Beeronomics

If consumers buy 1000 bottles of beer per week, and if the price of beer rises by $0.50 per bottle, then the consumers' surplus will decrease by $500. True, False, or Uncertain. Explain your answer.

I am retiring this question. Using Jacob's numbers, let's assume that the initial price of beer is $2 per bottle and that the demand curve is linear. Furthermore, let's assume that for every $0.50 increase in price, the quantity demand falls by 200 units. These assumptions imply that the demand curve intercepts the price axis at $4.50. The graph below illustrates our situation.

If the price of beer rises from $2 to $2.50, the quantity demanded falls to 800. The resulting loss in consumer surplus is shown as the yellow area. A simple calculation shows that this area equals $450. That is, CS will fall by less than $500.

Can You Identify this Famous Economist?

Do you know me? At the start of the 1980s, I bet a world renowned environmental doomsayer that the world was not running out of resources. The doomsayer bet $1,000 in 1980 that five resources (of the doomsayer’s choosing) would be more expensive in 10 years. The doomsayer lost: 10 years later every one of the resources had declined in price by an average of 40 percent. Who am I? (In your answer, include the list of resources involved in the bet.)

Congratulations to Rachel YuanQi for identifying Julian Simon as the economist in question.

Location, Location, Location?

George runs a miniature golf course in Marietta, Ohio. He rents the course and equipment from a large recreational supply company and supplies his own labor. His monthly earnings, net of rental payments, are $800, and he considers working at the golf course just as attractive as his only other alternatives, working as a grocery clerk for $800/month.

Now George learns that his uncle Kramer has died and left him some land in downtown New York City (right next to the Empire State Building). The land has been cleared, and George discovers that a construction company is willing to install and maintain a miniature golf course on it for a payment of $4000/month. George also commissions a market survey, which reveals that he would collect $16,000/month in revenue by operating a miniature golf course there. (After all, there are many more potential golfers in Manhattan that in Marietta.) After deducting the $4000/month payment to the construction company, this would leave him with $12,000/month free and clear. Given these figures, and assuming that the cost of living is the same in New York as in Marietta, should George, a profit maximizer, switch his operation to Manhattan?

Congratulations to Jeremy Jusek for providing the first correct answer. While the revenue estimates clearly indicate that Manhattan is a more lucrative market, it's also likely to be much more costly to operate a mini-golf course in downtown Manhattan given the scarcity of land. As Jeremy points out, the opportunity cost of using the land for a mini-golf course is likely to be extremely high. It's probably better to sell the Manhattan property and stay put in Marietta.

Famous Econ Major

Can you identify the famous economics major from the clues below?

• Corporate big wig in need of a wig.
• Software is the name of his game.
• His business partner dropped out of Harvard to start a soon-to-be giant company.

Congratulations to Josh Baker who was the first to discern the mystery econ major as Steve Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft. You can find more famous economics majors here.

Grade Insurance?

Suppose that a company offers "grade insurance" that works as follows: For each course in which you get a grade below a C, the insurance company pays you $500. Before offering the insurance policy for sale, the insurance company looks over the transcripts of university students and finds that on average 10% of all grades are below a C. Explain why the insurance company would be incorrect in assuming that it would only have to pay claims on about 10% of its policies. What is the implication of your analysis for the optimal premium (i.e., price) the company should charge its customers?

Drugs and Crime

Assume that the price elasticity of demand for marijuana is -1.20 and the price elasticity of demand for cocaine is -0.40. Assume further that marijuana and cocaine users get the funds to pay for their habit by resorting to petty larceny. Suppose the government increases enforcement against drug suppliers such that the prices of both illegal goods rise by 20%. What will happen to the price of each drug? What will happen to the amount of petty larceny committed by marijuana and cocaine users? Explain precisely.

Buick or Toyota? You make the call.

If I am an energy-conservation-minded consumer who can't afford to buy a new car, should I rent a 10-year old Buick ($200/year, 20 miles per gallon) or a 10-year old Toyota ($600/year, 40 mpg)? What does my choice depend upon? Explain. (Hint: How many miles would you have to drive each year for the Toyota to become more cost effective than the Buick?)

Congratulations to Andrew Bolton for being the first to provide a correct answer. This question (with a few modifications) came from Robert Frank's Microeconomics and Behavior text. Frank writes that it depends on how many miles you expect to drive:

The impulse of many conservation-minded consumers is immediately to choose the Toyota because of its better gas mileage. But there are only so many used Toyotas to go around. Suppose there are a total of 1000 Buicks and 1000 Toyotas. If I rent a Toyota instead of a Buick, someone else will have to rent a Buick instead of a Toyota. If my goal is to save energy, I should take the Toyota only if the person who will end up with the extra Buick is someone who drives fewer miles each year than I do.

But how can anyone possibly know whether that would happen? If the rental rates of the two cars are determined in the open market-place, and people generally pick the kind of car that minimizes their total driving expenses, we can say this: My choosing the Toyota will reduce society's energy consumption if and only if the Toyota is cheaper for me than the Buick. To see why, first note that if gasoline costs $2 per gallon, the yearly cost of the Buick is given by C_b = $200 + 2M/20 where M is the number of miles I drive each year. The corresponding cost of the Toyota is C_t = $600 + 2M/40. These two costs will be exactly the same if I happen to drive 8000 miles (set C_b = C_t and solve for M). If I drive more than 8000 miles, the Toyota is cheaper for me; if I drive less, the Buick is cheaper.

But how do I know that the person who rents the Toyota I could have rented won't be someone who drives even less than I do? If everyone follows the rule "drive the cheapest car," this clearly cannot happen at the given rental rates. (If the Buick is cheaper for me, it will also be cheaper for someone who drives fewer miles per year than I do.) But what if half the drivers, including me, drive 4000 miles a year while everyone else drives only 3000? If that were the case, then everyone would find the Buick cheaper at the current rental rates. No one would want to rent a Toyota. Rental companies would then discover that they could boost the prices on their Buicks substantially and still manage to rent them all. By the same token, they would have an incentive to cut the rental rates on their Toyotas, rather than watch them gather dust in their parking lots. In the end, the rental rates of the two cars would adjust so that the Toyotas are cheaper overall for the heavy-mileage drivers, the Buicks cheaper for the light-mileage drivers.