• Opportunity Cost and the Sunday Papers

    Sep 20 • Businesses, Environment, Regulation, Thinking Economically • 284 Views

    Articles in the Sunday papers may not have referred to opportunity cost but it was everywhere.

    Do you agree that judges should know the dollar cost of a prison sentence? Is it good or bad that dishwasher detergents have become less effective because of environmental legislation? Should climate change be left to Congress or the courts? Does it matter that the FDA will not tell us at food counters that salmon has been genetically modified?  You could use opportunity cost analysis to decide.

    The Economic Lesson

    The opportunity cost of a decision is the next best alternative that was sacrificed. Doing opportunity cost analyis involves looking at the benefits of the decision and the benefits of the sacrificed alternative. Only then can we really know whether we are willing to do without the benefits of what we decided not to do.


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15896_9.19_000006283447XSmall

    The Afghan Votes Market

    Sep 19 • Demand, Supply, and Markets, Developing Economies • 271 Views

    In Kunduz Province, the price of a vote was $15 while in Kandahar, it was closer to $1.  Do we have a market?

    Just like shoes or shirts, it appears that the price of an Afghan vote was determined by demand and supply. For the Afghan election, according to the NY Times, the 2500 candidates were the buyers. The sellers were the voters. The price–the point where quantity demanded and quantity supplied intersected–varied. The average income of the local voting population influenced the supply curve.

    As a consistent reader of marginalrevolution.com, I was reminded of their “markets in everything” link that appears occasionally. In addition to citing Afghan votes, they have also linked to “nothing” having a price on eBay, and a proposed market in high speed driving in Nevada.

    The Economics Lesson

    Through a demand and supply graph with price the Y-axis, quantity the X-axis, a downward sloping demand curve, and an upward sloping supply curve, we can picture the price of an Afghan vote. A supply schedule would list all of the different prices that voters were willing and able to accept. On the demand side, the amounts that candidates were willing and able to spend would be listed. Hypothetically speaking, the graphs would differ from one locale to another.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15894_8.6_000011537286XSmall

    Light Bulb Start-Ups

    Sep 18 • Businesses, Demand, Supply, and Markets, Developing Economies, Government, Innovation, International Trade and Finance, Labor • 319 Views

    Does it matter where a start-up ends up? One new energy efficient light bulb was developed in Florida, its inventor lives in Florida, and the bulbs are assembled in Florida. Soon to be sold at Home Depot, however, the state-of-the-art LED bulb is destined for a manufacturing home in Mexico or China.

    You know why. In Mexico and China, wages are a fraction of U.S. pay and firms receive financial incentves when they relocate. Although the U.S. can offer political stability, easy market access, an efficient tranportation network, and a skilled work force, the low cost abroad is just too alluring. Perhaps, the most compelling advantage of a U.S. factory is the continuing innovation that an educated work force can deliver.

    Everyone is saying that start-ups are a key source of new jobs. For manufacturing, though, the jobs might not stay in the U.S.

    The Economic Lesson

    19th century economist David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage says that worldwide productivity increases when nations specialize and export the good or service for which they sacrifice the least to make.

    As economists, should we be pleased that the jobs are going to their most efficient home?

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15884_5.11_000009897716XSmall

    Social Security Thoughts

    Sep 17 • Economic Debates, Economic Thinkers, Government, Households, Thinking Economically • 315 Views

    Having just passed the French lower legislative branch, a gradual increase in the French retirement age from 60 to 62 during the next 8 years will probably be enacted. In the US, we are gradually ascending to 67 in 2027.

    It all sounds so logical. It is just too expensive for so many people to be receiving earlier benefits.  After all, when Social Security was established in the U.S. in 1935, the average life span was LESS THAN the retirement age.  

    But then I read about a 58 year old worker at an Ohio tire plant. Referring to the physical labor that his job requires, he said, “Dessert with lunch is ibuprofen.” This gentleman said that, “he does not think he can last until 66″.

    This takes me to a question. When debating fiscal dilemmas, how much should we consider individual stories? Our legislators do it all the time. With the healthcare debate, we heard about individuals without insurance. For the Social Security debate, we see the reality of a higher retirement age through one worker.

    What should we care about most? The statistical reality or the real stories?

    The Economic Lesson

    Decision making through an economic lens always takes us back to cost/benefit considerations. Here, though, cost and benefit conclusions could depend on you. Are you a tax payer? A laborer who will not make it to 66? A person without health insurance? Someone with excellent health coverage? A politican hoping to get re-elected? The list can go on and on.

    Perhaps, all of these considerations return us to yesterday’s post about the work of James M. Buchanan. James M. Buchanan won the 1986 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on “public choice theory“. Stated very briefly, his focus has been the importance of fixed political rules to thwart politicians’ self-interest.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15892_3.16_000012166514XSmall

    Tax Payers and Entitlement Receivers

    Sep 16 • Economic Debates, Economic Thinkers, Government, Households, Macroeconomic Measurement • 293 Views

    I wonder if we should be concerned.

    Lecture 32 of “Thinking About Capitalism” from the Teaching Company looks at John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), James M. Buchanan (1919-  ), and Mancur Olson (1932-1998). Concerned with the impact of democracy on capitalism, these economic thinkers focused on self-interested voters and politicians. Although their perspectives differed, they shared the view that self-interested politicians could favor voters who contributed little to economic growth. As a result, to perpetuate their power, politicians would support legislation that harmed the economy.

    Fast forward to September 15, 2010. A front page Wall Street Journal article, “Obstacle to Deficit Cutting: A Nation on Entitlements,” explains that an estimated 45% of American households will not pay 2010 federal income taxes. Why? Because they do not earn enough or their credits and deductions eliminate their tax liability. Meanwhile though, close to 50% of all American households receive federal benefits. The article concludes that an increasingly smaller proportion of the American population is paying for the entitlements received by an increasingly larger number of Americans.

    Will politicans be influenced more by those who pay or those who receive?

    The Economic Lesson

    Considered a liberal 19th century economist who firmly believed in individual freedom, Mill thought that those who were more educated should have greater voting power than the working classes who might outnumber them.

    James M. Buchanan won the 1986 Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on “public choice theory“. Stated very briefly, his focus has been the importance of fixed political rules to thwart politicians’ self-interest.

    Mancur Olson, in The Logic of Collective Action, explains that small groups can be more powerful than huge numbers of unorganized individuals who disagree with them. 


    No Comments

    Read More