• oil...drilling...16626_2.21_000006135757XSmall

    Oil Worries?

    Sep 19 • Businesses, Demand, Supply, and Markets, Developing Economies, Economic Debates, International Trade and Finance, Macroeconomic Measurement, Thinking Economically • 587 Views

    Have you ever heard of Hubbert’s Peak?  No, it is not a mountain. Hubbert’s Peak refers to our oil supply. In 1956, Marion King Hubbert warned us that U.S. oil production would peak within 15 years. And, the only direction after the peak is straight down.

    In a WSJ article, oil analyst and historian Daniel Yergin explains why he believes Hubbert and his contemporary followers have been wrong. As far back as the 1880s, when the experts said Pennsylvania would soon run out, the end seemed imminent. During both World Wars and the 1970s, again, oil worries resurfaced. Repeatedly though, new reserves and new technology have nudged the “peak” further into the future.

    In this 2009 NY Times article, you can read more about both sides of the debate. You also might look at this “Remember the Pistachios” blog post.

    The Economic Lesson

    Marion Hubbert’s problem was ignoring the role of price. Every time price increased, the incentive to find new reserves and develop new technology soared. The result? More oil and price again declined.

    Correspondingly, when the price of oil increases, the incentive to use alternative energy sources also rises. The result? More wind turbines, natural gas and other energy providers.

    So, whereas Hubbard envisioned catastrophe, economists saw the market saving the world.

    An Economic Question: How might you use opportunity cost to explain why the price of oil moves up and down?

    No Comments on Oil Worries?

    Read More
  • China’s High Speed

    Sep 18 • Developing Economies, International Trade and Finance • 648 Views

    China Railways: “organ” of the state; source of tickets

    820 miles JingHu Line (Beijing Shanghai)


    No Comments on China’s High Speed

    Read More
  • The Per Capital Dog Population Is An Economic Indicator

    Pooches and Prosperity

    Sep 18 • Demand, Supply, and Markets, Developing Economies, Households, International Trade and Finance, Macroeconomic Measurement, Thinking Economically • 598 Views

    In Latin America, with Brazil #1, being middle class means owning a dog.

    According to the Economist, more dogs mean more pet food, “knick-knacks,” and veterinary care. Based on pet food sales, the Latin American dog to cat ratio is 6 to 1. (In Europe, cats and dogs are equally popular.) Called a “star market,” Latin American spending represents 10.2% of global pet care sales.

    Broader implications? Perhaps this is not a dog story at all. Instead, we are considering the impact of higher income, increasing world trade, and economic growth on what we consume.

    Thinking of past econlife posts, we can add dogs to beer, Coach purses, and pecans as economic indicators of ascending affluence.

    The Economic Lesson

    After we subtract taxes from personal income, the result is our disposable income. Disposable income can either be spent or saved.

    In the U.S., per capita personal income in 2010 ranged from a high of $56,001 for Connecticut to the country’s low of $31,186 in Mississippi. 30.1% of all Brazilian households and 44.8% of Argentina’s households have the U.S spending power of $25,000.

    An Economic Question: Using this Bureau of Economic Analysis map, explain how personal income varies in the U.S.

    No Comments on Pooches and Prosperity

    Read More
  • Money..16624_4.26_000006278830XSmall

    “Deficit Bias”

    Sep 17 • Behavioral Economics, Economic Debates, Economic History, Government, Households, International Trade and Finance, Thinking Economically • 826 Views

    If anyone asks you about the “fiscal woes” facing the U.S., Japan and the EU, just say, “deficit bias.”

    The 13th Geneva Report on the World Economy explains “deficit bias.” In the U.S., think about voting constituencies and how the political system has been unable to deal with an inefficient health care system and inadequate revenue. In Japan, an aging, less affluent, rural segment of the population has a disproportionate amount of voting power. And, as for Europe, you have a tradition of government spending and of bailouts that created moral hazard.

    You can see where this is going. There is a tension between democracy and financial discipline. Although the political dynamic is varied, still, the results have been similar.

    Here is the full report or you might want to read a summary in this article. In addition to “deficit bias,” the report extensively discusses solutions that they believe have to be nation-specific.

    The Economic Lesson

    Thinking economically about “fiscal woes” takes us to the margin. The problem is that one group enjoys the marginal benefit of spending while another experiences its cost. In the long run, though, all lose as society pays the cost through less growth and more unemployment.

    An Economic Question: Select a specific group and then, using cost/benefit analysis, explain the impact of more government spending.

    No Comments on “Deficit Bias”

    Read More
  • 16622_3.1_000005787159XSmall

    More Health Care Jobs

    Sep 16 • Behavioral Economics, Businesses, Demand, Supply, and Markets, Economic Debates, Government, Labor, Macroeconomic Measurement, Thinking Economically • 543 Views

    The health care industry has added 300,000 jobs to the U.S. economy during the past 12 months. New jobs, new construction, new technology, more care. Should we be pleased?

    This Dr. Seuss-like animated short from marketplace.org presents the downside of health care job growth. Discussing the issue further in a report on suburban Detroit, they explain that a new medical center can indeed help one community. However, a proliferation of medical facilities means higher health insurance premiums and soaring Medicare and Medicaid expenses. Consequently, although one community might benefit, overexpansion means the entire nation will suffer.

    Here are additional statistics on the health care jobs boom. And here is another perspective in a previous econlife post.

    The Economic Lesson

    Sometimes what is good for one person becomes bad when everyone does it. If there is a fire at a public event, one person can rush to the exit but everyone simultaneously cannot. Enjoying higher prices, one farmer can decide to plant more and earn more. However, when all farmers together produce a bumper crop, price dips. Called the fallacy of composition, sometimes what is good for the individual is bad when everyone does the same thing.

    An Economic Question: How does building too many medical centers result in the fallacy of composition?

    No Comments on More Health Care Jobs

    Read More