ECON 2001.02 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Escherichia Coli, Inferior Good, Demand Curve

609 views13 pages

harlequinprairie-dog105

5 Oct 2018

School

Ohio State University

Department

Economics

Course

ECON 2001.02

Professor

All

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

Document Summary

Review questions: think about a competitive market in which you participate regularly. For each of the characteristics of a competitive market, explain how your market meets these requirements. Answer: the market for eggs in my city (new york) is competitive. Here, there are lots of small markets (called bodegas) for groceries and various convenience items. They are located on almost every street and some intersections have a bodega at every corner! So when i want to buy eggs, i go to a bodega. There are different kinds of eggs, of course, but each unit of a particular type of egg will be standardized. Full information: the ubiquity of bodegas makes it easy for buyers and sellers to gather information about the price of eggs. There are no transaction costs or other limits to buying and selling eggs. Buyers and sellers can easily find each other.

Related Questions

Please circle the right answer. (two points each)

1. If the price of gasoline is $2.0, and the price elasticity of demand is 0.5, how much will a 10 % reduction in the quantity placed on the market increase the price?

a.There will be 22% increase in the price

b.There will be 5% increase in the price

c.There will be 10 % increase in price

d.There will be 20% increase in price

e. None of the above

2.The consumer's budget line

a. indicates the options from which the consumer can choose

b. identifies the optimal basket for the consumer.

c. identifies the tastes of the consumer

d. ranks the baskets of goods in the order the consumer prefers them

e. shows that the consumer prefers more better than less

3. In the long run, a profit-maximizing firm will choose to exit a market when
a. fixed costs exceed sunk costs.
b. average fixed cost is rising.
c. revenue from production is less than total costs.
d. marginal cost exceeds marginal revenue at the current level of production.

4. When a perfectly competitive firm makes a decision to shut down, it is most likely that
a. price is below the minimum of average variable cost.
b. fixed costs exceed variable costs.
c. average fixed costs are rising.
d. marginal cost is above average variable cost.

5. Which of the following will always cause the demand curve for a product to shift to the right?

a. an increase in income whether the good is a compliment or substitute

b. an increase in the price of the compliment

c. an increase in the price of a substitute

d. an increase in technology

e. a decrease in the price of the good

6. Consumers understandably like lower prices, but they should understand there is a great difference between a lower price produced by the government price ceiling and a lower price that comes about through normal market channels, one benefits the consumer, the other may not.

a. This statement is not true, Consumers are benefited when the government lowers the price and the consumers are benefited when businesses lower the price.

b. This is because when the government forces prices down, there is a shortage and reduction in total surplus. Lower prices through markets don't create shortage but they do benefit consumers.

c. this is because the government forces prices down, there is a surplus and reduction in total surplus. Lower prices through markets don't create surpluses but they do benefit consumers

d. This is because when markets force the prices down, there is a shortage and reduction in total surplus. Lower prices through government actions don't create shortages but they do benefit consumers

e. None of the above

7. How does an increase in the price of a variable input affect the AC and the MC curves?

a. MC shifts to the right and AC increases.

b. MC shifts to the left and AC increases

c. MC shifts to the right and AC does not change

d. MC does not change but AC increases

e. none of the above

8. Which of the following is a characteristic of a perfectly competitive market?
a. Firms are price setters.
b. There are few sellers in the market.
c. Firms can exit and enter the market freely.
d. All of the above are correct.

9. In a perfectly competitive market, the process of entry or exit ends when
a. firms are operating with excess capacity.
b. firms are making zero economic profit.
c. firms experience decreasing marginal revenue.
d. price is equal to marginal cost.

10. The relative price of two goods is shown by:

a. the slope of an indifference curve

b. the slope of the budget line

c. the diminishing marginal rate of substitution

d. the slope of the income-consumption curve

e. none of the above

11. When firms have an incentive to exit a competitive market, their exit will

a. drive down market prices.
b. drive down the profits of existing firms in the market.
c. decrease the number of goods supplied in the market.
d. All of the above are correct.

12. If a perfectly competitive firm currently produces where the price is greater than the marginal cost, it

a. will increase its profits by producing more.
b. will increase its profits by producing less.
c. is making positive economic profits.
d. is making negative economic profits.

13. Does a consumer well being vary along a demand curve?

a. Yes. When price increases, consumers move to a lower indifference curve.

b. Yes. When price increases, consumers move to a higher indifference curve.

c. No. When price increases, consumers stay on the same indifference curve.

d. No. When price increases, the higher price has no effect on budget constraints or indifference curves.

e. None of the above

14. If a competitive firm sets its output such that marginal revenue, marginal cost, and average total cost are equal, economic profit must be:

a. Negative

b. positive

c. Zero

d. Indeterminate from the given information

15. Which of the following is a characteristic of a perfectly competitive market?

a. Firms are price setters.

b. There are few sellers in the market.
c. Firms can exit and enter the market freely.
d. All of the above are correct.

tanchinchilla75

"Grocery stores and gasoline stations in a large city would appear to be examples of competitive markets: there are numerous relatively small sellers, each seller is a price-taker, and the products are quite similar."

Can someone explain the following three questions?

1) How could we argue that these markets are not competitive?

a. Most grocery stores and gas stations have a relatively small geographic range; they do not attract consumers from very far away, and thus do not compete with the grocery stores or gas stations across town.

b. The individual grocery stores or gas stations do not have the power to control the price of many items that they sell, so they are not able to compete on price.

c. They usually purchase products from the same distributor: i.e., all grocery stores and gas stations buy their Coke products from the same Coke distributor. Thus, individual grocery stores do not really compete with each other; the same for individual gas stations.

d. Each grocery store or gas station is so small relative to the size of the market that their actions do not affect the rest of the market, therefore they do not have to behave in a competitive way.

2) Could each firm face a demand curve that is not perfectly elastic?

a. No; since customers aren't willing to spend their morning visiting each grocery store or gas station in a large city to find the best deal, then each firm's demand curve will be perfectly elastic since consumers do not have full information.

b. No; the conditions mentioned (many small sellers, price-takers, homogeneous products) guarantee that each of these industries will be perfectly competitive. Demand will always be perfectly elastic.

c. Yes; if they have some degree of market power (e.g., they can charge slightly higher prices since consumers will not stop at every grocery store in town to find the cheapest beef jerky), then they will not face perfectly elastic demand.

d. Yes; if the individual firm demand curve is horizontal, then demand is not perfectly elastic. This will often be true for small sellers.

3) How profitable do you expect grocery stores and gasoline stations to be in the long-run?

a. Even with a small amount of market power, it is still relatively easy to enter and exit these industries. Long-run profits will likely be driven down close to zero.

b. Because of the rising prices of both food and gasoline, each of these industries is expected to suffer long-run losses for the foreseeable future.

c. Grocery stores would be expected to enjoy long-run positive profits since they sell a wider variety of products; gasoline stations would be expected to break even or take losses in the long run because of their more limited range of products.

d. Since these firms retain considerable market power (ability to set price), then they are expected to enjoy long-run positive profitability for the foreseeable future.

orangehamster127

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 2001.02 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Escherichia Coli, Inferior Good, Demand Curve

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ECON 2001.02 Chapter Notes - Chapter 9: Economic Equilibrium, Perfect Competition, Marginal Revenue

ECO 1104 Chapter Notes - Chapter 3: Takers, Peanut Butter, Inferior Good

ECON 200 Chapter Notes - Chapter 13: Sunk Costs, Final Good, Perfect Competition

Related Questions