All of Inflation’s Little Parts - The New York Times

This is really cool… The Bureau of Labor Statistics releases monthly data on prices to let Americans know just how much inflation affects their livelihoods. The Consumer Price Index, which is studied in both AP and IB Economics, consists of a “basket of goods”, that when bundled together represent the “typical” American consumer’s expenditures. The CPI is broken into a few broad categories:

Here’s the cool part, though… within each broad category the BLS tracks the prices of dozens of specific categories, around 200 to be precise. Each of these is then broken down into individual products, around 84,000 in total! The task of tracking the prices of 84,000 individual goods and services every month is daunting, and just thinking about the tedium of this job makes me glad I’m a teacher!

The New York Times has assembled what can only be described as a mosaic of consumption, organizing the 200 specific CPI categories into what looks like an ornate stained-glass window, in which the size of each piece of glass represents the percentage of Americans’ income that go towards each specific category. Some of the categories represented in this mosaic include items such as:

This graphic is a great tool for teaching and understanding the Consumer Price Index, not to mention a beautiful pattern for any stained-glass artist looking for inspiration!
nyt-cpi-graphic

Michael Munger, Bosses Don’t Wear Bunny Slippers, If Markets Are So Great, Why Are There Firms: Library of Economics and Liberty

The other day when we introduced our unit on market failure, we began by revisiting the concept of free markets as mechanisms for allocating scarce resources efficiently. As I was reading blogs tonight, I stumbled upon this blog post by Michael Munger, professor of political economy at Duke University, where he shares an anecdote he uses when introducing the allocating power of markets through the price mechanism:

When I teach political economy, I start with the neoclassical theory of consumption, and then cover production. And I show students how miraculous is it that the actions of millions of people who have never met can be directed by prices. Resources move toward their highest valued use, and consumption goods are delivered to the consumers who want them.

For example, the United States promoted ethanol as an auto fuel. This sharply increased the price of corn worldwide. As Brazilian reporter Kieran Gartlan put it: “Higher prices are leading Brazilian farmers to plant more second crop corn this year, and the country’s modest corn exports are expected to expand [from 42 million tonnes to 48 million tonnes, an increase of 230 million bushels.]” (DTN, March 2, 2007, emphasis mine).

No one directed the Brazilian farmers to shift to corn production. The article puts it perfectly: “Higher prices are leading farmers….” The leadership comes from the prices themselves! The farmers may have had no idea why the price of corn had increased, to $4.00 per bushel. (After all, Brazil uses sugar, not corn, to produce its ethanol.) But Brazilian corn production increased within a year, by nearly 15%. No one made the farmers switch; they made choices. Other corn producers, in Argentina, Mexico, and several African countries, followed suit. No one talked about it, no one gave any orders; prices led them.

The reason I post this excerpt from professor Munger’s blog now is that it serves as a great response to a student who on the first day of our market failure class posited that perhaps the government could do a better job of deciding what goods and services and how much of them should be produced in an economy.

Yes, markets fail, and for many reasons: a concentration of power among a few large firms, an underallocation of resources towards goods that have spillover benefits, the over-provision of goods that have spillover costs, the failure of the market to provide public goods: these are examples of how market fail.

But when markets work, they really work! The efficiency of resource allocation that results from free, competitive, markets is unrivaled by any central planning agency. Munger’s example above is a simple illustration of this allocative power of markets and prices.

Powered by ScribeFire.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Nintendo warns of Wii shortages

Looks like Brits dreaming of the Wii from Nintendo may have to wait a while longer this holiday season, as British retailers are finding it nearly impossible to fill customers’ orders. It turns out there is quite a shortage for the hot new gaming system from Nintendo!

“Although we’re receiving regular deliveries from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft and getting the products onto the shelves as fast as we can - it’s possible that demand will outstrip supplies on some products, for example the Nintendo Wii, which has been hugely popular all through the year,” read a statement from high street gaming specialist Game…

“The Nintendo Wii consoles have proved extremely popular with our customers and have been flying off the shelves whenever we get new stock in,” said a spokeswoman.

It seems like the shortage of Wii’s in the UK should send a message to Nintendo and its retailers: RAISE THE PRICE!! One way retailers have tried to do this is by bundling the consoles with up to three or four games, meaning to take home a console shoppers would have to fork over 300 GBP. This seems like a great strategy for retailers faced with strong demand from customers, given that they are probably not allowed to charge above Nintendos suggested retail price for the console itself. Continue Reading »

YOUmoz | Price Discrimination in Pay Per Click Advertising

The article above gives a great introduction to and several examples of price discrimination among firms with market power. Read the excerpt below then discuss the questions that follow in your comments:

For any product or service, different people have different prices they are willing to pay. If you ever took an Economics course you surely remember the downward sloping demand curve, which is a graphical way of saying that you’ll get more buyers at a low price and fewer buyers at a high price. For a business that cannot price discriminate, this poses a problem. What price to offer?

Continue Reading »

TDeluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster - Dana Thomas - Books - Review - New York Times

Luxury goods “sold for profit”, author alleges | Free exchange | Economist.com

As our first unit in AP Economics winds down, we will soon begin studying the principles behind the function of product markets. A fundamental principle of product markets we will focus on is the interaction of supply and demand, and the importance of these factors in determining the equilibrium price in any particular product market.

In the above article from the NY times, the author reviews a book that exposes the diminished quality and attention to detail among manufacturers of luxury goods (think Prada, Gucci, etc…) The era of globalization and off-shoring of manufacturing has aided luxury firms in their quest for profits, as they’ve been able to significantly cut costs while maintaining exorbitant prices for their product. The reviewer, as well as the book she reviews, seems to have a serious issue with the alleged demise in the luxury market of attention to detail and craftsmanship, as competition and profit seeking behavior have led to an industry where the back alley workshops of Milan and Paris have been supplanted by the factory floors of Shen Zhen and Hoh Chi Minh City.

The reviewer seems to have a hard time coming to grips with her own inability to express her dissatisfaction with the way the luxury market has gone. Despite her accusations of poor quality and greedy executives in the industry, she just can’t resist buying the goods with the golden name tags:

When, I asked myself, did it become commonplace to charge several thousand dollars for a mass-produced handbag? How could the flimsy designer sundress I bought on sale — a “steal,” the saleswoman assured me — still wind up costing a whole month’s salary? Why is my favorite brand of lipstick more expensive than a nice bottle of Italian wine? When did these products’ values grow so distorted, and what is the would-be customer to make of it all?

The reviewer’s ignorance of how product markets function shines brightly in the above passage. Her lack of understanding of the interaction of supply and demand is further demonstrated when she speaks of the reviewed book’s author:

For Thomas, a cultural and fashion writer for Newsweek in Paris and the Paris correspondent for the Australian Harper’s Bazaar, the luxury industry is a sham because its offerings in no way merit the high price tags they command. Yet once upon a time, they most certainly did. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, when many of luxury’s founding fathers first set up shop, paying more money meant getting something truly exceptional. Dresses from Christian Dior, luggage from Louis Vuitton, jewelry from Cartier: in the golden period of luxury, these items carried prestige because of their superior craftsmanship and design. True, only the very privileged could afford them, but it was this exclusivity that gave them their cachet. Although they may have “cared about making a profit,” the merchants who served this pampered class aimed chiefly “to produce the finest products possible.” (Italics added)

It appears that neither the NYT reviewer nor the author of the reviewed book ever took an introductory economics course, such as the AP class you’re all oh so enjoying right now! If she had, she would clearly understand that price is not determined by the level of craftsmanship, the attention to detail, nor the level of exclusivity represented by a particular purse, shoe or dress. Rather, price is determined by the interaction of Demand and Supply in the market for all goods, EVEN luxury goods!

When she claims that “the merchents who served this pampered class aimed chiefly ‘to produce the finest products possible’”, the reviewer is forgetting some of the basic teachings of capitalism’s founding father. Adam Smith himself could have corrected the NYT reviewer when he said, “Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer…”. Smith knew as any economics student should know that exchanges in any market are rooted not in some obscure sense of artistic appreciation, rather in the producer’s desire to make a profitable exchange for his or her wares. In the case of luxury goods, Gucci and Prada never made high quality goods because they loved making high quality goods, rather they made them cause consumers demanded them and were willing to pay top dollar for them.

That they’re no longer made by hand in a back alley in Milan does not mean such products cannot command exorbitant prices in the market! After all, if the NYT reviewer were really so horrified by the price of the dress for which she gave up a whole month’s salary, then she would not have bought it in the first place! The fact that she still walked out of the store with the dress in her possession answers her very question of why luxury goods are still commanding the exorbitant prices they do despite the outsourcing of their production to massive factories in Asia: the DEMAND is still there!

What the author is missing is a basic understanding of the determinants of Demand. New wealth in Asia and the former soviet states means the size of the market for luxury goods has grown rapidly in recent decades. In addition, rising incomes in Western Europe and the USA and shifts in tastes and preferences towards high fashion, luxury goods as symbols of wealth have assured the industry an ever increasing level of demand. As any AP Economics student should understand, when Demand increases at a greater rate than supply, one thing is certain, and that is prices will go up! The price a good commands in the market has little to do with how much it cost to produce or where it was produce, and everything to do with the level of demand relative to the level of supply.

If only the author of book’s author and reviewer had sat through a semester of microeconomics in high school or college, they could have spared themselves such a humiliating misinterpretation of the luxury goods market!

Powered by ScribeFire.

For six of our 16 days, my wife Liz and our friend Leah rented a jeep and circumnavigated the island. Our first stop was for two days of scuba diving in the northeast region of Ahmed. As we drove along the seven or so beaches near Ahmed, we observed there were around ten dive operators offering packages for the local dive spots (including one of Asia’s most famous dives, the WWII-era USS Liberty wreck). Based on our Lonely Planet recommendation, we settled on Eco-Dive, where we paid $60 a day for two dives and all our gear rental. We felt good about this rate and agreed that $60 was a fair and competitive price for a day of diving.

Our next stop, Pemuteran, a remote and relatively undeveloped area on the northwest coast just across the straits from Java, is also known for its great diving. Our first morning in Pemuteran, my wife and I strolled along the beach and found that there were only three dive operators to choose from! And guess what, they all charged between $95-$105 for a two-dive day with gear included! That’s around 60% more than the operators in Ahmed charged! In the end, we decided to do only one day of diving in Pemuteran, and elected to spend our second day there reading by the pool.

Discussion Questions:

1. What was the difference between the scuba diving markets in Ahmed and Pemuteran? Which market was more competitive?
2. What allowed operators in Pemuteran to charge 60% more than the operators in Ahmed? What kind of market structure best describes the diving market in Pemuteran?
3. What do you think is keeping one of the three dive operators in Pemuteran from lowering their price to, say, $60 for a day of diving? How would the other two operators respond? Would this be good or bad for the dive operators of Pemuteran? Would it be good or bad for scuba divers?
4. Assuming that the cost of opening a dive operation was relatively low, and there were no government or other barriers to doing so in Pemuteran, what do you suspect will happen in the Scuba diving market as the tourism industry continues to develop in the remote town of Pemuteran? Explain.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Freakonomics: Monkey Business: Keith Chen’s Monkey Research

No I’m not talking about the latest freshman class at an Ivy League school… rather a group of monkeys at Yale that have been taught how to use money:

The essential idea was to give a monkey a dollar and see what it did with it. The currency Chen settled on was a silver disc, one inch in diameter, with a hole in the middle — ”kind of like Chinese money,” he says. It took several months of rudimentary repetition to teach the monkeys that these tokens were valuable as a means of exchange for a treat and would be similarly valuable the next day. Having gained that understanding, a capuchin would then be presented with 12 tokens on a tray and have to decide how many to surrender for, say, Jell-O cubes versus grapes. This first step allowed each capuchin to reveal its preferences and to grasp the concept of budgeting.

Turns out the law of Demand is not only true for humans but for monkeys too. When Chen “lowered the price of grapes”, monkeys would buy more grapes and less Jell-O, following the basic rule of utility maximization. Interestingly, the introduction of money led to more than just the simple exchanges of currency for candy and cucumber; the monkeys were also taught to gamble. Through their observations of several gambling scenarios, the researchers found monkeys tended to display “loss averse” behavior in games of chance, leading to an amusing conclusion:

The data generated by the capuchin monkeys, Chen says, ”make them statistically indistinguishable from most stock-market investors.”

Sadly, gambling was not the only vice that accompanied the introduction of money in to monkey society:

Then there is the stealing. Santos has observed that the monkeys never deliberately save any money, but they do sometimes purloin a token or two during an experiment.

But the debauchery does not stop with gambling and theft:

Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of money, after all, is its fungibility, the fact that it can be used to buy not just food but anything. During the chaos in the monkey cage, Chen saw something out of the corner of his eye that he would later try to play down but in his heart of hearts he knew to be true. What he witnessed was probably the first observed exchange of money for sex in the history of monkeykind. (Further proof that the monkeys truly understood money: the monkey who was paid for sex immediately traded the token in for a grape.)

As if we needed any proof beyond the widespread immorality and loss of values that distinguish many rich human societies, the steep decline of monkey morality observed at Yale can only be attributed to the introduction of currency! The implications of the Yale study on economics are clear: humans are not necessarily unique in our understanding of currency as a means of exchange. As long as money has imbued human societies, the wont to enrich ourselves through immoral means such as gambling, theft and prostitution has stained civilizations from ancient Mesopotamia to modern America.

When taught to use money, a group of capuchin monkeys responded quite rationally to simple incentives; responded irrationally to risky gambles; failed to save; stole when they could; used money for food and, on occasion, sex. In other words, they behaved a good bit like the creature that most of Chen’s more traditional colleagues study: Homo sapiens.

To make a more poignant observation, one thing is clear and disturbing, among the human societies today, Americans are most like monkeys when it comes to saving.

Discussion Questions:

1. Of the various functions of money, which role does money play for monkeys?
2. What gives the money used by the monkeys its value?
3. Discuss the evidence from this article suggesting that monkeys follow the law of demand.
4. What is the utility maximization rule and what evidence from this article supports the suggestion that monkeys follow this rule?
5. How are monkeys more similar to American consumers than to, say, Japanese or Chinese consumers?

Powered by ScribeFire.