• 15851_8.28_000006219771XSmall

    Double Dipping

    Aug 28 • Businesses, Economic Debates, Government, Households, Labor, Macroeconomic Measurement • 354 Views

    For a smile, you might want to watch Merle Hazard’s “Double Dippin'” song. As the Guardian points out, also look for the fun trivia such as a small background picture of mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot.

    No one was smiling, though in response to the 1.6% GDP revised growth rate for the second quarter. Thinking of future economic growth, economist Ed Yardeni, suggests three possibilities in a recent newsletter.

    1) The contrarian view says the economy will boom. To generate a 3% growth rate, we would need more housing refinancing that would put money in consumer’s pockets and elevate consumer spending. Also, lower mortgage rates coud lead to more housing sales. Add to this solid corporate profits and higher real pay per worker because of productivity gain and you have a robust recovery. Most say the chances of a robust recovery are slim.

    2) More and more people are concerned about a bust which takes us to the double dip scenario. The second dip would be caused by unimproved unemployment and plummeting consumer spending.

    3) Muddling with ups and downs in different sectors is the third and most likely alternative. Muddling would be characterized by some employment gains, some housng improvement, some consumer spending.

    A (trick) question: If the growth rate has moved from 3.7% down to 1.6% between  the first and second quarter of 2010, then has the economy contracted? The answer: No. The economy continues to grow but at a slower rate.

    The Economic Lesson

    Let’s think of a double dip as a “W”. The U.S. has experienced 2 double dips during the past 80 years. Looking between 1930 and 1940, economic activity contracted 1930-1933, expanded 1934-1937, dipped in 1938, and then steadily grew. A much faster double dip happened between 1980 and 1982. 1980/down; 1981/up; 1982/ down.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15848_3.15a_000002547262XSmall

    Pricing Airline Tickets

    Aug 27 • Businesses, Demand, Supply, and Markets, Economic History • 329 Views

    During the 1970s, a ticket to fly between New York and Washington, D.C. cost $50 whereas one between Los Angeles and San Francisco-almost twice the distance-cost only $40. 


    Before deregulation in 1978, the interstate airline industry was subject to extensive regulatory control from the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB).  For interstate travel, the CAB had to approve an airline’s decision to add or delete a route or to change a fare. Preserving profitability and service to large and small cities were government priorities. However, for intrastate travel, the market determined the price. As a result, intrastate flying tended to be cheaper.

    Fast forward to 2010. With government primarily regulating safety, the market shapes most other airline decisions.  According to the Wall Street Journal, four variables affect airline ticket pricing: 1) Competition from low-cost carriers for a specific route (When Southwest selects your route, fares drop.) 2) The number of carriers in the market for a specific route (More carriers…lower fares) 3) Whether passengers are discretionary or business travelers 4) Operating costs that would include landing fees and other airport expenses.

    The Economic Lesson

    A competitive market structure shapes a firm’s behavior. When government ran the industry, firms tended to behave like monopolies They had guaranteed profits, behaved inefficiently, and charged high prices.

    Now, with the market in charge, different routes have different market structures. When several airlines compete, and especially if one of those airlines is a discount carrier, fares tend to decrease. By contrast when the market is an oligopoly or one firm dominates, fares rise because the firm has more power. 

    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15846_8.26_000005651286XSmall

    FDR and Obama: Similar or Different?

    Aug 26 • Economic History, Government, Macroeconomic Measurement, Money and Monetary Policy • 375 Views

    If this were 1930 or 1931, you would think you were experiencing a cyclical downturn–not a Great Depression. In an econtalk interview, Stanford’s David Kennedy begins this way, placing the listener in a contemporary context. Instead of looking backward at the Great Depression, we look forward to the 1930s.

    I recommend this podcast because Dr. Kennedy and George Mason economist Russ Roberts discuss facts from the 1930s that relate to today. Then we, as listeners can decide how contemporary economic policy and politics compare to that era. Kennedy alludes to “Black Swans“. If the Great Depression was perhaps the greatest Black Swan, how will this Great Recession compare? 

    Looking at presidential policy, he says we make President Hoover worse than he was and FDR better. While Hoover wound up not doing enough, he did initiate policies to fight the downturn and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. By contrast, Dr. Kennedy reminds us that when FDR was president, unemployment remained high and production sluggish. Dr. Kennedy hypothesizes that perhaps FDR cared much more about creating a safety net for the bottom third of the economic population fighting the depression. After all, during the Roosevelt presidency the Social Security Act, Fannie Mae and the SEC were created.

    Do we have parallels? A cyclical downturn or a longer recession/depression? A minor black swan or a significant one? A president who cares more about the recession or a social agenda?

    The Economic Lesson

    As economic historians, our perspective changes when we look forward rather than backward. We see that when the stock market crashed and production declined in 1929, Herbert Hoover believed we were undergoing the beginning of a business cycle contraction, similar to many others. When FDR entered office during 1933, many worried about a balanced budget and federal spending. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve was at best ineffectual.

    In December, 2007 our GDP started to decline and by the summer of 2008 financial markets were experiencing turmoil. After a 2009 stimulus package, we are debating whether more spending or austerity is the best policy.

    Looking at the past, we have implemented fiscal and monetary policies that do indeed reflect a grasp of the inadequacies of the past. But, I have to wonder what economic historians will say when they look back at us.


    No Comments

    Read More
  • 15844_8.25_000006087470XSmall

    Overhead Problems

    Aug 25 • Businesses, Labor, Thinking Economically • 527 Views

    You’ve probably heard the story. Fed up, a flight attendant tells passengers what he really thinks of them, grabs a beer, presses the button for the emergency chute, and leaves the plane. The overhead storage bin might have been the reason.

    Overhead bins create frustration for everyone. They increase boarding delays. A cascading overflow can be dangerous when doors pop open. Attendants have to restrain impatient fliers from grabbing a bag before the plane has stopped. A cost saving fast turnaround for aircraft is delayed by passengers having to retrieve their paraphernalia. Deplaning is agonizingly slow.

    An economist would disagree with a NY Times solution: “Carry-Ons and Courtesy Need to Co-Exist“. Instead, incentives have to change. Because checked baggage generates huge revenue, airlines have the incentive to charge. Responding, passengers have the incentive to take more onboard. One solution? Spirit is charging for carry-ons. Your opinion?

    The Economic Lesson

    Two economic concepts explain the problem:

    1) The fallacy of composition states that what is good for one is bad when everyone does it. An example is fleeing from a fire in a crowded movie theater. One person, alone, can quickly leave but everyone together cannot. Similarly, one person can enjoy the plane’s overhead bin but everyone together cannot. When airlines decided to charge for checked luggage, they worsened the fallacy of composition.

    2) A negative externality is a cost to a third party because of the unrelated agreement between 2 other individuals. Here, the airline agrees with you or me that it is okay to bring baggage onboard. The result, though, is a cost to other passengers and the flight staff. On an aircraft, the negative externalities multiply geometrically because everyone is creating them.


    Read More
  • railroad...trains...15842_6.17_000006782680XSmall

    The Locavore Challenge

    Aug 24 • Environment, Households, Thinking Economically • 307 Views

    Being a locavore is not always easy but it can feel very good. Those of us who are locavores believe that we are helping the planet by saving on transport costs and emissions, patronizing small businesses rather than distant impersonal corporate giants, and eating healthy fresh food. In many ways, locavores can have their cake and eat it too (although it usually is broccoli and local produce). While buying good, healthy food, locavores are helping the planet…

    But are they?

    In a recent post, I suggested cost/benefit analysis of environmentally friendly preferences such as wind farms, ethanol production, and buying local. Instead, though, we can let price do it for us. As economist Steve Landsurg points out, for local food purchases, cost/benefit analysis involves an undoable amount of research about “land, fertilizers, equipment, workers, transportation and energy costs” and still we would not have considered everything.

    Using a tomato as an example, Landsburg explains that the price conveys all we need to know. Assume, for example, that the local tomato laborers would have been more efficient growing grapes. As a result, the tomato supply curve would shift up and to the left because of lower production, and the price of the tomato would increase. You don’t have to ask specifically about cost and benefit because a high or low price provides the answer.

    The Economic Lesson

    Cost is more than money. Economically defined, it is sacrifice. The cost of a decision is the next best alternative that you sacrificed.

    Because the vast assortment of “costs” that relate to producing a good or a service affect the price, consumers who care about the environment can optimize decision making by considering the dollars they are spending. Indeed, all of us can look at a price as a source of information about the good or service we are purchasing. We can use price to become a better locavore.

    1 Comment

    Read More