ECON 103 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Root Beer, Methodological Individualism

43 views2 pages

cerisehound428

16 Mar 2019

School

George Mason University

Department

Economics

Course

ECON 103

Professor

Donald Boudreaux

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Impossible for one person to start an item pencil . One person cannot plan econ for the whole world: what is a econ theory, a well thought out story. If the story make sense = good: start out by building blocks, foundation to build econ theory. The 14 building block of econ theory: we live in a world of unavoidable scarcity. A good or service is sacred if not enough good to sell for all human want at a zero price. There are some that is not sacred: ex: breathable air. Very valuable, important to life, but does not cost money. It is not scared bc there is enough of air in earth for everyone. Gravity is not sacred, there a lot for everyone. Most things are sacred: human wants are not sacred, unlimited. It"s hard to not want anything, unless you are dead.

Related Questions

Economics is nothing more than the study of scarcity and choice. It's called the Economizing Problem.

Economics is also the study of human action---why people make the choices they do.

We have finite (limited) resources and infinite (unlimited) demand for goods and services. We must, therefore, use rational decisions as to how to allocate these resources so that we can produce the goods and services that satisfy as many needs and wants as possible.

Needs are those things that make life possible---food, clothing, shelter, etc. Wants are the things that make life easier---glass in windows, carpet on the floor, a refrigerator to keep your beer cold, etc.

The resources we are trying to use wisely are not confined to money. We are talking about talent, ability, drive, ambition, etc. We can't all be brain surgeons. Nor would most of us want to be. We have different needs and wants that drive our ambitions. I have 5 grandchildren. The oldest two are twins---a boy and a girl. My granddaughter graduated from Idaho University with a bachelor's and a master's degree in accounting in 5 years. She passed the CPA exam on the first try. She now lives in Panama and works for BMW. She speaks, reads, and writes 4 languages, including English. Her brother finally graduated from the University of Arkansas in May 2016 after 8 years! Why did it happen this way?? They were raised the same way by the same parents. Why was my granddaughter drove to succeed and my grandson so listless?

Then there is subjective valuation and opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is nothing more than what you have to give up to do something else. Some of you might have to roll out of the bar or the party a little before you wanted to leave just to be able to attend my class. You might also have to give up some precious sleep. In any event, you had to give up something to attend my class. That's the opportunity cost. Remember, everything you do has a price (opportunity cost) that must be paid according to Harry Browne who wrote, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.) To do one thing you must give up the opportunity to do something else.

When people decide to buy a product or service they must decide if it will satisfy a need or want at a price they are willing to pay. The number one reason that people buy the products or services they do is called Personal Tastes or Preferences (Subjective valuation). Everyone has a different price they are willing to pay for the same product or service. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That's a subjective valuation. Each of us has a different intensity of demand for the same products. Things you want I may not care for at all, and the opposite may also be true. This is why there is such a variety of goods and services offered on the market.

Subjective valuation is also fluid. As your income goes either up or down it changes your valuation of products and services. Have you ever wanted something so bad you would do almost anything to get it---an i phone or I pad?---but once you get the money you think, "do I really want this?' and you don't buy it. This is common. If it were not for a subjective valuation we would all be wearing the same style and color clothes and living in similar houses, etc. Wouldn't that be a wonderful world! I'd find the tallest building in downtown Orlando and see if I could fly! It is not the similarity in people that interests me. It's the differences. It's my desire not to be like everyone else that has driven my life. Don't strive to be someone else. Strive to find and be yourself. God save me from a terminal case of conventional wisdom!

There are 5 embedded questions.

Give me an example of subjective valuation.

salmoneel837

Q3. The assumption of rational self-interest implies that people will choose to enrich themselves even if doing so violates the rights or property of others.

a. true

b. false

Q4. If you can earn $10 an hour as a retail clerk, $12 an hour as an office assistant, $16 an hour as a house painter, and $20 an hour repairing bicycles, what is your opportunity cost of working to repair bicycles?

a. $12 an hour

b. $10 an hour

c. $20 an hour

d. $16 an hour

Q5. In the graph of a production possibilities curve, both the horizontal and vertical axes measure the annual quantities of goods produced.

a. true

b. false

Q6. Scarcity arises because

a. international companies are slow to explore for new resources.

b. resources are finite and unable to meet all human wants and needs.

c. many countries waste goods because of inefficient political systems.

d. import taxes retard production.

Q7. A production possibilities curve with clothing and food on the axes shows which of the following?

I. A society cannot have an unlimited amount of each good.

II. For an efficient society, an increase in clothing production will necessitate a decrease in food production.

III. A society will always produce the maximum amount of both clothing and food.

a. II only

b. I only

c. III only

d. both I and II

Q8. All points on the production possibilities curve are efficient.

a. true

b. false

Q9. Economic growth can be pictured in a production possibilities curve diagram by

a. shifting the production possibilities curve out.

b. moving from right to left along the curve.

c. moving from left to right along the curve.

d. shifting the production possibilities curve in.

Q10. Suppose the current unemployment rate is 15 percent. If it rises to 20 percent,

a. the production possibilities curve will shift inward.

b. the economy will move closer to the production possibilities curve.

c. the economy will operate further inside the production possibilities curve.

d. the economy will move up along the production possibilities curve.

Q11. Clean air is a scarce resource.

a. true

b. false

Q12. Which of the following statements is FALSE?

a. A good is anything that gives satisfaction or happiness to individuals.

b. Wants may include humanitarian and altruistic goals.

c. Wants are unlimited and include all material and nonmaterial desires.

d. Economic goods are available in desired quantities at a zero price.

Q13. The current size of the U.S. labor force is less than 100 million workers.

a. true

b. false

Q14. The factors of production are

a. never as useful as people expect them to be.

b. valuable only because they are owned by corporations seeking to make a profit from them.

c. scarce resources.

d. abundant without limit on the planet.

Q15. Why do firms seek to use the least-cost combination of inputs?

a. because they won't be able to stay in business if they don't

b. because that is the combination that their employees prefer

c. because managers and supervisors find their jobs are easiest when the least-cost combination is used

d. because they want to keep costs low in order to appear to the media as a well-run business

Q16. Which one of the following best describes how economists view prices?

a. Low prices are good; high prices are bad.

b. High prices are good; low prices are bad.

c. The best price is a fair price.

d. Prices are signals of relative scarcity.

Q17. The person who creates a product innovation and brings it to market is providing the resource of

a. labor.

b. land.

c. entrepreneurship.

d. capital.

Q18. Gifts of nature used in the production process are considered

a. entrepreneurship.

b. labor.

c. land.

d. capital.

Q19. In a free market economy,

a. government decides what is produced, and producers decide who gets to consume it.

b. as a good becomes relatively more scarce, its price declines.

c. firms choose only to produce the most fashionable goods, regardless of the cost of production.

d. goods and services are allocated by a price system.

Q20. Resources are also known as

a. stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.

b. minerals.

c. factors of production.

d. factories.

Q21. The size of the U.S. labor force has declined over the past 20 years as many jobs have been outsourced from the United States to other countries.

a. true

b. false

Q22. Which one of the following is TRUE?

a. The growth of the U.S. population over the next several decades will come from immigration.

b. Population growth makes a country poorer, because there are more mouths to feed.

c. Real per capita GDP can increase only if there is inflation.

d. Real per capita GDP can increase only if there is no inflation.

Q23. Which one of the following is FALSE?

a. The U.S. labor force will continue to grow through immigration.

b. Inflation stops economic growth.

c. Increased availability of reliable communication channels at lower and lower costs have led to companies relocating their manufacturing operations offshore.

d. The size of the U.S. labor force continues to grow despite many jobs being moved off-shore.

Q24. What is the purpose of a market system?

a. to facilitate efficient exchange

b. to encourage consumers to buy goods on credit

c. to ensure an equal distribution of income

d. to ensure that everyone is treated fairly

Q25. The market system is also called the price system because

a. people pay money in markets.

b. everything has a price tag.

c. rising prices are the signal to producers to make more of a particular good.

d. inflation is a disturbing problem.

Q26. Production refers to

a. any activity that causes a material conversion of an object.

b. any activity that results in the conversion of resources into goods and services that can be consumed.

c. any activity carried on by a firm, whether a corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship.

d. physically producing material goods only.

Q27. An increase in the price of coffee, holding other things constant, will

a. decrease the demand for coffee.

b. increase the demand for coffee.

c. decrease the quantity of coffee demanded.

d. decrease the supply of coffee.

Q28. The supply curve shifts when the firm experiences a change in its production technology.

a. true

b. false

Q29. A surplus results when the quantity supplied exceeds the quantity demanded.

a. true

b. false

Q30. Table 3.1

Price per Constant-Quality Unit Quantity Demanded of Constant-Quality Units per Year Quantity Supplied of Constant-Quality Units per Year

$1.00 1,000 200

2.00 800 400

3.00 600 600

4.00 400 800

5.00 200 1,000

What condition characterizes a surplus?

a. Quantity supplied exceeds quantity demanded.

b. Quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied.

c. Consumers are unhappy with the price.

d. Producers are unhappy with the price.

Q31. An increase in quantity demanded is caused by

a. an increase in income.

b. a decrease in the price of a complement.

c. a change in expectations about price in the future.

d. a decrease in the price of the good.

Q32. The demand curve is downward sloping because

a. price and quantity have a direct relationship.

b. price is always constant.

c. demand is based on supply.

d. price and quantity have an inverse relationship.

Q33. An increase in the price of one good will decrease the demand for a substitute good.

a. true

b. false

Q34. The market demand curve is the vertical summation of the demand curves of all the individuals in the market.

a. true

b. false

Q35. The equilibrium price of a good is a price that everyone is happy with.

a. true

b. false

Q36. Which one of the following would cause a rightward shift of the supply curve?

a. A new tax is imposed on production of the good.

b. Some firms that have been producing the good go out of business.

c. Firms producing the good find ways of lowering their production costs.

d. There is an increase in demand for the good.

Q37. Which of the following is a determinant of demand?

a. cost of production

b. number of suppliers

c. technology of production

d. income

Q38. The market demand curve for a particular good

a. will not be affected by any of the determinants of individual demand.

b. is the horizontal sum of each individual demand curve for the good.

c. will show a direct relationship between price and quantity demanded.

d. may be less than an individual demand curve for the good.

Q39. Table 4.4

Quantity of CDs Purchased Total Utility Marginal Utility

1 75

2 135

3 185

4 35

5 25

6 15

According to Table 4.4, what is the total utility when six CDs are purchased?

a. 65

b. 260

c. 120

d. 220

Q40. A rational consumer will never purchase a product when its

a. marginal utility is decreasing.

b. total utility is decreasing.

c. marginal utility is slightly positive.

d. marginal utility is negative.

Q41. The price elasticity of demand becomes relatively greater as more substitutes are easily available.

a. true

b. false

Q42. Which of the following statements is true with respect to total utility and marginal utility?

a. Marginal utility is always equal to total utility.

b. Total utility will always be negative when marginal utility is positive.

c. Total utility is minimized when marginal utility is zero.

d. Marginal utility can decline as total utility rises.

Q43. Table 4.3

Quantityof Soda Marginal Utility of Soda Quantityof Pizza Marginal Utility of Pizza

1 50 1 100

2 25 2 80

3 0 3 60

4 -25 4 40

After consuming what quantity of soda does the consumer in Table 4.3 experience diminishing marginal utility?

a. 2

b. 3

c. 1

d. 4

Q44. If the price elasticity of demand is 0.5, a 10 percent increase in the price will cause

a. the quantity demanded to decrease by 20 percent.

b. the quantity demanded to decrease by 50 percent.

c. the quantity demanded to increase by 50 percent.

d. the quantity demanded to decrease by 5 percent.

Q45. Which one of the following would make the demand for satellite subscription TV relatively less elastic?

a. The cost of administering the satellite service is lowered.

b. Cable TV service becomes less widely available.

c. Other networks of wireless entertainment become more widely available.

d. The cost of transmitting satellite signals is lowered.

Q46. A price increase will cause a relatively large drop in quantity demanded when

a. demand is perfectly inelastic.

b. the price elasticity of demand is 0.

c. there is very little time allowed for consumers to react.

d. the consumer has easy access to a number of substitute goods.

Q47. Table 4.6

Price Quantity Demanded

$20 90

$16 110

$12 130

$ 8 150

According to the data in Table 4.6, what is the elasticity of demand between a price of $20 and a price of $16?

a. 0.60

b. 0.75

c. 0.90

d. 1.25

Q48. Price elasticity of demand is the responsiveness

a. of the quantity demanded to changes in supply.

b. of the quantity demanded to changes in income.

c. of the quantity demanded to changes in price.

d. of the quantity demanded to changes in quantity.

Q49. Everyone who views the latest adventure movie in theaters will derive the same utility from seeing it.

a. true

b. false

Q50. The law of diminishing marginal utility asserts that total utility becomes negative when marginal utility begins to diminish.

a. true

b. false

What valuable company is nobody building? This question is harder than it looks, because your company could create a lot of value without becoming very valuable itself. Creating value isn't enough -- you also need to capture some of the value you create. This means that even very big businesses can be bad businesses. For example, U.S. airline companies serve millions of passengers and create hundreds of billions of dollars of value each year. But in 2012, when the average airfare each way was $178, the airlines made only 37 cents per passenger trip. Compare them to Google, which creates less value but captures far more. Google brought in $50 billion in 2012 (versus $160 billion for the airlines), but it kept 21% of those revenues as profits -- more than 100 times the airline industry's profit margin that year. Google makes so much money that it is now worth three times more than every U.S. airline combined. The airlines compete with each other, but Google stands alone. Economists use two simplified models to explain the difference: perfect competition and monopoly. "Perfect competition" is considered both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101. So-called perfectly competitive markets achieve equilibrium when producer supply meets consumer demand. Every firm in a competitive market is undifferentiated and sells the same homogeneous products. Since no firm has any market power, they must all sell at whatever price the market determines. If there is money to be made, new firms will enter the market, increase supply, drive prices down and thereby eliminate the profits that attracted them in the first place. If too many firms enter the market, they'll suffer losses, some will fold, and prices will rise back to sustainable levels. Under perfect competition, in the long run no company makes an economic profit. The opposite of perfect competition is monopoly. Whereas a competitive firm must sell at the market price, a monopoly owns its market, so it can set its own prices. Since it has no competition, it produces at the quantity and price combination that maximizes its profits. To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top. I'm not interested in illegal bullies or government favorites: By "monopoly," I mean the kind of company that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute. Google is a good example of a company that went from 0 to 1: It hasn't competed in search since the early 2000s, when it definitively distanced itself from Microsoft and Yahoo! Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines. Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites. Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away. The lesson for entrepreneurs is clear: If you want to create and capture lasting value, don't build an undifferentiated commodity business. How much of the world is actually monopolistic? How much is truly competitive? It is hard to say because our common conversation about these matters is so confused. To the outside observer, all businesses can seem reasonably alike, so it is easy to perceive only small differences between them. But the reality is much more binary than that. There is an enormous difference between perfect competition and monopoly, and most businesses are much closer to one extreme than we commonly realize. The confusion comes from a universal bias for describing market conditions in self-serving ways: Both monopolists and competitors are incentivized to bend the truth. Monopolists lie to protect themselves. They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their monopoly profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly -- usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition. Think about how Google talks about its business. It certainly doesn't claim to be a monopoly. But is it one? Well, it depends: a monopoly in what? Let's say that Google is primarily a search engine. As of May 2014, it owns about 68% of the search market. (Its closest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, have about 19% and 10%, respectively.) If that doesn't seem dominant enough, consider the fact that the word "google" is now an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary -- as a verb. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen to Bing. But suppose we say that Google is primarily an advertising company. That changes things. The U.S. search-engine advertising market is $17 billion annually. Online advertising is $37 billion annually. The entire U.S. advertising market is $150 billion. And global advertising is a $495 billion market. So even if Google completely monopolized U.S. search-engine advertising, it would own just 3.4% of the global advertising market. From this angle, Google looks like a small player in a competitive world. What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? This seems reasonable enough; in addition to its search engine, Google makes dozens of other software products, not to mention robotic cars, Android phones and wearable computers. But 95% of Google's revenue comes from search advertising; its other products generated just $2.35 billion in 2012 and its consumer-tech products a mere fraction of that. Since consumer tech is a $964 billion market globally, Google owns less than 0.24% of it -- a far cry from relevance, let alone monopoly. Framing itself as just another tech company allows Google to escape all sorts of unwanted attention. Non-monopolists tell the opposite lie: "We're in a league of our own." Entrepreneurs are always biased to understate the scale of competition, but that is the biggest mistake a startup can make. The fatal temptation is to describe your market extremely narrowly so that you dominate it by definition. Suppose you want to start a restaurant in Palo Alto that serves British food. "No one else is doing it," you might reason. "We'll own the entire market." But that is only true if the relevant market is the market for British food specifically. What if the actual market is the Palo Alto restaurant market in general? And what if all the restaurants in nearby towns are part of the relevant market as well? These are hard questions, but the bigger problem is that you have an incentive not to ask them at all. When you hear that most new restaurants fail within one or two years, your instinct will be to come up with a story about how yours is different. You'll spend time trying to convince people that you are exceptional instead of seriously considering whether that is true. It would be better to pause and consider whether there are people in Palo Alto who would rather eat British food above all else. They may well not exist. In 2001, my co-workers at PayPal and I would often get lunch on Castro Street in Mountain View, Calif. We had our pick of restaurants, starting with obvious categories like Indian, sushi and burgers. There were more options once we settled on a type: North Indian or South Indian, cheaper or fancier, and so on. In contrast to the competitive local restaurant market, PayPal was then the only email-based payments company in the world. We employed fewer people than the restaurants on Castro Street did, but our business was much more valuable than all those restaurants combined. Starting a new South Indian restaurant is a really hard way to make money. If you lose sight of competitive reality and focus on trivial differentiating factors -- maybe you think your naan is superior because of your great-grandmother's recipe -- your business is unlikely to survive. The problem with a competitive business goes beyond lack of profits. Imagine you're running one of those restaurants in Mountain View. You're not that different from dozens of your competitors, so you've got to fight hard to survive. If you offer affordable food with low margins, you can probably pay employees only minimum wage. And you'll need to squeeze out every efficiency: That is why small restaurants put Grandma to work at the register and make the kids wash dishes in the back. A monopoly like Google is different. Since it doesn't have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about its workers, its products and its impact on the wider world. Google's motto -- "Don't be evil" -- is in part a branding ploy, but it is also characteristic of a kind of business that is successful enough to take ethics seriously without jeopardizing its own existence. In business, money is either an important thing or it is everything. Monopolists can afford to think about things other than making money; non-monopolists can't. In perfect competition, a business is so focused on today's margins that it can't possibly plan for a long-term future. Only one thing can allow a business to transcend the daily brute struggle for survival: monopoly profits. So a monopoly is good for everyone on the inside, but what about everyone on the outside? Do outsize profits come at the expense of the rest of society? Actually, yes: Profits come out of customers' wallets, and monopolies deserve their bad reputation -- but only in a world where nothing changes. In a static world, a monopolist is just a rent collector. If you corner the market for something, you can jack up the price; others will have no choice but to buy from you. Think of the famous board game: Deeds are shuffled around from player to player, but the board never changes. There is no way to win by inventing a better kind of real-estate development. The relative values of the properties are fixed for all time, so all you can do is try to buy them up. But the world we live in is dynamic: We can invent new and better things. Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better. Even the government knows this: That is why one of its departments works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions) even though another part hunts them down (by prosecuting antitrust cases). It is possible to question whether anyone should really be awarded a monopoly simply for having been the first to think of something like a mobile software design. But something like Apple's monopoly profits from designing, producing and marketing the iPhone were clearly the reward for creating greater abundance, not artificial scarcity: Customers were happy to finally have the choice of paying high prices to get a smartphone that actually works. The dynamism of new monopolies itself explains why old monopolies don't strangle innovation. With Apple's iOS at the forefront, the rise of mobile computing has dramatically reduced Microsoft's decadeslong operating system dominance. Before that, IBM's hardware monopoly of the 1960s and '70s was overtaken by Microsoft's software monopoly. AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service for most of the 20th century, but now anyone can get a cheap cellphone plan from any number of providers. If the tendency of monopoly businesses was to hold back progress, they would be dangerous, and we'd be right to oppose them. But the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents. Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of. So why are economists obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history. Economists copied their mathematics from the work of 19th-century physicists: They see individuals and businesses as interchangeable atoms, not as unique creators. Their theories describe an equilibrium state of perfect competition because that is what's easy to model, not because it represents the best of business. But the long-run equilibrium predicted by 19th-century physics was a state in which all energy is evenly distributed and everything comes to rest -- also known as the heat death of the universe. Whatever your views on thermodynamics, it is a powerful metaphor. In business, equilibrium means stasis, and stasis means death. If your industry is in a competitive equilibrium, the death of your business won't matter to the world; some other undifferentiated competitor will always be ready to take your place. Perfect equilibrium may describe the void that is most of the universe. It may even characterize many businesses. But every new creation takes place far from equilibrium. In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot. Monopoly is therefore not a pathology or an exception. Monopoly is the condition of every successful business. Tolstoy famously opens "Anna Karenina" by observing: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Business is the opposite. All happy companies are different: Each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: They failed to escape competition.

According to the article above by Peter Thiel do you think perfect competition is best for the economy and for consumers? Why or why not? What does Peter Thiel think about perfect competition versus monopolies?

ECON 103 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Root Beer, Methodological Individualism

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ECON 103 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Ad Hominem

ECON 103 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: Root Beer, Slurpee, Neurosurgery

ECON 103 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Microeconomics, Vise, Atmospheric Pressure

Related Questions