Sunday, June 28, 2009

What Sells in a Recession: Canned Goods and Condoms

Hello! This is an article from TIME magazine about what sells and what doesn't during a recession. Apparently condoms sell well because people are willing to spend more on contraception now than to have to feed an extra mouth in the future! The link in the article 'why we buy what we buy' is rather interesting as well! But of course this one wins. :D

Source: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1884149,00.html
~ qitian!

What Sells in a Recession: Canned Goods and Condoms

To cut costs, Linsey Knerl cooks a month's worth of food.
Previous 1 of 4 Next

To cut costs, Linsey Knerl cooks a month's worth of food.
Chris VanKat / Ervin Photography for TIME


What's the last thing people want in a recession? More kids, apparently. According to data-tracking firm the Nielsen Co., dollar sales of products in the "family planning" category, which include condoms and over-the-counter female contraceptives, were up 10.2% for the first two months of this year. Unit sales were up 1.5%, which indicates that consumers are willing to pay higher prices today to prevent crib expenses tomorrow.


But economics alone can't explain this protectionism. To cut expenses, consumers are going out less, a phenomenon retail analysts call cocooning. Among couples, cocooning can lead to canoodling, which can lead to ... recreation. "People are spending a lot less on entertainment," says Rick Shea, a branding expert and founder of Shea Marketing Consulting. "And 'that,' for the most part, is free." (See pictures of Americans in their homes.)


Nothing says more about the American mind-set than what consumers are buying, and ignoring, at drugstores, supermarkets and mass-merchandising outlets like Wal-Mart and Target. TIME asked the Nielsen Co. to identify the best- and worst-performing product categories during this recession, and the findings are quite revealing. In general, people are buying more food to prepare at home, a function of their eating out less often at restaurants, which are suffering. At the same time, they're forsaking home furnishings and more discretionary items. "The American consumer is clearly getting back to basics," says Todd Hale, Nielsen's senior vice president of consumer and shopping insights. "The philosophy out there seems to be 'If you can't eat it, you don't need it.' " (See the top 10 food trends of 2008.)


So what's outperforming on the shelves? A catch-all category called "seasonal general merchandise," which contains thawing salt, body warmers and gift packages with candy, was tops, with a 32% rise. Analysts explain this jump by pointing to the unusually cold and snowy winter, plus the folks who traded down their Valentine's Day purchases from fancy dinners and jewelry to smaller-ticket gift packages. Unit sales for canning and freezing supplies like jars, bags and containers were up 11.5% during the eight weeks ending on Feb. 21, making them the second best-performing category on Nielsen's list. This suggests that consumers are trying to increase the shelf life of their food purchases so they don't have to head back to the store. "There's a segment of the population returning to the habits that my parents and grandparents had," says Tom DeMott, 56, chief operating officer of Encore Associates, a consumer-goods advisory firm. "They're canning and freezing products just so they can save a few bucks." (See which businesses are doing well despite the recession.)


Other categories in the top 20, as measured by a change in unit sales during the first two months of 2009, include baking mixes and supplies, flour and dough products; people are making brownies instead of buying them. Fresh-meat sales rose 7.3%, vegetables and dry grains were up 5.5%, dry pasta 4.4% and cheese 3.1%. Wine and liquor were also up. People aren't heading out for alcohol, but they still want to drink at home. In these bleak days, self-medication is certainly in style.


The worst-performing categories include discretionary items. Cookie and ice cream cone sales dropped 9.7%; people can do without dessert, and further, the boom in baking supplies shows that more people are making treats at home. Bottled water was down 11%, but that makes sense. "What's the economical substitute for that?" asks DeMott. "It's called a tap." (See Real Simple's saving and budgeting tips.)


The jams, jellies and spreads category was also down, by a sharp 12.1%. That includes peanut butter; while you might expect people to eat more peanut butter and jelly sandwiches instead of steak during a typical recession, the salmonella outbreak likely dragged down the numbers. Canned seafood, down 13.3%, is a little harder to explain. In general, seafood costs more than other products, but if consumers are trading down to canned goods, one might think they'd be buying more of it in cans. (Read "Why We Buy the Products We Buy.")


The categories rounding out the bottom 20 are for the most part expendable. Film and cameras, whose unit sales dropped 31.5%, was the worst of the bunch. "A camera is not something you need right now," says DeMott. Plus, who really wants to remember these tough times? And if couples are using contraception, they won't need a camera to snap precious baby pictures.


Sports and novelty cards were down 26.5%. "You really don't need that," says DeMott. Magazines slipped 17.1% (sigh — don't we know it). Products that spruce up your home — kitchen gadgets, lawn and garden items, buckets, bins and bath accessories — were slumping. Sales of air fresheners and deodorizers also dropped. "If you're lucky enough to have a couple of extra dollars, do you really need your bathroom to smell minty fresh?" asks Shea. Both insect repellants and cough and cold remedies were struggling. We'll suffer mosquito bites and sniffles for a few extra bucks. (Read "America's Shrinking Groceries.")


What's more, experts say bug spray and other lagging products shouldn't expect a rebound anytime soon. The back-to-basics movement is here to stay. "There's an interesting psychological effect happening right now," says DeMott. "It's permeating every consumer segment. People think they have to hunker down, no matter what their socioeconomic status." So start stocking your shelves. We're now a country of cocooners.

Sales of albums affected by MJ's death

The following is a short article on how the death Michael Jackson has caused the demand for his albums to spike overnight, as well as the price elasticity of demand of the albums in the short and long run.

Eileen =)


King of Pop's death sparks buying frenzy here

By BRANDON CHEW

MICHAEL Jackson's death has revived demand for his music here. Music retailers Gramophone, HMV, That CD Shop, and Sembawang Music have all reported spikes in sales of the late King of Pop's products, following the unexpected news of his death yesterday morning.

The singer's CDs and DVDs had all but sold out after lunchtime yesterday at these stores.

Jinny Tee, assistant manager at That CD Shop's Great World City branch, said that the singer's products had been 'flying' off the shelves, selling out at most of the company's outlets.

According to sources, a bulk of the consumers were in their mid-20s or 30s. The peak of Jackson's popularity came in the mid-1980s and early 90s.

Such a buying frenzy is 'normal behaviour for fans', noted Keith Ng, senior manager at Sembawang Music. 'Consumer demand increases when an artist passes away', he added.

Mr Ng also commented that Sembawang would be placing orders for most of Jackson's discography, with new shipments to arrive late next week.

Music retailers here were quick to pick up on the consumer surge. HMV and Gramophone both had set up special display areas for Jackson's music in some of their stores.

While some companies have reacted swiftly in anticipation of a sustained increase in demand, others remained sceptical about Jackson's ability to sell records, even after his passing.

An assistant manager at Gramophone believes the demand shock caused by the pop icon's death will not be sustained beyond 'a few days', owing to a lack of popularity with younger consumers. His views contrast markedly with those of Jasmine Shi, marketing executive at HMV, who foresees the increase in sales 'continuing over the next few weeks'.

(Source: http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/news/story/0,4574,339463,00.html?)

video on Public Goods, Externalities

hee...some funny video i found >.<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjohDUydrhA&feature=related

An Ning

F1 financial crisis

Hi all

This is an interesting article I read recently on F1 and how the financial crisis actually affects F1. This is a more interesting approach to economics and even though this article might not be applied to our syllabus, it would also be useful to understand the extent to which the economic crisis has affected the various sectors in the economy.
Thanks.

Ferris


Mosley warns of F1 financial crisis

LONDON: Formula One will only survive for one more year unless drastic spending cuts are implemented, FIA president Max Mosley warned on Tuesday.
Mosley, who is to stand down next year, said the sport's future was under threat because of the rising costs of running a team, and he highlighted the fate of the Super Aguri team.
The Japanese outfit dropped out of the championship after the Spanish Grand Prix due to a lack of funds - and Mosley fears at least two more teams may also have to withdraw from the championship.
"I think it would put the sport in an unsustainable position if we lost two more teams," Mosley told BBC Sport.
"At the moment we have 20 cars competing and if we lost two teams we'd have 16 and then it would cease to be a credible grid.
"Some of the manufacturers are already having difficulty if you look at their share prices."
Mosley insisted the sport could not afford to survive on billionaires' handouts and must become more cost-effective if it is to survive - regardless of the current financial climate.
"This hasn't been prompted by the credit crunch. This is something I have been campaigning for for two or three years.
"It had become apparent long before the present economic difficulties that Formula One is unsustainable.
"If we can't get this sorted out by 2010 we will be in serious difficulty. We can survive through 2009, but I'm not to sure about after."
He added: "You cannot run a business like that when the outgoings are two to three times what's coming in. It now depends on billionaires subsidizing teams."
Mosley said simple cost-cutting measures would help the sport survive, even with the enormous financial clout that Ferrari, McLaren and BMW are able to wield over their competitors.
"There are various things we can do. The most obvious one would be to reduce the cost of the car," he said.
"The engine and gearbox costs about 25 million pounds ($44 million) a year and that could be done for probably 5 percent of that cost without anyone in the grandstand noticing at all.
"We have various means of making sure the big spenders don't spend so much, but that would mean some draconian measures."

Source: http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2008-10/09/content_7090169.htm

Linked articles:http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/10/03/economy.formula.one/index.html
Hey everyone, melissa here (: Stumbled across cartoons on President Obama's nominees and their tax problems, enjoy!



WhitehouseTurboTax.png
RepTaxNomAccept.png
DaschleChange.png
ObamaPhoneBook.png
TimmyTax.png
GeithnerSauna.png
HonestMistakes.png
GeithnerChallenge.png
ObamaFlatTax.png
CheatAndRunSystem.png

Examining the economic costs of H1N1

Hi all, this was an interesting article I chanced upon recently on H1N1 and the various economic costs involved in this pandemic. Since this is an issue that has become a topic of increasing public interest, it would also be useful to understand the extent to which it has affected various sectors in the economy, leading to a decrease in the country's GDP.

This article would be relevant in future when we cover more on macroeconomics and learn about international trade and travel. It can be applied to essay questions like : Using relevant economic policies, explain how the swine flu pandemic would affect international trade between Mexico(the epicentre) and other countries.

Happy Reading! XD


Examining the economic costs of H1N1
By Vidal Seegobin

As experts develop a greater understanding of the current influenza A (H1N1) outbreak, economists and business professionals are attempting to wrap their hands around the costs of this epidemic on the world economy.

At this current trajectory the current “swine flu” outbreak will not reach the human toll of the 1918 “Spanish flu” pandemic that killed an estimated 50-100 million people, or even the economic toll of SARS, which caused approximately 8000 confirmed cases but cost the global economy as much as US$ 60 billion. But an increasingly interconnected global market, the very mechanisms that facilitate global travel and supply chains have made the world more vulnerable to pandemics. So when a new pathogen is discovered, countries and citizens can over-react by shutting down these transit lines of commerce, even when science tells them otherwise. Such “solutions” can have staggering costs, often in disproportion to the number of people infected.
Concrete estimates on how much the 2009 outbreak will cost the global economy are difficult to pinpoint. Economic analysts can only provide best guesses on the direct and indirect costs. There are, however, current observable economic impacts directly attributable to influenza A (H1N1) outbreak that we will discuss below.

The Epicenter:
The direct economic costs to Mexico have been quite pronounced. Credit Suisse estimates that for every day of the “swine flu,” Mexico loses approximately $US 150 million. After petroleum exports and remittances from abroad, tourism accounts for approximately 8% of Mexican GDP. Mexican Finance Minister Agustin Carstens said the impact of influenza A (H1N1) had been devastating for tourism and has cost "close to 0.3%" of GDP or US$ 2.3 billion. Banamex, Mexico’s second largest bank, expects the Mexican economy to contract by about 5% for 2009, consistent with a short-lived economic crisis. Additionally, the Mexican peso has suffered significant volatility as currency speculators attempt to gauge whether the outbreak has peaked.
What the economic story cannot tell is the change in the daily life for the average citizen of Mexico City. With most forms of social interactions curtailed, many Mexicans living in a city of over 20 million are simply not consuming. Facing anemic global demand since mid 2008, countries like Mexico are forced to rely on domestic demand to weather the storm. If Mexican consumption and productivity are hampered, they can expect a difficult climb out of the global recession.

International Travel and Trade:
Already six months into a globally synchronized recession, consumer confidence has taken an additional beating amidst fears of a potential pandemic. Oil prices have dropped by 2.7% since the discovery of the new flu strain, and airline stocks have plummeted. Continental Airlines shares dropped by 16% on May 3rd, while United Airlines, Delta Airlines and American Airlines saw declines of around 14%.
Since WWII, the global economy has sustained long-term growth through international trade. In late 2008, when it was clear that Lehman Brothers’ collapse would trigger a global financial meltdown, trade economists warned against protectionism. In the grip of a potential pandemic, however, the ability to veil politically motivated trade diversion under the guise of national health security increases. Import bans may be rooted not in any scientific finding, but instead a desire to protect domestic producers already facing soft global demand and increasing competition.

Misnamed Fears
Despite assurances from health authorities that pig farming and pork products pose no particular risk in the current epidemic, the label “swine flu” allowed some governments to act on politics rather than evidence.
Pig farmers in Alberta, where 200 cases of “swine flu” in pigs have been confirmed, face bans on their exports. As of May 6th, a Canadian pork producer can expect about $1.23/ kg of pork - 7 cents below breakeven price. Reports from the US pork industry indicate that the current outbreak has exacerbated an already pessimistic economic outlook. Pork producers have lost an average of $20 per hog over the last 19 months with average hog prices dropping from $124 a head on April 24 to $118 on April 28. In total, the industry estimates that under current conditions, the industry is losing about $US 2.5 million per day. With the combination of weak demand and import bans in 20 countries, the picture begins to looks increasingly bleak at a point in the season when the pork industry expects its highest profits. Should global concern about influenza A (H1N1) endure, global pork consumers can expect to see higher pork prices as producers raise their margins to offset losses.
Influenza A (H1N1)/”swine flu” fears also take on political overtones where pork consumption has cultural implications, as in the Egyptian government’s decision to cull the nation’s pig population, primarily owned by the Coptic Christian minority.

At the Global and Community Levels
For the US economy at large, it is still hard to ascertain the cost of precaution. As many schools close temporarily, parents must find alternative care or take time off. This affects overall productivity as absenteeism in the workplace increases; not to mention losses faced by private after-school care providers. Furthermore, the extent to which Americans have changed their travel behavior is still unquantifiable. Although the US government cautions against non-essential travel to Mexico, it has not banned the movement of goods or peoples across its shared southern border.
Almost assuredly, future global pandemics of varying virulence will carry hefty price tags. The present situation, unlike SARS, takes place during a global recession. With trade protectionism always a concern, outbreaks of pathogens like influenza A (H1N1) have the potential to critically derail global trade and investment. As such, it becomes increasingly clear that world economic activities from Jakarta to Cairo are increasingly dependent on managing global risks. Moreover, political-economic analysis demonstrates the need for concerted preparation, scientific education and information dissemination to prevent trends of unnecessary and often costly knee-jerk reactions. Viewed in this light, global health security and the capacity to respond to crises in a proportional and informed manner are vital to long -term consumer confidence and support of a functioning global economy.

Source: http://www.stimson.org/globalhealth/?SN=GH200905112048

Cheryl

Thursday, June 18, 2009

14 Big Businesses That Started in a Recession

Hihi! I feel that this is a very inspirational article for our currently depressed world market. It just shows that opportunities in this world will never cease so long as we dare to dream and put our mind to it.

Source: http://www.insidecrm.com/features/businesses-started-slump-111108/

14 Big Businesses That Started in a Recession

Thought you couldn't start a company during a recession? These enterprises made it big by doing just that.

By Sarah Caron


It might seem counterintuitive to start a new business when the economy is in the dumps. But a recession can actually be the ideal time for launching a company. In fact, many well-known and successful organizations were born during an economic slump.

Why do these companies succeed? Usually it's because the founders recognized a market need and filled it. Identifying that need — whether it’s related to entertainment, travel or even streamlining how businesses operate — is the key to any thriving enterprise, regardless of the economic climate in which it begins. The following major corporations made it big during recessions by doing just that.

  1. Hyatt Corp. opened its first hotel’s doors at the Los Angeles International Airport during the Eisenhower recession (1957 to 1958). The chain rose to worldwide fame in the following decades and now operates more than 365 hotels in 25 countries with premium services such as wifi hotspots.
  2. Burger King Corp., with its flame-broiled burgers, is another recession startup. The company began in 1954 when James McLamore and David Edgerton opened a Burger King restaurant in Miami, Fla. During another recession in 1957, the company introduced its successful signature burger — the Whopper. Today, the company operates more than 11,100 locations in 65 countries.
  3. IHOP Corp. is another star from the Eisenhower recession. The first restaurant in the now national chain opened its doors July1958 in Toluca Lake, Calif. Owners Al and Jerry Lapin were at the helm of the fast growing company, which began franchising just three years later. Today, there are more than 1,300 locations across the U.S.
  4. The Jim Henson Company was created by famed puppeteer Jim Henson in 1958. Henson's business was responsible for some of the best-known puppet characters of all time including Miss Piggy, Kermit the Frog and Elmo. Today, the privately held company is managed by Henson's children and continues to thrive by creating popular kids-friendly shows and movies.
  5. LexisNexis is a research hub for the law, media and more. The company, originally a government contractor, began its LexisNexis computerized legal research service during the 1973 oil crisis that rocked the country into steep economic slump. The now Web-based service is used in 100 countries by individuals in law, government, education and business.
  6. FedEx Corp. began operations on April 17, 1973 as Federal Express, a nod to the Federal Reserve, with whom founder Frederick W. Smith had hoped to get a contract. He didn't, but the company that delivered 186 packages to 25 cities on its first night of operations now manages more than 7.5 million shipments everyday worldwide.
  7. Microsoft Corp. wasn't always the jaw-dropping enterprise it is today. In 1975, when it was created by Harvard University dropout Bill Gates, Microsoft was just a little company in Albuquerque, N.M. It dealt in rudimentary computing languages and began its climb to business stardom with the success of MS-DOS, which was sold and marketed to IBM Corp. and then-IBM clones. Today, the company is estimated to earn more than $60 billion in revenue per year and is branching into new areas including VoIP and CRM.
  8. CNN might be a news giant now, but in recession-plagued 1980, it was a little-known station called The Cable Network News. It revolutionized how people received information when it premiered as the first 24-hour all-news channel. Today, 1.5 billion people across the globe watch CNN.
  9. MTV Networks brought something new and different to the music scene when it debuted in the economic slump of 1981. Intended to be an all-music-video channel, MTV used VJs (video jockeys) to host programs and facilitate transitions between videos. Today, MTV is a global brand with dozens of shows, music-related and not.
  10. Trader Joe's started as a chain of convenience stores called Pronto Markets in the slow financial times of 1958. In 1967, the company changed its name to Trader Joe's and began to carry unique grocery items under its own brand. The company now operates more than 280 stores in the U.S.
  11. Wikipedia Foundation Inc. was born during the recent post-9/11 recession. Established in January 2001, the online encyclopedia had more than 100,000 entries by 2003. Today it is home to more than 2.5 million articles and continues to grow.
  12. Sports Illustrated magazine was launched on August 16, 1954, at the tail-end of a recession. The magazine benefitted from fortunate timing as a boom in professional sports exploded soon after its founding. Sports Illustrated now sells about 3 million copies in the U.S. each week.
  13. GE (General Electric Co.) was established in 1876 by famed American inventor Thomas Edison. In the middle of the Panic of 1873, a six-year recession, Edison created one of the best-known inventions of all time — the incandescent light bulb. In terms of market capitalization, GE is now the third largest company in the world. The enterprise has evolved from a manufacturing-strong business to an enterprise earning more than 50 percent of its revenue from its financial services division.
  14. HP (Hewlett-Packard Development Company LP) was inauspiciously born in a Palo Alto garage at the end of the Great Depression. The electronic company, initially supported by a mere $538 investment, has grown into the first technology business to exceed $100 billion in revenue, earning $104 billion in 2007. It now operates in nearly every country in the world.

Recessions, however, aren’t advantageous only to start-ups. Pre-existing companies can also make incredible gains in years where the economy is down. Some of the most recent success stories are those of Google, PayPal and Salesforce.com Inc. From 2000 to 2001 each of these companies thrived, leading PayPal to go public in 2002, followed by Google and Salesforce.com in 2004.

BY: HuiLin^^

Monday, June 8, 2009

ILP: Sources Of Market Failure in the American Healthcare System

Background Research:
Healthcare expenditures have been rising for developed countries, most notably in the United States (U.S.). According to the World Health Statistics 2008, U.S. spends more on healthcare per person than any other nation in the world, at over US$7000 per head, but is ranked only 72nd in terms of overall healthcare quality. The discussed market in the U.S. has failed to deliver a socially efficient allocation of resources to provide healthcare, resulting in market failure.

Some factors that contribute to the healthcare market failure include positive externalities like underproduction of merit goods and imperfect information.

(i).Positive externalities – Underproduction of merit goods (Healthcare)

Assume that External Marginal Cost (EMC) = 0 (no costs spilled over to third parties). Thus, SS = PMC = SMC. Private Marginal Benefit (PMB) is the improvement in one’s health and Private Marginal Cost (PMC) is the cost incurred by healthcare providers. The market equilibrium outcome, when there is no government intervention, is Q0, where PMB = PMC.
However, due to positive externalities of healthcare (EMB), including a reduced risk in others contracting the same diseases and a minimised burden on families of the sick, SMB (EMB + PMB) lies above PMB. In other words, it suggests that the allocatively efficient output should be QSE where SMC = SMB and not Q0. Healthcare providers do not provide sufficient quantities of such a merit good as there are substantial amount of external benefits that come along with it. As a result, there is an underconsumption of Q0 – QSE. The government intervenes by subsidising healthcare costs. Despite the intervention’s ability to increase provision of healthcare, it reduces incentives for providers to seek the lowest cost of production. Physicians fearing consequences take highly visible but unnecessary precautions such as ordering tests beyond the level desired by patients given their insurance coverage, with expected benefits greater than costs, only to end up with higher healthcare expenditures. Hence, health care expenditures grow. Consequently, subsidies increase providers’ profits as a comparatively smaller proportion of subsidised cost is passed on to the consumers, causing income inequality.

(ii). Imperfect information (uninformed buyer)

· Asymmetric information (Uninformed buyers and knowledgeable sellers): In the healthcare market, patients often have poor knowledge about what medicine is suitable in treating their conditions. Since doctors are relied upon to give diagnosis, corrupt doctors might advise more expensive or higher-level treatment and diagnostic procedures than that is necessary to obtain greater profits. Due to the fragmented healthcare provider practice in the U.S., doctors might not fully understand the patients’ medical condition and history and prescribe cost-ineffective or unnecessary treatment.

· Incomplete information: Private medical insurance contributes significantly to the market failure. It can occur when consumers and providers do not have identical information about the price, quantity or other aspects of the insurance plans. Consumers may unknowingly buy insurance plans that are too expensive or unsuited to cover their medical expenses. Patients might not be given certain treatments due to gaps in their insurance coverage.
References:



Research By: Bernice Lin, Yuen Kit Kuan

Post By: Yuen Kit Kuan

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Some Economic Jokes...

The following are some economic jokes that are compiled from the Internet. Enjoy.
  • A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.
    The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."
    Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."
    Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says "What do you want it to equal?"
  • Lightbulb jokes

Q: How many Chicago School economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. If the light bulb needed changing the market would have already done it.


Q: How many mainstream economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: Two. One to assume the existence of ladder and one to change the bulb.

A2: Two. One to assume the existence of latter and one to change the bulb.


Q: How many neo-classical economists does it take to change a light bulb? A: It depends on the wage rate.


Q: How many conservative economists does it take to change a light bulb?
A1: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.
A2: None. If it really needed changing, market forces would have caused it to happen.
A3: None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.
A4. None. "There is no need to change the light bulb. All the conditions for illumination are in place.
A5. None, because, look! It's getting brighter! It's definitely getting brighter !!!
A6. None; they're all waiting for the unseen hand of the market to correct the lighting disequilibrium.


Q:How many Keynesian economists does it takes to change a light bulb?
A:All. Because then you will generate employment, more consumption, dislocating the AD (agg. demand) to the right,...


Q: How many Trotskyists does it take to change a lightbulb? A: None. Smash it!
Q; How many central bank economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: Just one -- he holds the lightbulb and the whole earth revolves around him.

Q:How many economists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Irrelevant - the light bulb's preferences are to be taken as given.

  • Experienced economist and not so experienced economist are walking down the road. They get across shit lying on the asphalt.
    Experienced economist: "If you eat it I'll give you $20,000!" Not so experienced economist runs his optimization problem and figures out he's better off eating it so he does and collects money. Continuing along the same road they almost step into yet another shit. Not so experienced economist: "Now, if YOU eat this shit I'll give YOU $20,000." After evaluating the proposal experienced economist eats shit getting the money. They go on. Not so experienced economist starts thinking: "Listen, we both have the same amount of money we had before, but we both ate shit. I don't see us being better off." Experienced economist: "Well, that's true, but you overlooked the fact that we've been just involved in $40,000 of trade."
  • Seven habits that help produce the anything-but-efficient markets that rule the world by Paul Krugman in Fortune.

1. Think short term. 2. Be greedy. 3. Believe in the greater fool 4. Run with the herd. 5. Overgeneralise 6. Be trendy 7. Play with other people's money

  • Reproduced below is an Economist Joke that illustrates the separate facilities solution to an externality problem.

Three guys decide to play a round of golf: a priest, a psychologist, and an economist.
They get behind a *very* slow two-some, who, despite a caddy, are taking all day to line up their shots and four-putting every green, and so on. By the 8th hole, the three men are complaining loudly about the slow play ahead and swearing a blue streak, and so on. The priest says, "Holy Mary, I pray that they should take some lessons before they play again." The psychologist says, "I swear there are people that like to play golf slowly." The economist says, "I really didn't expect to spend this much time playing a round of golf."
By the 9th hole, they have had it with slow play, so the psychologist goes to the caddy and demands that they be allowed to play through. The caddy says O.K., but then explains that the two golfers are blind, that both are retired firemen who lost their eyesight saving people in a fire, and that explains their slow play, and would they please not swear and complain so loud.
The priest is mortified; he says, "Here I am a man of the cloth and I've been swearing at the slow play of two blind men." The psychologist is also mortified; he says, "Here I am a man trained to help others with their problems and I've been complaining about the slow play of two blind men."
The economist ponders the situation-finally he goes back to the caddy and says, "Listen, the next time could they play at night."
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Lets build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."


Paul Samuelson

  • How Tax cuts work...
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100 If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh $7. The eighth $12. The ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, when the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'? The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so: The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

That's all for now.


Post By: Yuen Kit Kuan

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Photos that illustrate economic concepts

Hi, there is a website which contains some photos 'depicting scenes we'll likely never see in the real world'. You can use them to learn about economic concepts. Enjoy! Click on the link below to look at more photos.

Source: http://www.econoclass.com/whatswrongwithpicture.html
Author: Lori Alden

Photo #1:


Concept: Public good. What's wrong with this picture? Sunsets are a non-excludable good, in that non-payers can't be prevented from enjoying them. Other examples of non-excludable goods are national defense, fireworks, and lighthouses. Private firms tend to underproduce non-excludable goods because customers have little incentive to pay for them. Public goods are both non-excludable and non-rival.

Photo #2:



Concept: Opportunity cost What's wrong with this picture? Most of the homes on this lakefront are expensive and built close to each other, so it's likely that the lakefront lots are highly valued. This, in turn, suggests that the opportunity cost of living in the shack is high. We rarely see shacks on expensive lots because the owners usually conclude that they'd do better by selling their property and buying a nicer house on a less desirable lot.

Photo #3:


Concept: Economies of scale What's wrong with this picture? It's hard to imagine that Mark and Sally will make a profit with their business. Suppose a customer asks them to deliver a small package to a city 200 miles away. Unless they have many other packages going to the same city, they'd have to charge a lot just to cover their variable costs--labor, gas, and depreciation. They wouldn't be able to compete against companies like UPS and FedEx, which can keep their costs down by handling a huge volume of parcels.

Photo #4:



Concepts: Equilibrium, law of one price. What's wrong with this picture? The more expensive gas station probably won't get many customers and will be forced to lower its prices. The Law of One Price says that identical goods in efficient markets must have only one price in equilibrium.

Photo #5:



Concept: Equilibrium. What's wrong with this picture? This is too good to be true. Since a business can get all the inexperienced home typists it wants at a much lower wage, it makes no sense for it to offer $40-$100 an hour.

Photo #6:



Concepts: Incentives, adverse selection and moral hazard. What's Wrong with this Picture? Adverse selection suggests that speeders will be more likely to sign up for this kind of insurance, while moral hazard suggests they'll have little incentive to slow down once they're insured. Both of these problems mean that the insurance company would have to pay out a lot of claims. The problems of adverse selection and moral hazard plague many insurance markets.

Photo #7:



Concept: Opportunity cost, comparative advantage What's wrong with this picture? It's nice of Superman to rescue a kitten, but has he considered the opportunity cost of doing so? Rescuing kittens is so easy that children often do it. With all the accidents, crimes, and natural disasters that occur in the world, surely he could spend his time more productively. The concept of comparative advantage suggests that Superman should focus on tasks that others can't do well, like stopping runaway trains or transporting nuclear weapons into deep space so they can detonate safely.

Photo #8:



Concepts: elasticity, price discrimination What's wrong with this picture? You'd think that movie theaters would charge students and children more than adults, since kids are more likely to spill popcorn and make noise. But theater owners know they can earn more revenue by charging students and children less. The reason is that kids are more price sensitive (in economic terms, they have a higher price elasticity of demand), and therefore less likely to come to the movies if the prices are high. The practice of charging price sensitive customers less is called price discrimination.

Photo #9:




Concept: Law of diminishing marginal utility (or benefit) What's wrong with this picture? It's not just the calories--a Big Mac with supersized fries has more. The law of diminishing marginal utility says that as a person increases consumption of a good, holding consumption of other goods constant, the marginal utility he or she gets from each additional unit of that good declines. This suggests that the marginal utility of the second egg will be smaller than that of the first, and the marginal utility of the third will be smaller still. For most people, the marginal utility of the tenth egg would likely be negative.

Photo #10:



Concept: comparative advantage, absolute advantage What's wrong with this picture? The man and the boy would probably get done more quickly if they switched chores. This isn't because the father can mow the lawn faster, since it's likely that he can mow AND sweep faster (i.e., he has an absolute advantage in both chores). They should switch since the boy likely has a comparative advantage in sweeping the driveway, while the man has one in mowing the lawn.

:)anGELA Lee