Thursday, August 20, 2009

How Much Should You Pay for that Chocolate Bar?

Have you heard about this economic news? Can you imagine our beloved, sweet-tooth-curing, sugary snacks becoming more expensive?

The story describes a bit of a political standoff between some of the major American food manufacturers and the United States government. Companies, such as Hershey and Kraft, want the government to increase sugar import quotas. This would allow more foreign-made sugar to be imported into the United States (it is important to note that the U.S. already imports a hefty amount of sugar from Mexico, but there is no quota, due to NAFTA). The result would be greater competition and lower prices on sugar.

More importantly, this story is a great tie-in to my earlier post, "The Economics of Price Gouging." It also relates directly to Mike's February post called, "Buy American."

In particular, the sugar quota, just like any trade quota or tariff imposed by a government, represents a PRICE FLOOR. In essence, what the government has done is created an artificial, minimum price that is above the equilibrium price of the sugar market. Now, the government didn't set a specific price, but the current quota limits the amount of sugar suppliers available to Hershey, Kraft, and the like, and keeps the price at a level greater than what the food manufacturers and confectioners would normally pay in a free market. the domestic sugar price has no chance of coming down because government has restricted competition.

Now, the argument used by food manufacturers and confectioners, is that there is a shortage of sugar, due to the quota system. This is faulty economic thinking. Sugar manufacturers were quick to point out that there is plenty of American sugar to buy. OF COURSE THERE IS! Government has created a market where prices are artificially high. The suppliers who CAN benefit from those high prices are quick to supply more sugar.

The problem is NOT a SHORTAGE of sugar. The problem IS that GOVERNMENT is keeping prices at a level that Hershey and Kraft don't want to pay.


  • For what reason? To protect American sugar producers.
  • Who pays the price? We do, with higher prices at the grocery store cash register.

The Price of Everything


I just finished reading a great book for anyone wanting an easy read about basic economic logic. The book is not a text but a fictional narrative about a college student who stands up to a big box retailer who appears to be price gouging following an earthquake. The student is befriended by the provost of the university who is an economist and they have conversations as the student nears graduation and his valedictorian speech to the student body.

The main story in the book goes great with Bill's posted economics lesson on price gouging.

The book contains some great ideas for teaching economics and is a pretty good story that will keep readers interested. I recommend the book for high school economics and college principles courses.

The Price of Everything: A Parable of Possibility and Prosperity
by Russel Roberts
Princeton University Press (July 28, 2008)

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

So what about these “green shoots”? Are they ever going to grow?

Much has been made about Ben Bernanke’s “green shoots” but not much is heard about when they might turn into trees. Are there any signs that the economy is recovering?

The short answer is, thankfully, yes. But like a gardener needs to meticulously tend to green shoots, especially in the early stages of growth, the economy’s “gardeners” need to do the same.

Over the last few months, much of the optimism for the economic recovery has centered on key macroeconomic variables that show they are slowing down in their rate of decline. Normally we wouldn’t be all that happy over continued job loss or negative industrial demand, but right now we need to take baby steps.

In recent surveys of economists and business leaders, most respondents seem to be a little more optimistic about a recovery than just a couple of months ago. Slightly more than half feel that the economy has hit bottom while some still feel that the recession will extend into 2010. Either way, the forecast has improved. I, too, am optimistic that the worst is over and here are a couple of reasons why.

Better Balance Sheets: Both households and businesses have been putting a lot of emphasis on improving their balance sheets. Consumer credit outstanding has declined steadily since its high in July 2008. Some of this could be the result of defaults and write-offs and as long as unemployment remains high, continued write-offs are expected. But lower consumer debt is also coupled with a steady increase in savings deposits over the same period. In addition, consumers’ financial obligations ratio, a ratio of household financial obligations as a percentage of disposable income, has also declined to 18.5% and is back to a level not seen since 2004. Given the economic uncertainty, many businesses and consumers have put off major purchases. Like consumers, many businesses have been aggressive at lowering costs to maintain margins. Many firms are holding historically high levels of cash just waiting for opportunities to invest.

An Inevitable Durable Goods Cycle: As consumers feel more at ease with their household finances and as unemployment stabilizes, as many believe it will, consumers will begin to replace durable goods. Businesses will also take the opportunity to use their cash to prepare for the next expansionary cycle by upgrading factories, redesigning stores, and preparing new product displays. These events precede an economic recovery so look for firms to increase spending on infrastructure and marketing.

Cheap Money: The Federal Reserve has continued a policy of maintaining low interest rates and high bank reserves. These policies have already helped the financial sector recover and will be a catalyst for growth once consumer confidence improves.

Low Inflation: Nothing helps a recession end like the recession itself. As consumer and industrial demand declines during a recession, commodity prices, producer prices, and consumer prices fall. This helps firms manage the bottom line and helps them make strategic investments in preparation for the next cycle. Consumers welcome the relief of lower prices as they struggle to manage household finances.

Now, I wouldn’t be an economist worth my weight in salt if I didn’t stop here and say, “but on the other hand” (that’s why Truman asked for only one-armed economists). There is one key variable in this discussion that will make all of this more difficult to achieve in the short term and that’s unemployment. Nothing will improve consumer confidence more than a decline in unemployment. Not only does lower unemployment indicate that we are putting people back to work, it helps those who were afraid of losing their job feel a little more confident about the immediate future. This will have a tremendous effect on the speed of the recovery.

Of course there are many other variables that I haven’t discussed that may play a role in this recovery like the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus, large federal deficits, inappropriate government intervention, and the global economic recovery. But that’s why I love teaching economics, always new things to talk about.

Monday, August 10, 2009

ECONOMICS LESSON: The Economics of Price Gouging

Given the current economic climate in the United States, many citizens are worried about their financial well-being. When citizens are confronted with rising prices on staple products, necessary items, and generally inelastic goods, they turn to the media, government, or anyone who will listen to their complaints. We see reports in the newspaper, or on television, about "price gouging" and unsympathetic businesses hurting middle class America. But is so-called "price gouging" really a bad thing? Or, is government control of prices really doing more harm than good?



This clip by John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 was made in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. But its message and reasoning are founded in Adam Smith's view of a free market economy, and certainly apply to America's current economic situation. It offers a great introduction to the topic of price ceilings and government intervention in the economy.


So, what is a PRICE CEI
LING?
  • A price ceiling is a legal maximum price that can be charged for a good or service.
  • When a price ceiling is set below the equilibrium price, it will cause shortages.
  • Price ceilings occur when government is dissatisfied with the outcomes of free markets.
The figure below represents an artificial rent ceiling, such as the rent control policies of New York City in the 1950s:
  • When government limits the price of rental units to $400 per month, the suppliers are only willing to provide 3000 units. The market, on the other hand, is demanding 6000 units. As you can see, the Rent Ceiling, represented by the red line, has resulted in 3000-unit shortage. In addition, when 3000 units are available to rent, consumers are willing to pay $625 per month. Since the price established by government is only $400, landlords are experiencing a loss of $225 per month, per unit. That is a $675,000 loss per month by all property owners in this market.
  • Some questions to think about...
  1. What are some additional economic and societal effects of this situation?
  2. How might third-parties be affected by this?
Points to Ponder
  • Government can also set prices greater than the equilibrium price created naturally by the market. This type of price control is known as a PRICE FLOOR and results in surpluses. Suppliers are willing to supply at the artificially high price, but consumers won't buy.
  • Government doesn't have to set a specific price for shortages or surpluses to occur. Interventions such as trade barriers, tariffs, and subsidies can have the same effect.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Change in Funding for Higher Ed in PA

Interesting article and comments. I've posted about the relationship between the 14 state-owned universities and the 4 state-related universities before. Take a look at the comments - most taxpayers still do not understand this relationship.

http://chronicle.com/news/article/6706/in-42-million-blow-governor-removes-4-pa-universities-from-bailout-bid?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en&commented=1#c043298

Also, as a result of the changes to PA's Right to Know Laws, the financial statements for Penn State are public record for the first time (despite billions of dollars in state subsidies). http://www.scribd.com/full/16134763?access_key=key-1mkep44zfcrcimzsk0rs