like China demanding a greater proportion of world reserves than ever before, American drivers preparing for their summer road trips and a war raging in the middle east, higher prices at the pump should come as no surprise. Intervention in the gas market will result in greater inefficiency, as prices kept artificially low by government interfere with the market mechanism, increasing the quantity of gas demanded, and further exasperating the depletion of this scarce resource (not to mention contributing to the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions). The shortsightedness of legislators may only postpone the inevitable price rises of this resource for tomorrow’s consumers, while work in the complete opposite direction as they desire on the global warming front.

Ultimately, higher gas prices are necessary and desirable if we are to transition to more environmentally friendly fuel sources. As petrol reaches $4.00 per gallon, consumers will think more seriously about buying more fuel-efficient automobiles, using public transportation, choosing to cycle to work and taking other such steps towards reducing their carbon footprints. This, after all, is the only way Democrats will ever achieve their other supposed goal of avoiding the catastrophe of global warming and achieving greater energy independence; and this can only happen if gas prices continue to rise.

So what about “price gouging”? Concentration of market power among a handful of firms in the oligopolistic oil market may indeed result in some degree of collusion and setting of prices above equilibrium. This is inefficient, yes, but it occurs in a market in which, unregulated, equilibrium output and price would also be inefficient due to the existence of negative externalities. In other words, even were oil companies competing directly, the price would be too low and output too high since the price of gas does not include the full social cost of gas consumption. In a way, the inefficiency arising from excess market power corrects the inefficiency arising from the existence of externalities. The catch is this: consumers end up lining the pockets of oil companies rather than filling their own national tax coffers, since the higher price is a result of collusion rather than taxation.

What policy makers should be discussing is the imposition of new gas taxes, which, rather than only increasing the price consumers would pay, would reduce the ability of oil firms to price gouge, taking a chunk out of their “record profits” and turning it into tax revenues. These revenues could then be invested into research of new fuel technologies, the subsidizing of which would increase their supplies, making them more competitive as a substitute for petrol and thus more attractive to consumers. This helps politicians achieve their goal of energy independence and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Lower gas prices NOW will only postpone this important transition.

Here’s another clear presentation of why politicians should not meddle with oil prices: Knowledge Problem: Price Gouging – Politicians vs. Economists

Powered by ScribeFire.

Environmental Economics: I couldn’t decide between “Gas Boycotts Don’t Work” and “Oh Crap, Here We Go Again”

So, the idea is that on May 15 (today in America), millions of Americans will boycott oil companies by not filling their cars with gas in the hope that firms like Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell and others will be forced to lower their prices. The goal is to make oil companies lower their price per gallon by 30 cents.

Remember my post below “Why learning Economics is SO important”? The American “Gas Boycott” is a perfect example of how people uneducated in economics can rally around really stupid and senseless ideas. The authors of Environmental Economics, a great blog, give all the reasons why this gas boycott will not achieve its goal. These are ALL basic economic concepts, which means that if ONLY the organizers of this boycott had bothered to take a principles course, they would have spared themselves of this embarrassing attempt at activism. I’ll keep finding reasons why learning economics is important, you keep learning!

Powered by ScribeFire.