Difference between revisions of "Economics Lecture Eleven"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(trim, move to prior lecture)
(moved from next lecture)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Economics_Lectures}}
 
{{Economics_Lectures}}
  
−
Traditionally there were four ways to make money:
+
== Graphs ==
  
−
*Perform labor to earn wages.  This is how most people make most of their money.
+
On the CLEP exam, slightly less than 10% of the questions are about graphs.  To answer them correctly, it helps not to be overwhelmed or give up too quickly.  The questions simply test and retest a few basic principles in economics.  A favorite topic of graphical questions concerns where a monopolist sets his price.
  
−
*Invest capital to earn interest.  This is what you can do once you save up some money.
+
[[Image:Econ13c.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Figure C]]
  
−
*Allow someone to use your land in exchange for rent.
+
A monopolist has no supply curve, because he is the only supplier.  There is only a demand curve, a marginal revenue curve, and some cost curves for a monopolist.  If given a graph with these curves, simply find where the marginal revenue curve intersects the marginal cost curve, and that '''''determines the quantity sold'''''.
  
−
*Start a new business to earn profits.  But watch out here: 9 out of 10 new businesses fail!
+
On the graph to the right (Figure C), there is no supply curve so you know that this represents a monopolist.  A typical question is to ask you where the monopolist sets his price in order to maximize his profits.  To find this price point, recall that a monopolist sets his price where MC=MR.  The graph gives you curves for both MC and MR, so find where they intersect:  point A.  But that point gives you the quantity supplied, not the price demanded.  To find the demand price at the quantity supplied, you have to find the corresponding price point on the demand curve.  You trace a line vertically from point A to find the price on the demand curve: point D in Figure C.
  
−
Sounds simple enough, right?  Look around you, and you’ll see people earning money each of the four above ways.  Mostly, you’ll see the first way: get a job and earn some wages.  That entails the least risk and is the easiest for most people.  Adults and teenagers often follow the path of least resistance, and often imitate others.  In economics, that means getting a job to work for a company.  It’s great until the economy goes through a downturn and you get "laid off" (fired), or the job becomes tiresome and tedious, or the boss fires you because he did not like something you said. Then it’s not so great anymore.  But as a teenager you can earn money from someone else while you are learning how business works.  You need experience and savings before you can even try to make money the other three ways.
+
That is the answer to a question about where a monopolist sets his price, but that is not the best price for the public.  It is higher than the price the public would enjoy if the market were fully competitive.  Another question on a CLEP exam might ask where the competitive price would be, also known as the "allocatively efficient" price because it represents the most efficient allocation of resources.  That price (and quantity) is where the MC curve intersects the demand curve: point B in Figure C.
  
−
Economists have their own terminology which, as you’ve seen in this course, is often different from common usage.  In economics, the basic terms of wages, interest, rent and profit are all redefined.  Here we go:
+
Figure C also has a curve for average total cost (ATC).  Recall that a firm shuts down in the long run when ATC>P; and the firm shuts down in the short run when AVC>P, but keeps operating in the short run when AVC<P<ATC.  This is because "variable cost" is a short run issue, while "total cost" is a long run issue.  Does the firm in Figure C shut down?  No, because we determined above that the monopolist can sell at point D, and there ATC=P.  He is covering (paying for) all his costs.  The firm can continue in business.
  
−
“'''''[[Economic wages]]'''''” are payments for the worker’s opportunity cost of time.  When a student earns $7 per hour working for a dry cleaners, those wages are payments for his opportunity cost of time.  He could be working someone else making money.  The market rate of $7 implies that his time is worth that much at this stage in his life.
+
Here are some other common graphical questions:
  
−
“'''''[[Economic rent]]'''''” is the payment for a perfectly inelastic input.  If increasing the payment does not increase the supply of the input, then this extra amount above cost is a “rent”. It is similar, but not identical, to rent paid on scarce land.  Increasing the rent does not increase the supply the land.  The supply is fixed.  Don’t worry if you don’t understand this yet.  We’ll spend more time on it below.
+
*'''''optimal''''' market price:  where the supply curve intersects the demand curve.  A monopolist has no supply curve and it sells at MC=MR, which has a price higher than the optimal price of MC=P.
 +
*consumer surplus (the benefit to the consumer where the demand curve is higher than price paid, because the consumers pay less than they were willing to pay, as when you would have paid $15 to see a movie but the charge was only $10: your consumer surplus is $5)
 +
*deadweight loss: the lost consumer surplus explained above AND (in the case of a tax) the lost producer surplus (benefit to the seller who was willing to produce at a price less than what he sold it for)
  
−
“'''''[[Interest]]'''''” is straightforward: it is the cost of the use of money over time.  If you borrow $10,000 for your business, then you have to pay interest (say 5% per year) for using that money.  The person who lent you the money wants something for it.  He’s not going to give it to you for free.
+
See the graph near the end of Lecture 7 for an explanation of both the consumer and producer surplus, which are also useful in determining the graphical region for the deadweight loss.
  
−
“'''''[[Economic profits]]'''''” is concept we’ve addressed before.  It is total revenues minus total costs, including opportunity costs of time and money in the costs.
+
== Government Policy ==
  
−
==Interest==
+
As mentioned in a prior Lecture, 10% of the CLEP exam is on government policy.  With an ear tuned for politics, a student can rack up many correct answers here.  But if a student's political ear is off-key, he can lose far more points here than he should.  In addition what we have already learned, we need to know:
  
−
“There’s no free lunch,” according to the famous saying.  “It costs money to make money” is another aphorism.  Most bank's ATMs charge $2 or $3 just to withdraw cash from your account at a different bank.
+
* market distribution of income (Lorenz curve)
 +
* market failure and imbalances in information
  
−
If you asked me to loan you $1000, then I might answer: why? What’s in it for me? You would then say that you promise to give it back.  I would then say why should I give it to you in the first place?  If I just keep the money, then I won’t have to worry about your giving it back.
+
The Lorenz curve (also known as the Lorenz diagram) is a graph displaying a comparison of the actual distribution of income in a society against a hypothetical '''''equal''''' distribution of income.  This could be done by plotting the percent of overall income on the y-axis and the percent of families on the x-axis. A hypothetical (imaginary) '''''equal''''' distribution of income would be a straight line at 45 degrees (the line y=x). But the actual distribution of income would not rise as quickly as that straight line.  Going from the poorest 0% to perhaps 20% (on the x-axis) of families would have almost no increase in cumulative income (on the y-axis), and beyond that the slope of the curve for actual income would gradually increase until the richest earners near the top 100% of families were included.
  
−
You would then offer to pay me extra money in exchange for loaning you $1000.  We would bargain.  You might offer me $25.  I might reply that is not enough for me to go the trouble and take the risk to loan you $1000.  Then you might offer me $50.  I might wonder if I can get a better deal somewhere else.  Ultimately we might settle on an amount that makes it worthwhile for me and advantageous for you.  Some states have limits on how much interest can be charged. ''Query'': should laws limit the amount of interest that can be charged?
+
On the CLEP exam, a question about the Lorenz curve is probably going to to be asked in a favorable way, suggesting that it is a proper role of government to try to equalize the income for everyone.
  
−
If I agreed to loan you $1000 for an extra payment by you of $50, then the interest rate would be $50/$1000 = 5%.  Usually rates are stated in annual terms.  Requiring an extra $50 in interest after one year, on top of the repayment of the "principal" of the original $1000, is the equivalent of an interest rate of 5% per year.
+
Not everyone agrees.  Churches once played a bigger role in "sharing the wealth," and they did it better than government does.  Do we want government to replace churches?  Of course not.
  
−
The concept of "compounded interest" refers to earning interest on the interest.  "Compounded yearly" or "compounded annually" means that the interest is added to the total amount due at the end of the year, and then the interest for the next year is calculated by including the interest for the first year. Here is an example:
+
But government may have a proper role in correcting for imbalances in information, in order to make sure that people have a better understanding of what they are buying.  Food products are required by government to disclose their contents, and how much fat they contain.  Cigarette companies are required to say that their product causes cancer and hurts people.  In some states abortionists are required to disclose some of the harm that abortion causes.  Government regulations that improve the knowledge of the public may be beneficial, and may even help reduce negative externalities.
  
−
:*$1000 is loaned to you today at an interest rate of 5%, compounded annually.
+
Sometimes markets fail to work entirely, as when competition disappears and there is only one supplier.  Imagine the only gas station in town after a hurricane wipes out all his competitors.  Or when the biggest banks fail, all at once.  The "bail out" before the 2008 elections was an example of government trying to prevent a total market failure.  Many disagree with government interference in cases of "market failure," however. What's your view?
  
−
:*After one year, the amount due is $1000 plus 5% of $1000, for a total of $1050.
+
== Production Possibilities ==
  
−
:*After two years, the amount due is $1050 plus 5% of $1050, for a total of $1102.50, because the interest on the first year is included in calculating the interest for the second year.
+
Nearly 5% of CLEP exam is devoted to questions about "production possibilities."  These are easy points for increasing your total score.
  
−
The opposite of "compounded" interest is "simple" interest.  In the above example, the total amount due the second year is $1000 plus 5% of $1000 (for the first year) plus another 5% of only the original $1000 (for the second year), for a total of $1100.  Notice how the total amount under compounded interest is always larger than the total amount using simple interest.
+
"Production possibilities, or "Possibilities of production," means all the different combinations of goods a nation can produce.  The United States can produce X cars and Y trucks, for example.  Or it could produce more than X cars and fewer than Y trucks.  We could graph the number of cars on the Y-axis and the number of trucks on the X-axis, and draw a “production possibility” curve through all the possible combinations.  It would be downward sloping: more trucks means fewer cars, and vice-versa.  The opportunity cost of producing more cars is the loss in production of trucks.  In the production possibility curve for cars and boats shown in Figure A (below), the opportunity cost of moving from point A to point B is 100 cars.
  
−
If you are saving money, then you want as much compounding of the interest as possible.  Ideally, you would like the interest on the money you save to be "compounded daily," such that each day's interest is on a total amount that includes all the interest that has accumulated for prior days.
+
The shape of the production possibilities curve (often called the "production possibilities frontier") is dictated by the high opportunity cost of trying to convert a nation's factories from making one type of good to making another type.  Imagine having a car factory and a truck factory, and then trying to convert the entire truck factory such that it makes only cars.  At a fixed level of expense, the truck factory is not going to be able to make as many cars as the trucks it was designed to make.  So converting the nation from, for example, a level of 500 cars and 500 trucks to as many cars as possible will probably not be able to reach a level of 1000 cars and zero trucks.  Instead, it will probably top off at a number less than 1000, and hence the tapering of the production possibilities curve near the two axes.
  
−
Sometimes people repay money all at once, rather than with interest payments.  Suppose I gave you $1000 and you promised to pay me back $1500 in 10 years.  Then economists ask, what is the “rate of return” or “yield” on that investment?
+
If the overall number of workers or investment capital increased, then you could produce more of everything.  The entire production possibilities graph (or “production possibilities frontier”) would shift upward and to the right.  An improvement in technology would have the same effect.  An increase in bureaucracy or administrative costs, however, would have the opposite effect, forcing a contraction in overall production.
  
−
That is more difficult to calculate.  I am receiving 50% return on my investment, but ten years from now.  At first glance, you may think to simply divide 50% by 10 years to calculate a rate of return of 5% per year.  That is a rough approximation, but not entirely precise.
+
There are several assumptions made in constructing a production possibilities frontier.  These assumptions are more realistic in the short run than in the long run:
  
−
What is wrong with it?  The flaw is that it fails to address the time value to money. We explain that next.
+
*there are only two goods, and production is a trade-off between the goods: making more of one means making less of the other.
 +
*there is no increase in waste or regulation; if there is new waste or costly regulation, then the point of production moves to somewhere inside the curve rather than on it.
 +
*the same fixed resources are used for making the same two goods, and technology does not improve
 +
*there is "full employment," such that adding workers requires taking them away from another task
  
−
==The Time Value of Money==
+
[[Image:Econ13ab.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Figures A and B]]
  
−
Suppose I told you that I will be giving you $100, but that you have a choice: either (1) I will give you the $100 today, or (2) I will give it to you in two years. Which would you prefer?
+
If there are inefficiencies in a nation's economy, then its production will be inside the production possibilities curve.  Due to the inefficiencies, the nation will not be producing as much as it could if it were efficient.  Just as an increase in capital or an improvement in technology can cause an increase in the production of all goods, an increase in a nation's efficiency can cause its production to increase for all goods, from a point inside the production possibilities curve to a point on the curve.
  
−
Today, of course.  But why?  Is the $100 really worth more today than in two years in the future?
+
Sometimes in politics the trade-off between producing goods is described as “guns versus butter.” The more guns (e.g., military weapons) we make, the less butter (e.g., food and domestic services) we can produce.  The idea is that there is a trade-off between spending money on our military and spending it on domestic goods and services.
  
−
Yes, it is.  You could take $100 today and invest it, and have it grow to more than $100 in two years.  Or you could buy something with it that you could enjoy for the two years.  Or you could give it to a charity that could make good use of it for the two years.
+
On a personal level, it is usually impossible to do two things at once.  Either you spend the next hour working on this course, or you spend it doing something else.  You could graph a production possibility curve for how you spend 24 hours each day.  It could be 8 hours sleeping, 1 hour exercising, 1 hour traveling to destinations, 3 hours cooking and eating, 6 hours studying, 1 hour relaxing, and 4 hours working at a job.  If you take an hour away from one activity, then you can add it to another.  Your production possibility curve would represent all the possibilities.
  
−
Money, like anything else, has an opportunity cost. Just as it is a waste of your time to sit and watch television for a few hours, it is a waste of money to have it sit idle without earning anything for several years.  At a minimum, it could be earning interest.
+
== Review: Cost Measures==
  
−
This was explained by Jesus in His Parable of the Talents, in Matthew 25:14-30 (RSV):
+
Consider Figure B to the above right.  In order to master economics, develop a habit of asking yourself what you would do if you were the owner of a firm with these costs.  Ask yourself:  if your output is selling at a price of P<sub>1</sub>, are you making a profit?<ref>No.</ref>  Should you stay in business?<ref>No, because the price is less than both AVC and ATC.</ref>
  
−
:For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.  
+
Next consider if your output is selling at a price of P<sub>2</sub>.  Are you making a profit there?<ref>You are making a daily profit because P>AVC, but losing money when all your fixed costs are included because P<ATC.</ref>  Should you stay in business?<ref>Yes, because P>AVC so you are making a marginal profit, but not covering all your original costs.</ref>
  
−
:He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money.   
+
Finally consider what to do if your output is selling at a price P<sub>3</sub>.  Are you making a profit at that price point?<ref>Yes.</ref>  Should you stay in business?<ref>Yes, absolutely. Your price is greater than both your ATC and AVC.  You're making good money at this price point for your output.  (But note that output is not at Q<sub>3</sub> in the graph, but is where MC=P<sub>3</sub>.)</ref>
  
−
:Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, 'Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.' He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' But his master answered him, 'You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents.
+
== The Law of Comparative Advantage ==
−
 
−
:For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.
 
  
−
Jesus was concerned with something far greater than money.  But the point applies to money also:  money does have a time value to it.  Money tomorrow is not worth as much as the same amount of money today.
+
There is an interesting concept in economics known as the Law of Comparative Advantage.  The CLEP usually asks two questions about it.
  
−
How can you compare future money to present money?  By calculating the “present value of money.”  That is how much one would need in the present which, with investment, would equal the proposed future payment.  We use the interest rate to determine how much something today should be worth in the future, or how much a payment promised in the future is worth today.
+
'''''The Law of Comparative Advantage states that if one nation can produce two goods more efficiently than another nation, then the first nation should devote all its resources to producing the good that it makes more efficiently, and let the other nation produce the second good, and then trade one for the other.''''' This Law can apply to individuals and firms as well as countries.
  
−
If I promise to give you $100 in 5 years, and the interest rate is 5% annually, then ask yourself how much you would need today to generate that same $100 in 5 years.  It would be less than $100, because you could earn interest on it.  In fact, you would only need $100 divided by (1.05) times itself 5 times (i.e, 1.05 x. 1.05 x 1.05 x. 1.05 x. 1.05)
+
Note that this is not what you might first expect.  You might expect the first nation to produce BOTH goods, since it can produce both goods more efficiently than the other nation.  But upon closer examination it becomes clear that by focusing on what it does best, and produces more efficiently, the first nation can produce more and then trade for the rest, and be better off.  Put another way, "do what you do best!"
  
−
Using a calculator, that comes to $78.35.  That’s amazing, isn’t it? Receiving $100 in 5 years is equivalent to only $78.35 today, assuming an interest rate of 5%.
+
In sports, sometimes an athlete is good at one sport (e.g., baseball) but great at another sport (e.g., football).  John Elway and Deion Sanders, for example were great at football but only good at baseball. John Elway did what he did best: he played only professional football, and became one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. Deion Sanders played both football and baseball, and perhaps did not achieve as much at either as he could have by focusing what he did best.
  
−
We can check our work.  If you had $78.35 today and you invested it the bank at an interest rate of 5%, then next year it would be worth 5% more: $78.35 x 1.05 = $82.27
+
Economists observe that utilizing the Law of Comparative Advantage can improve the production possibilities.  Suppose your job paid you $9 but you could hire a cook for $6. Then it might make sense for you to work one more hour and hire someone to save you one hour of cooking.  In the absence of taxes, you would be $3 better off. Then you could work one-third of an hour less to make the same money (after expenses) as before. That extra one-third of an hour could be added to your sports or relaxation time.  You have moved your “production possibilities frontier” (the curve of all possibilities) outward, for greater benefit.
  
−
You would do the same thing in the second year, investing it for a return of 5%: $82.27 x 1.05 = $86.38
+
=== Example ===
  
−
And again in year three: $86.38 x 1.05 = $90.70
+
Suppose this is how much in resources it costs the Yankees and Mets to produce great pitchers or outfielders:
  
−
And again in year four: $90.70 x 1.05 = $95.24
+
<div style=float:left; padding: 20px">
 +
{|style="border-collapse:collapse"
 +
|-
 +
|
 +
|
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|Yankees
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|Mets
 +
|-
 +
!rowspan=2 style="padding:10px"|
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|outfielders
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|10 resource units
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|5 resource units
 +
|-
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|pitchers
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|9 resource units
 +
|style="border-style:solid; border-width:1px; padding:10px"|3 resource units
 +
|}
 +
</div>
  
−
And, finally, one more time for the fifth year: $95.24 x 1.05 = $100
+
Even though the Mets can produce outfielders more efficiently than the Yankees can, the Mets are better off spending all their resources developing pitchers and then trading with the Yankees to obtain outfielders.
  
−
So $100 to be paid five years from now is the same thing as receiving only $78.35 today.  That’s due to the effect of the time value of money.
+
[[David Ricardo]] (1772-1823), one of the greatest classical (conservative) economists, first developed the Law of Comparative Advantage.  Note that "comparative advantage" is not the same as "competitive advantage," which simply means something that gives you an advantage in competition over someone else, such as a better location for your gas station.
  
−
==Investment Decisions==
+
==Review: Inputs==
  
−
Using the time value of money, now we can make investment decisions.  As an owner of a company or merely someone wanting to see your savings grow, you will need to make investment decisions.
+
Often we have focused on the OUTPUT of a firm.  How many goods will it sell at what price?  The price elasticity of its demand, for example, looks at how demand for its output changes based on a change in its price.
  
−
Suppose your widget company is considering a new machine that will last for two years and costs $3500.  Suppose also that it will be worthless afterward.  Suppose further that it will bring in revenue of $2000 per year, and that interest rates are 10%.  Should you invest in the machine?
+
Marketing and sales also focus on the output of a company.  Marketing consists of advertising and promoting the goods.  Sales, the most important aspect of almost any company, consist of persuading customers to buy the company’s good or service.  The most valued employees of almost any company are its top salesmen and saleswomen.  They are the ones that bring in the money to the company.
  
−
Ask yourself what the time value of the added income is.  It equals:
+
If we were to hold a dinner with a speaker, the output would consist of the seats at the dinner and the sales effort consists of selling the spots and receiving money in return.  In a homeschool course, the output is the lectures and the sales effort consists of selling places in the course.  Colleges, in turn, compete for students who can pay their tuition and fees.  Many colleges struggle because they have a difficult time attracting enough students to pay tuition.  In fact, very few new colleges have started in the past twenty years, and the new ones have been more conservative than the older ones.
  
−
:($2000/1.10) + ($2000/(1.10x1.10)) = $1818.18 + $1652.89 = 3471.07
+
There is another side to every company: its own inputs and the costs they incur. For a bus trip to D.C., the inputs are the cost of the buses and perhaps some food costs. Lowering the costs of those inputs makes the project more affordable.
  
−
Look again at its cost.  What is your best decision? Don’t buy it.
+
This is like offense and defense in sports.  The people on offense are the salesmen, trying to score points.  The people on defense are the buyers of inputs for the company, trying to keep the expenses down.  They are opposite jobs, often requiring opposite personalities. Extravagant people make for better salesmen; frugal people are often better buyers of inputs for a company.  
  
−
==Economic Rent==
+
Experienced businessmen will emphasize that profits are made by keeping expenses down.  After all, profits are the main goal of a typical business.  If a company is buying food from supplier number one and can reduce costs by going to supplier number two, then the rational action is to change suppliers from number one to number two.
  
−
There are four equivalent definitions of “economic rent.” Pick the one you like the best and then use it to understand the others:
+
Keeping costs down was what made Wal-Mart so powerful.  Its marketing and advertising have only been mediocre.  But it is the best in reducing costs.  It pays its employees relatively little; it opposes unions forming among its workers; and it is ruthless in bargaining down the costs of its suppliers.  Wal-Mart has made immense profits as a result.
  
−
(1) Economic rent is the increased payment for a (scarce) good due to its very limited supply.
+
Does that seem unfair?  No one has to supply Wal-Mart goods at a low price.  If a supplier does not want to do business with Wal-Mart, then it doesn’t have to. No one has to take a job there either!
  
−
(2) Economic rent is the amount that a payment exceeds the supply cost.  The “rent” is the excess of a good’s actual price above the good’s supply cost.
+
In general, the demand for inputs by firms is called the “derived demand for inputs,” because it is derived from the consumer demand for the products the company sells.  Because your family wants to buy gas from a gas station, this demand creates a demand by the station for its inputs: the gas and labor.
  
−
(3) Economic rent is the increased payment for an input that is in perfectly inelastic supply.
+
==Review: Monopsony==
  
−
(4) Economic rent is the payment of a factor of production in excess of the factor’s opportunity cost or supply cost.
+
'''''A monopsony means only one buyer'''''.  One buyer holds a monopoly on all purchases.
  
−
This is one of the most complex concepts of the course.  But this should help: '''''economic rent is the amount that a monopoly can charge in excess of the good’s cost'''''.  Economic rent is the surplus enjoyed by the seller, at the expense of the person paying it.
+
The best example of a monopsony is when there is only one employer in a small, isolated town.  If you want a job in that town, then your only place to work is at that company.  Of course, very few towns are actually limited to just one employer.  But for a certain type of job, there may be only one employer, and it has a monopsony over that type of job.
  
−
Suppose there is only one house on a peninsula overlooking the ocean out of both sides of the house.  The economic rent is the excess in price that the owner can charge due its unique location.  The supply is one, and anyone determined to have that house must pay whatever price is charged.  Of course, the Law of Demand places a limit on the rent, because people can’t pay what they don’t have, nor will they pay more than what they value something at.  But the overcharge due to the uniqueness of the good is what constitutes the “economic rent.”
+
A monopsony is different from a competitively hiring firm in one significant way.  When a monopsony needs to hire an additional worker, then it has to raise the wages for all its workers to that higher wage level in order to hire an additional worker.  Its marginal cost for paying for this "factor" (labor), also known as its marginal factor cost (“MFC”), is more than the wage of merely the one additional worker.  MFC equals the W of the additional worker PLUS the increased wage of all the other workers.
  
−
==Economic Profits==
+
For example, if a monopsony can hire 10 workers at $6 or 11 workers at $7, then its MFC of hiring an 11th worker is $7 + (10 x ($7-$6)) = $17.
  
−
Remember that “economic profits” include far more than ordinary “accounting profits” or “profits” in the ordinary sense of the term.  “Economic profits” are total revenues minus costs that include opportunity costs, time value of money, and other hidden costs missing from most statements about profits.  Economic profits are much harder to come by.
+
For a competitive firm, in contrast, MFC=W because it can hire all the workers it needs at the market wage, without causing the market wage to rise for all its workers.
  
−
Who enjoys true economic profits?  Monopolies do, because they can increase their price and reap economic rents.  Microsoft garners hefty profits year after year, with no end in sight.  But ultimately all monopolies, even Microsoft, fall prey to competition and those economic profits dry up.
+
This example helps us understand why the marginal revenue (MR) for a monopoly (one seller) when it increases its price is not the same as the price P of the additional good that it sells.  When a monopoly raises its price to obtain more revenue (and more profits), it raises its price on ALL its goods.  MR for that increase in price is not simply P, but it is the increased price on all its goods times the quantity of those goods.  A monopoly sells where MC=MR, but that is not the same place as where MC=P, because MR does not equal P for a monopoly.  MR does equal P for a perfectly competitive firm.
  
−
Inventors and other innovators can enjoy real economic profits.  Thomas Edison did, with his numerous marvelous patented inventions.  Patents give the holder an exclusive right to the product for 17 years.  Competition is prevented for that time, and enormous economic profits can be obtained without competition driving the price down.  AT&T used Alexander Graham Bell’s patent on the telephone to build a highly profitable company for a century.  But ultimately its economic profits dried up, too.
+
===Honors: Example===
 +
 
 +
Let’s start with this simple equation: Profits = Total revenue - Total cost. That’s easy enough.  Now let’s break it down, where P=Price, Q=Quantity, W=Wage, and L=Labor units:
 +
:Profits = (P x Q) - (W x L) - other non-labor input costs
 +
Now suppose we add one more worker to our company.  We will have to pay him a wage of W, so the marginal factor cost of one more worker is W (assuming a competitive market).  What is his marginal benefit to our company?  It is P x MP.
 +
 
 +
When does a company hire that additional worker?  When the change in profit is greater than zero.  That occurs when (P x MP) > W.
 +
 
 +
Example: suppose a firm has a declining marginal product for each additional laborer hired, such that:
 +
 
 +
{| class="wikitable"
 +
|-
 +
!Labor Units (L)
 +
!Marginal Product (MP)
 +
|-
 +
|1
 +
|20
 +
|-
 +
|2
 +
|18
 +
|-
 +
|3
 +
|16
 +
|-
 +
|4
 +
|14
 +
|-
 +
|5
 +
|12
 +
|-
 +
|6
 +
|10
 +
|-
 +
|7
 +
|8
 +
|-
 +
|}
 +
 
 +
Suppose the wage W for each employee is $70 and the price the output is sold for is $5.  How many workers should you hire?
 +
 
 +
If you hired just one employee, then you would make 20 x $5 = $100 in revenue.  But your cost was only W=$70, so you made a profit of $30!  You’ll hire at least one employee.
 +
 
 +
If you hire a second employee, then you would make (20+18) x $5 = $190.  But your cost was only $70 x 2 = $140, so your profit is $50!  You’re doing even better, so you hire the second employee.
 +
 
 +
Skip down to hiring employee number 6.  Then you make (20+18+16+14+12+10) x $5 = 90 x $5 = $450 .  What’s your cost?  6 x $70 = $420.  It’s barely profitable.
 +
 
 +
Should you hire one more employee?  That additional employee costs you $70, but only brings in 8 x $5 = $40 in revenue.  You’d be losing money on him.  DON’T HIRE HIM.  Or if you already hired him, then fire him and give him a good job reference.
 +
 
 +
Let’s back up and see if it makes sense to keep employee number 6 around.  His marginal cost is $70, and he brings in marginal revenue of 10 x 5= $50.  He’s losing money for you also.  You don’t want him on your staff.
 +
 
 +
How about employee number 5?  His marginal cost is $70, and he brings in marginal revenue of 12 x 5 = $60.  He’s losing money for you also.  Fire him too.
 +
 
 +
Your firm hires four workers and no more.  Anyone beyond your fourth employee is a money-loser for you.  This is because of declining marginal product of labor.
 +
 
 +
==Review==
 +
 
 +
Monopoly is a single seller.
 +
<br>Monopsony is a single buyer.
 +
<br>If the firm is competitive, then marginal factor cost (MFC) of labor equals the wage of the extra worker: MFC = W. 
 +
<br>What is the benefit of that extra worker?  Marginal benefit (MB) of L is P x MP (price times marginal product).
 +
<br>What, then, is the marginal profit of hiring one more worker ?  It is (P x MP) - W.
 +
<br>So when does a competitive firm hire an additional worker?  When P x MP exceeds W.
 +
 
 +
Labor demand:
 +
:If Q increases, then labor demand increases.
 +
:What causes Q to increase? Increased demand by consumers
 +
 
 +
''For Honors only'': what is the effect of consumer demand for output on the labor demand by the company?  When consumer demand (demand for output) is more elastic, then labor demand by a company tends to be more elastic.  When it is easy to substitute other inputs for labor (such as machines replacing humans), then labor demand also tends to be more elastic.  Finally, when other inputs are in more elastic supply, then labor demand tends to be more elastic. And don’t worry if you don’t understand all that yet!
  
 
==Assignment==
 
==Assignment==
  
−
Read this lecture and look at some of the problems on the midterm exam.  The homework assignment is light this week to give you time to spend reviewing concepts in this course.  Then answer the problems below:
+
Read, and reread as needed, the above lecture.  Then answer 6 out of 7 questions below:
 +
 
 +
1.  A monopoly is one seller without any competitors.  What is a "monopsony"?
 +
 
 +
2.  Define, in your own words, what a "production possibilities curve" is.
  
−
Answer 5 out of 6:
+
3.  Review: how is the elasticity of demand for labor related to the price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor?
  
−
1.  If you were to loan someone money, why would you want him to pay you something extra (interest) when he pays back the loan?  Give at least one reason.
+
4.  Do you think that government policy should give high priority to the Lorenz curve?  Explain the issue that a Lorenz curve addresses, and whether you think that should be a high priority of government economic policy.
  
−
2.  Suppose I loaned you $1000 today, and interest rates are 5% per year (compounded annually), and you repaid the loan plus interest in 2 years, then what is the total you would pay to satisfy this debt?
+
5. Look again at Figure A.  What is the opportunity cost of shifting production from B to C?  
  
−
3. Review:  is the cost of the bus for a trip to D.C. a "fixed cost" or a "variable cost"? Explain, assuming for the purpose of this question that one and only one bus can be used (in reality, we may have several buses).
+
6. Review:  explain again what AFC, AVC and ATC are, and how they relate to each other. When should a firm shut down in the short run?
  
−
4.  Which concept in Economics do you think is the best self-motivator, which you might use to achieve more?
+
7. What is needed to reach point D in Figure A? (In other words, what causes a production possibilities curve to shift outward?)
  
−
5.  Suppose I will pay you $1000 in two years, and the interest rate is 10% per year, compounded annually.  How much should you pay me today to receive $1000 in two years?  Show your work.
+
===Honors:===
  
−
6.  Pick another question from the midterm exam that you answered incorrectly, and explain the correct answer.
+
Answer 3 out of 4 questions below:
  
−
===Honors===
+
8.  Look again at Figure C in the lecture (the first graph in this Lecture).  At what point is total revenue maximized?
  
−
Answer 3 out of 4:
+
9.  Explain why the production possibilities curve is convex (opening downward like the top of a circle) rather than concave (opening upward like the inside of a bowl) or a straight line.
  
−
7.  Explain what “economic rent” is in your own words, using your own example.  
+
10.  Suppose you are a monopsony, and you must pay $9 per hour ($9/hr) to hire nine workers, but in order to hire one more worker you must pay $10/hr.  The tenth worker will bring in $15 extra per hour to the firm’s revenue. Do you hire the tenth worker?
  
−
8.  An agreement by different firms with each other to reduce output is illegal. Why should that be illegal?
+
11.  In the term "comparative advantage," to what does the adjective "comparative" refer?  What is the term actually "comparing"?  Explain.
  
−
9.  What is your favorite concept in Economics, and why?
+
== References ==
  
−
10.  Nash equilibrium, revisited:  What is the Nash equilibrium for two gas stations (an oligopoly) that are situation immediately across the street from each other?  In other words, what price do they sell at, expressed in terms of one of their cost measures?  Explain the process that reaches that "equilibrium".
+
<references/>
−
<br><br><br>
 
 
[[Category:Economics lectures]]
 
[[Category:Economics lectures]]
−
{{DEFAULTSORT: Economics Lecture 12}}
+
{{DEFAULTSORT: Economics Lecture 11}}

Revision as of 04:16, May 10, 2013

Economics Lectures - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14]


Graphs

On the CLEP exam, slightly less than 10% of the questions are about graphs. To answer them correctly, it helps not to be overwhelmed or give up too quickly. The questions simply test and retest a few basic principles in economics. A favorite topic of graphical questions concerns where a monopolist sets his price.

Figure C

A monopolist has no supply curve, because he is the only supplier. There is only a demand curve, a marginal revenue curve, and some cost curves for a monopolist. If given a graph with these curves, simply find where the marginal revenue curve intersects the marginal cost curve, and that determines the quantity sold.

On the graph to the right (Figure C), there is no supply curve so you know that this represents a monopolist. A typical question is to ask you where the monopolist sets his price in order to maximize his profits. To find this price point, recall that a monopolist sets his price where MC=MR. The graph gives you curves for both MC and MR, so find where they intersect: point A. But that point gives you the quantity supplied, not the price demanded. To find the demand price at the quantity supplied, you have to find the corresponding price point on the demand curve. You trace a line vertically from point A to find the price on the demand curve: point D in Figure C.

That is the answer to a question about where a monopolist sets his price, but that is not the best price for the public. It is higher than the price the public would enjoy if the market were fully competitive. Another question on a CLEP exam might ask where the competitive price would be, also known as the "allocatively efficient" price because it represents the most efficient allocation of resources. That price (and quantity) is where the MC curve intersects the demand curve: point B in Figure C.

Figure C also has a curve for average total cost (ATC). Recall that a firm shuts down in the long run when ATC>P; and the firm shuts down in the short run when AVC>P, but keeps operating in the short run when AVC<P<ATC. This is because "variable cost" is a short run issue, while "total cost" is a long run issue. Does the firm in Figure C shut down? No, because we determined above that the monopolist can sell at point D, and there ATC=P. He is covering (paying for) all his costs. The firm can continue in business.

Here are some other common graphical questions:

  • optimal market price: where the supply curve intersects the demand curve. A monopolist has no supply curve and it sells at MC=MR, which has a price higher than the optimal price of MC=P.
  • consumer surplus (the benefit to the consumer where the demand curve is higher than price paid, because the consumers pay less than they were willing to pay, as when you would have paid $15 to see a movie but the charge was only $10: your consumer surplus is $5)
  • deadweight loss: the lost consumer surplus explained above AND (in the case of a tax) the lost producer surplus (benefit to the seller who was willing to produce at a price less than what he sold it for)

See the graph near the end of Lecture 7 for an explanation of both the consumer and producer surplus, which are also useful in determining the graphical region for the deadweight loss.

Government Policy

As mentioned in a prior Lecture, 10% of the CLEP exam is on government policy. With an ear tuned for politics, a student can rack up many correct answers here. But if a student's political ear is off-key, he can lose far more points here than he should. In addition what we have already learned, we need to know:

  • market distribution of income (Lorenz curve)
  • market failure and imbalances in information

The Lorenz curve (also known as the Lorenz diagram) is a graph displaying a comparison of the actual distribution of income in a society against a hypothetical equal distribution of income. This could be done by plotting the percent of overall income on the y-axis and the percent of families on the x-axis. A hypothetical (imaginary) equal distribution of income would be a straight line at 45 degrees (the line y=x). But the actual distribution of income would not rise as quickly as that straight line. Going from the poorest 0% to perhaps 20% (on the x-axis) of families would have almost no increase in cumulative income (on the y-axis), and beyond that the slope of the curve for actual income would gradually increase until the richest earners near the top 100% of families were included.

On the CLEP exam, a question about the Lorenz curve is probably going to to be asked in a favorable way, suggesting that it is a proper role of government to try to equalize the income for everyone.

Not everyone agrees. Churches once played a bigger role in "sharing the wealth," and they did it better than government does. Do we want government to replace churches? Of course not.

But government may have a proper role in correcting for imbalances in information, in order to make sure that people have a better understanding of what they are buying. Food products are required by government to disclose their contents, and how much fat they contain. Cigarette companies are required to say that their product causes cancer and hurts people. In some states abortionists are required to disclose some of the harm that abortion causes. Government regulations that improve the knowledge of the public may be beneficial, and may even help reduce negative externalities.

Sometimes markets fail to work entirely, as when competition disappears and there is only one supplier. Imagine the only gas station in town after a hurricane wipes out all his competitors. Or when the biggest banks fail, all at once. The "bail out" before the 2008 elections was an example of government trying to prevent a total market failure. Many disagree with government interference in cases of "market failure," however. What's your view?

Production Possibilities

Nearly 5% of CLEP exam is devoted to questions about "production possibilities." These are easy points for increasing your total score.

"Production possibilities, or "Possibilities of production," means all the different combinations of goods a nation can produce. The United States can produce X cars and Y trucks, for example. Or it could produce more than X cars and fewer than Y trucks. We could graph the number of cars on the Y-axis and the number of trucks on the X-axis, and draw a “production possibility” curve through all the possible combinations. It would be downward sloping: more trucks means fewer cars, and vice-versa. The opportunity cost of producing more cars is the loss in production of trucks. In the production possibility curve for cars and boats shown in Figure A (below), the opportunity cost of moving from point A to point B is 100 cars.

The shape of the production possibilities curve (often called the "production possibilities frontier") is dictated by the high opportunity cost of trying to convert a nation's factories from making one type of good to making another type. Imagine having a car factory and a truck factory, and then trying to convert the entire truck factory such that it makes only cars. At a fixed level of expense, the truck factory is not going to be able to make as many cars as the trucks it was designed to make. So converting the nation from, for example, a level of 500 cars and 500 trucks to as many cars as possible will probably not be able to reach a level of 1000 cars and zero trucks. Instead, it will probably top off at a number less than 1000, and hence the tapering of the production possibilities curve near the two axes.

If the overall number of workers or investment capital increased, then you could produce more of everything. The entire production possibilities graph (or “production possibilities frontier”) would shift upward and to the right. An improvement in technology would have the same effect. An increase in bureaucracy or administrative costs, however, would have the opposite effect, forcing a contraction in overall production.

There are several assumptions made in constructing a production possibilities frontier. These assumptions are more realistic in the short run than in the long run:

  • there are only two goods, and production is a trade-off between the goods: making more of one means making less of the other.
  • there is no increase in waste or regulation; if there is new waste or costly regulation, then the point of production moves to somewhere inside the curve rather than on it.
  • the same fixed resources are used for making the same two goods, and technology does not improve
  • there is "full employment," such that adding workers requires taking them away from another task
Figures A and B

If there are inefficiencies in a nation's economy, then its production will be inside the production possibilities curve. Due to the inefficiencies, the nation will not be producing as much as it could if it were efficient. Just as an increase in capital or an improvement in technology can cause an increase in the production of all goods, an increase in a nation's efficiency can cause its production to increase for all goods, from a point inside the production possibilities curve to a point on the curve.

Sometimes in politics the trade-off between producing goods is described as “guns versus butter.” The more guns (e.g., military weapons) we make, the less butter (e.g., food and domestic services) we can produce. The idea is that there is a trade-off between spending money on our military and spending it on domestic goods and services.

On a personal level, it is usually impossible to do two things at once. Either you spend the next hour working on this course, or you spend it doing something else. You could graph a production possibility curve for how you spend 24 hours each day. It could be 8 hours sleeping, 1 hour exercising, 1 hour traveling to destinations, 3 hours cooking and eating, 6 hours studying, 1 hour relaxing, and 4 hours working at a job. If you take an hour away from one activity, then you can add it to another. Your production possibility curve would represent all the possibilities.

Review: Cost Measures

Consider Figure B to the above right. In order to master economics, develop a habit of asking yourself what you would do if you were the owner of a firm with these costs. Ask yourself: if your output is selling at a price of P1, are you making a profit?[1] Should you stay in business?[2]

Next consider if your output is selling at a price of P2. Are you making a profit there?[3] Should you stay in business?[4]

Finally consider what to do if your output is selling at a price P3. Are you making a profit at that price point?[5] Should you stay in business?[6]

The Law of Comparative Advantage

There is an interesting concept in economics known as the Law of Comparative Advantage. The CLEP usually asks two questions about it.

The Law of Comparative Advantage states that if one nation can produce two goods more efficiently than another nation, then the first nation should devote all its resources to producing the good that it makes more efficiently, and let the other nation produce the second good, and then trade one for the other. This Law can apply to individuals and firms as well as countries.

Note that this is not what you might first expect. You might expect the first nation to produce BOTH goods, since it can produce both goods more efficiently than the other nation. But upon closer examination it becomes clear that by focusing on what it does best, and produces more efficiently, the first nation can produce more and then trade for the rest, and be better off. Put another way, "do what you do best!"

In sports, sometimes an athlete is good at one sport (e.g., baseball) but great at another sport (e.g., football). John Elway and Deion Sanders, for example were great at football but only good at baseball. John Elway did what he did best: he played only professional football, and became one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. Deion Sanders played both football and baseball, and perhaps did not achieve as much at either as he could have by focusing what he did best.

Economists observe that utilizing the Law of Comparative Advantage can improve the production possibilities. Suppose your job paid you $9 but you could hire a cook for $6. Then it might make sense for you to work one more hour and hire someone to save you one hour of cooking. In the absence of taxes, you would be $3 better off. Then you could work one-third of an hour less to make the same money (after expenses) as before. That extra one-third of an hour could be added to your sports or relaxation time. You have moved your “production possibilities frontier” (the curve of all possibilities) outward, for greater benefit.

Example

Suppose this is how much in resources it costs the Yankees and Mets to produce great pitchers or outfielders:

Yankees Mets
outfielders 10 resource units 5 resource units
pitchers 9 resource units 3 resource units

Even though the Mets can produce outfielders more efficiently than the Yankees can, the Mets are better off spending all their resources developing pitchers and then trading with the Yankees to obtain outfielders.

David Ricardo (1772-1823), one of the greatest classical (conservative) economists, first developed the Law of Comparative Advantage. Note that "comparative advantage" is not the same as "competitive advantage," which simply means something that gives you an advantage in competition over someone else, such as a better location for your gas station.

Review: Inputs

Often we have focused on the OUTPUT of a firm. How many goods will it sell at what price? The price elasticity of its demand, for example, looks at how demand for its output changes based on a change in its price.

Marketing and sales also focus on the output of a company. Marketing consists of advertising and promoting the goods. Sales, the most important aspect of almost any company, consist of persuading customers to buy the company’s good or service. The most valued employees of almost any company are its top salesmen and saleswomen. They are the ones that bring in the money to the company.

If we were to hold a dinner with a speaker, the output would consist of the seats at the dinner and the sales effort consists of selling the spots and receiving money in return. In a homeschool course, the output is the lectures and the sales effort consists of selling places in the course. Colleges, in turn, compete for students who can pay their tuition and fees. Many colleges struggle because they have a difficult time attracting enough students to pay tuition. In fact, very few new colleges have started in the past twenty years, and the new ones have been more conservative than the older ones.

There is another side to every company: its own inputs and the costs they incur. For a bus trip to D.C., the inputs are the cost of the buses and perhaps some food costs. Lowering the costs of those inputs makes the project more affordable.

This is like offense and defense in sports. The people on offense are the salesmen, trying to score points. The people on defense are the buyers of inputs for the company, trying to keep the expenses down. They are opposite jobs, often requiring opposite personalities. Extravagant people make for better salesmen; frugal people are often better buyers of inputs for a company.

Experienced businessmen will emphasize that profits are made by keeping expenses down. After all, profits are the main goal of a typical business. If a company is buying food from supplier number one and can reduce costs by going to supplier number two, then the rational action is to change suppliers from number one to number two.

Keeping costs down was what made Wal-Mart so powerful. Its marketing and advertising have only been mediocre. But it is the best in reducing costs. It pays its employees relatively little; it opposes unions forming among its workers; and it is ruthless in bargaining down the costs of its suppliers. Wal-Mart has made immense profits as a result.

Does that seem unfair? No one has to supply Wal-Mart goods at a low price. If a supplier does not want to do business with Wal-Mart, then it doesn’t have to. No one has to take a job there either!

In general, the demand for inputs by firms is called the “derived demand for inputs,” because it is derived from the consumer demand for the products the company sells. Because your family wants to buy gas from a gas station, this demand creates a demand by the station for its inputs: the gas and labor.

Review: Monopsony

A monopsony means only one buyer. One buyer holds a monopoly on all purchases.

The best example of a monopsony is when there is only one employer in a small, isolated town. If you want a job in that town, then your only place to work is at that company. Of course, very few towns are actually limited to just one employer. But for a certain type of job, there may be only one employer, and it has a monopsony over that type of job.

A monopsony is different from a competitively hiring firm in one significant way. When a monopsony needs to hire an additional worker, then it has to raise the wages for all its workers to that higher wage level in order to hire an additional worker. Its marginal cost for paying for this "factor" (labor), also known as its marginal factor cost (“MFC”), is more than the wage of merely the one additional worker. MFC equals the W of the additional worker PLUS the increased wage of all the other workers.

For example, if a monopsony can hire 10 workers at $6 or 11 workers at $7, then its MFC of hiring an 11th worker is $7 + (10 x ($7-$6)) = $17.

For a competitive firm, in contrast, MFC=W because it can hire all the workers it needs at the market wage, without causing the market wage to rise for all its workers.

This example helps us understand why the marginal revenue (MR) for a monopoly (one seller) when it increases its price is not the same as the price P of the additional good that it sells. When a monopoly raises its price to obtain more revenue (and more profits), it raises its price on ALL its goods. MR for that increase in price is not simply P, but it is the increased price on all its goods times the quantity of those goods. A monopoly sells where MC=MR, but that is not the same place as where MC=P, because MR does not equal P for a monopoly. MR does equal P for a perfectly competitive firm.

Honors: Example

Let’s start with this simple equation: Profits = Total revenue - Total cost. That’s easy enough. Now let’s break it down, where P=Price, Q=Quantity, W=Wage, and L=Labor units:

Profits = (P x Q) - (W x L) - other non-labor input costs

Now suppose we add one more worker to our company. We will have to pay him a wage of W, so the marginal factor cost of one more worker is W (assuming a competitive market). What is his marginal benefit to our company? It is P x MP.

When does a company hire that additional worker? When the change in profit is greater than zero. That occurs when (P x MP) > W.

Example: suppose a firm has a declining marginal product for each additional laborer hired, such that:

Labor Units (L) Marginal Product (MP)
1 20
2 18
3 16
4 14
5 12
6 10
7 8

Suppose the wage W for each employee is $70 and the price the output is sold for is $5. How many workers should you hire?

If you hired just one employee, then you would make 20 x $5 = $100 in revenue. But your cost was only W=$70, so you made a profit of $30! You’ll hire at least one employee.

If you hire a second employee, then you would make (20+18) x $5 = $190. But your cost was only $70 x 2 = $140, so your profit is $50! You’re doing even better, so you hire the second employee.

Skip down to hiring employee number 6. Then you make (20+18+16+14+12+10) x $5 = 90 x $5 = $450 . What’s your cost? 6 x $70 = $420. It’s barely profitable.

Should you hire one more employee? That additional employee costs you $70, but only brings in 8 x $5 = $40 in revenue. You’d be losing money on him. DON’T HIRE HIM. Or if you already hired him, then fire him and give him a good job reference.

Let’s back up and see if it makes sense to keep employee number 6 around. His marginal cost is $70, and he brings in marginal revenue of 10 x 5= $50. He’s losing money for you also. You don’t want him on your staff.

How about employee number 5? His marginal cost is $70, and he brings in marginal revenue of 12 x 5 = $60. He’s losing money for you also. Fire him too.

Your firm hires four workers and no more. Anyone beyond your fourth employee is a money-loser for you. This is because of declining marginal product of labor.

Review

Monopoly is a single seller.
Monopsony is a single buyer.
If the firm is competitive, then marginal factor cost (MFC) of labor equals the wage of the extra worker: MFC = W.
What is the benefit of that extra worker? Marginal benefit (MB) of L is P x MP (price times marginal product).
What, then, is the marginal profit of hiring one more worker ? It is (P x MP) - W.
So when does a competitive firm hire an additional worker? When P x MP exceeds W.

Labor demand:

If Q increases, then labor demand increases.
What causes Q to increase? Increased demand by consumers

For Honors only: what is the effect of consumer demand for output on the labor demand by the company? When consumer demand (demand for output) is more elastic, then labor demand by a company tends to be more elastic. When it is easy to substitute other inputs for labor (such as machines replacing humans), then labor demand also tends to be more elastic. Finally, when other inputs are in more elastic supply, then labor demand tends to be more elastic. And don’t worry if you don’t understand all that yet!

Assignment

Read, and reread as needed, the above lecture. Then answer 6 out of 7 questions below:

1. A monopoly is one seller without any competitors. What is a "monopsony"?

2. Define, in your own words, what a "production possibilities curve" is.

3. Review: how is the elasticity of demand for labor related to the price elasticity of demand for the product of that labor?

4. Do you think that government policy should give high priority to the Lorenz curve? Explain the issue that a Lorenz curve addresses, and whether you think that should be a high priority of government economic policy.

5. Look again at Figure A. What is the opportunity cost of shifting production from B to C?

6. Review: explain again what AFC, AVC and ATC are, and how they relate to each other. When should a firm shut down in the short run?

7. What is needed to reach point D in Figure A? (In other words, what causes a production possibilities curve to shift outward?)

Honors:

Answer 3 out of 4 questions below:

8. Look again at Figure C in the lecture (the first graph in this Lecture). At what point is total revenue maximized?

9. Explain why the production possibilities curve is convex (opening downward like the top of a circle) rather than concave (opening upward like the inside of a bowl) or a straight line.

10. Suppose you are a monopsony, and you must pay $9 per hour ($9/hr) to hire nine workers, but in order to hire one more worker you must pay $10/hr. The tenth worker will bring in $15 extra per hour to the firm’s revenue. Do you hire the tenth worker?

11. In the term "comparative advantage," to what does the adjective "comparative" refer? What is the term actually "comparing"? Explain.

References

  1. ↑ No.
  2. ↑ No, because the price is less than both AVC and ATC.
  3. ↑ You are making a daily profit because P>AVC, but losing money when all your fixed costs are included because P<ATC.
  4. ↑ Yes, because P>AVC so you are making a marginal profit, but not covering all your original costs.
  5. ↑ Yes.
  6. ↑ Yes, absolutely. Your price is greater than both your ATC and AVC. You're making good money at this price point for your output. (But note that output is not at Q3 in the graph, but is where MC=P3.)