• 15747_7.7_000004061067XSmall

    A Pencil, An Apple, and a Price System

    Jul 7 • Demand, Supply, and Markets, Economic Thinkers • 161 Views

    I suspect we take prices for granted. Please think for a moment about a $10 pair of shoes. As a consumer, that $10 price tag tells you that they are inexpensive and you won’t have to sacrifice very much to buy them. Correspondingly, seeing the same price, a shoe manufacturer might decide not to make them because profits would be minimal. 

    Saying prices are the reason, in Free To Choose, economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) tells us that thousands of people, who might hate each other if they ever met, cooperate to make a pencil. Its wood, he says, probably comes from the state of Washington where they must have used a saw which required steel, which needed iron ore. The lead is actually graphite which probably came from mines in South America. With rubber from Malaya, they made an eraser and still, yellow paint and glue were necessary.

    Telling a similar story about the iPhone4, the NY Times described the worldwide cooperation that created it. While the phone is assembled in Shenzhen, China, according to a “teardown” analysis, its chips come from Germany, South Korea, and the U.S., a touch-screen module is from Taiwan, and the phone’s gyroscope is made by a Geneva based company. Also involved are Japanese, Italian, and French firms and every one of them probably has production facilities around the world.

    Why do they cooperate? Dr. Friedman would have said that the reason is the price system.

    The Economic Lesson

    In a market economy, prices that freely respond to demand and supply provide information and motivation to buyers and sellers. The up and down movement of prices is called the price system.

    By contrast, in the former Soviet Union, prices were set by government created committees. As a result, they did not convey information about efficiency on the supply side nor about quality on the demand side. Different suppliers were not encouraged by prices to interact nor to cater to consumers. Lacking a price system, the Soviet economy collapsed.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15745_7.6_000012689719XSmall

    More About Money and Happiness

    Jul 6 • Behavioral Economics, Households, Thinking Economically • 112 Views

    If you want to know whether money relates to happiness, you might first decide what makes you happy. A Gallup World Poll of 136,000 people in 132 countries from 2005-2006 focused on 2 variables: “life satisfaction” and “enjoyment of life.” Those people who use how much money they have earned as a “scoreboard,” profess to greater life satisfaction because of higher earnings. By contrast, happiness on the “enjoyment of life” scale, which included laughter, friends, and meaningful family connections did not relate to money.

    This Gallup Poll is one of many happiness studies we have posted during the past several years. In one previous post, high income people experienced more happiness than low income individuals. We can, though, qualify the high income earners’ happiness with a study that concluded income increases had no impact on happiness. Qualifying it further, we also found a study that contradicts the first one. Then, yet another study asserts that lower quintile earners are happy when upward mobility is feasible. Also, however, a different study demonstrated that happiness comes from earning more than your “neighbor”. Consequently, people preferred lower earnings over higher earnings when the lower number exceeded an associate’s income. Finally, researchers concluded that overworked women, more recently, have become less happy than men.

    The Economic Lesson

    Thinking economically typically requires looking at the margin. The margin is that imaginary line where we find something extra. For example, marginal revenue is extra money that a business receives for each additional sale. When a business sells a computer, the price of the computer becomes its marginal revenue. For happiness studies, we are at the margin, asking if extra money (at the margin) means extra happiness (at the margin).

     

    2 Comments

    Read More
  • 15743_4.26_000006278830XSmall

    Independence and Printing Money

    Jul 5 • Government, Macroeconomic Measurement, Money and Monetary Policy • 112 Views

    Having just celebrated July 4th, I’ve been thinking about 1776, the American Revolution, and money. At the time, money frequently determined who won and lost wars. When countries ran out of money, they had to stop fighting. Great Britain had sufficient revenue to fight wars because they could collect taxes efficiently and fund a national debt. 

    By contrast, the credit of a new nation is anything but dependable. Just like you and me, a country establishes good credit by showing it can pay back loans. In 1776, trying to raise money to fight the war, the U.S. had no credit history. The Continental Congress was able to borrow close to $11 million from the French and the Dutch (British enemies) and through domestic bond sales but still it was not enough. As a result, Congress turned on the printing presses.

    As Benjamin Franklin said, “This currency as we manage it is a wonderful machine. It performs its Office when we issue it; it pays and clothes Troops, and provides Victuals and Ammunition.” As Franklin later pointed out, though, when too much money is printed it rapidly diminishes in value. From 1775 to 1779, the Continental Congress had issued and then spent close to $250 million. The people who received the $250 million now had lots of dollars to spend. As a result, prices skyrocketed.

    The Economic Lesson

    An economist would say that the Continental Congress had created demand pull inflation which means that too many dollars are chasing too few goods. Or, in colonial terms, “A wagon-load of money will scarcely purchase a wagon-load of provisions.”

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15741_7.4_000010424025XSmall

    Nantucket’s Traffic Lights

    Jul 4 • Economic Thinkers, Regulation • 113 Views

    Located 30 miles from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the island of Nantucket has no traffic lights. Instead, drivers respond to stop signs, rotaries, and courtesy. More often than not, if a pedestrian, a walker, or a biker needs to cross the street, cars stop. When someone is making a left turn or leaving a parking lot on a busy street, cars stop. And, drivers usually smile and street crossers wave thank you.

    Nantucket’s lack of lights started me thinking about Adam Smith. Economic thinker (there were no economists in 1776) Adam Smith suggested that less government was better than more government. Smith believed that human nature was so diverse and policy consequences so unpredictable, that, although imperfect, less government could ultimately lead to more virtuous human behavior. For example, told their taxes will be increased to help the less fortunate, certain people express resentment. And yet voluntarily giving the same amount to charity can evoke pride and generosity.

    What are the implications for our society if what we do voluntarily makes us feel better and can make us more virtuous than when we are forced to do something?

    The Economic Lesson

    In his first major book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith sought to describe a just society. Displaying a thorough grasp of human nature, he said that the path to a just society started with profit seeking businesses. Building from his first book, he then wrote The Wealth of Nations (1776), through which his analysis brought order and insight to the seemingly chaotic market system that was spreading through Europe.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15739_7.3_000003408657XSmall(3)

    The Age of Women?

    Jul 3 • Gender gap, Households, Labor • 102 Views

    Told you are about to meet the CEO of a major corporation, do you imagine someone in a skirt? According to a recent Washington Post article, the answer from most people is “No”. To individuals saying we have entered “the age of women,” because of Elena Kagan and more females in the U.S. work force, this journalist instead looked at “the areas where the real money and power reside.” For example, at Google and Amazon, the top paying hedge funds, and the major banks, males dominate top management. Her conclusion? She suggests that for women to claim economic power, they have to focus on amassing their own capital.

    Looking further at gender equality in OECD Nations, 2006 median income statistics indicate that women earn 18% less than men. In Japan and Korea, the gap is close to 30%, in Poland, New Zealand, and Belgium, at 10%, the gap is much less, and for the U.S. the difference is 19%. Correspondingly, women hold only 1/3 of all management positions.

    The Economic Lesson

    In the U.S., to be defined as a part of the labor force, a person has to be 16 or older and employed or unemployed but looking for a job. With 154 million people in the U.S. labor force, women total approximately 72 million.

     

    No Comments

    Read More