Economics help blog – Page 164

Reasons firms invest in very competitive markets

18 November 20174 September 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Readers Question: Why invest capita in purely competitive industries with equilibrium margins that are razor thin and entrants that erode quasi profits? Suppose volume is not exceptionally large, why then?

Economic theory suggests that firms will invest in industries where there is supernormal profit being made. Investment will be more attractive in industries where there is a degree of monopoly power and higher profit margins.

However, in the real world, firms can make decisions based on other factors and decide to enter an industry with low profit marigins.

Why might a firm invest in a very competitive market with low profit margins?

Self belief. An entrepreneur may have great self-belief that it can do better than all the incumbent firms. For example, the coffee shop market may be very competitive in a certain town, but someone with great passion for coffee may feel he can still do it better than all the incumbent firms. Therefore, even though the market is already competitive, they may still enter. This is something that economic theory may not give too much weight to – personal ambition, pride and self-belief – but it is a quite common that people think they can just be better than the competition. This self-belief may even be a motivation for a firm to enter a loss making industry. It’s not quite the same, but recently restructuring specialist Hilco tookover HMV – a record shop making a loss. But, Hilco had the confidence to turn the firm around; initial reports suggest they have been successful.

Expand the market. An entrepreneur may see a very competitive market with low profit margin, but feel they can still expand the market. For example, in the 1990s, the coffee shop industry was probably quite competitive with a low profit margin. But, Starbucks still saw a gap in the market and opened a lot of new coffee shops (often right next to existing coffee shops). They felt they could grow the market, sell extras and increase profit margins. That industry has expanded and become more profitable in recent years.

Multinational companies can afford low profit margins. Many entrepreneurs would be reluctant to risk entering a market with very low profit margins. However, some big companies can afford to enter an industry even if they don’t expect to make much profit. For example, big supermarkets entered the petrol retail industry. They drove down already slim profit margins. Petrol retail is not there core business. They are probably happy for petrol to be a ‘loss leader’ to attract customers to the store. In other words, people come to fill up with petrol at Tesco, and then spend £80 to do their weekly shop. The profit on petrol maybe zero, but if Tesco gain more customers spending £80 on groceries it is a good business decision. It wouldn’t make sense for someone to set up an independent petrol station because profit margins are so poor (in fact many independent petrol retailers have closed down in recent years) There may be many other examples where multinationals feel there is strategic benefit to entering a competitive market with low profit margins.

Competition in the seafood industry

18 November 20173 September 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Readers Question. I came across a company recently which farms mussels of the coast of a small town in Bulgaria, and I started thinking about its structure in the economy. I know since it produces a homogeneous product along with hundreds of other mussel farmers, it must be in perfect competition, however this mussel company also sold locally on top of selling to suppliers. This means it was the only mussel supplier (locally) in the town, and as far as I know that’s a monopoly. My question is, what would this company’s graphs look like? Would it be more like a perfect competition, or a monopoly? Although it is the only supplier in the town, it sells the mussels at the same price if not cheaper to locals as it does to suppliers, which I know unlike monopolies. Would there be any deadweight loss in a company like this? Is it inefficient or is it more efficient than normal? Consumers can buy mussels from the supermarket, but local supermarkets all get their supply of mussels from this one local company. Please help me understand!

Firstly, this is the first time I’ve been asked about the Bulgarian mussel market so I can’t claim any specialist knowledg.

But, Selling mussels does look like it exhibits features of perfect competition.

There are many farmers (sellers)
It is an homogeneous product
Buyers are likely to have good information about the product and price.

The market price is likely to be determined by a simply supply and demand curve

Selling locally – Is it inefficient or is it more efficient than normal?

If the local mussel farm sells to a local town, I don’t think makes it a monopoly. I’m sure that local restaurants and supermarkets could choose to buy from other distributors. But, local restaurants probably find that the local mussel farmers can undercut distributors because effectively they are cutting out the ‘middle man’ and transport costs

If the local mussel farmers sold above the nationwide price, restaurant owners would buy from the more traditional distributors. So there is still a degree of competition.

In this sense it is more efficient than normal because you can go from supply direct to retail, and cut out transport costs and the efficiency loss of selling on to a distributor.

In one sense the mussel farmer may have local monopoly power, but this is far outweighed by the lower costs and greater efficiency of being able to supply direct to the local market.

Is the Euro really a failure or is it a failure of policy?

18 November 20172 September 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Readers Questions: Could you not also argue not that the Euro is a failure but that it’s members/ECB are pursuing the wrong policy? Predictions of the death of the Euro seem to have been much exaggerated & surely Europe has the potential to be a world economic superpower to rival the US or China?

It is an interesting question, and to some extent inappropriate policy is a considerable factor in the ongoing European difficulties. However, there are still structural problems surrounding the Euro, which make economic stagnation more likely than in a floating exchange rate with independent monetary policy.

Poor Policy decisions in the Eurozone

1. Failure of ECB to intervene in bond market. One example of poor policy decisions is the failure of the ECB to stop rising bond yields earlier.

In 2011 and 2012, we saw a sharp spike in bond yields – because the ECB was, at the time, unwilling to act as lender of last resort and purchase any bonds or supply liquidity. This lack of intervention by a Central Bank meant that investors became nervous and bond yields rose to very high level. This rise in bond yields caused higher debt interest payments, but most damagingly were the motivation for deep austerity which caused a deeper recession in the affected Eurozone countries.

In 2012, the ECB changed its policy and became willing to intervene in the bond market. Bond yields fell – showing that decisive Central Bank intervention was needed. Therefore, despite higher government borrowing, bond yields are now much lower than in 2011 and 2012.

Before 2012, the ECB were partly blaming the constitution of the Eurozone where it seemed the Central Bank did not have a clear mandate to intervene and provide necessary liquidity in the bond market. However, the fact that bond yields have fallen in recent months suggests that the Euro can be more successful, if the Central Bank is given the authority and mandate to provide the necessary liquidity. Some Germany bankers are still unhappy at the ECB’s intervention – fearful it may encourage fiscal profligacy.

However, it is still more difficult in the Single Currency to intervene in bond markets. It is more complicated for a European wide Central Bank – how much should it intervene? which countries should be supported ?e.t.c.

But, if the ECB had understood the necessity of intervening earlier, then we could have avoided that period of high interest rates, and partly avoided the lurch towards austerity and lower aggregate demand.

Exchange rate imbalances

A structural problem of the Eurozone is that without exchange rate fluctuations the south became uncompetitive. This led to large current account deficits in Portugal, Spain and Greece, and large current account surplus in Netherlands and Germany.

A better policy for the Eurozone would be for Germany to increase domestic demand – boost consumer spending and allow a moderately higher inflation. This would help the Eurozone to rebalance. It would lead to higher demand for southern exports and help deal with the trade imbalance in the Eurozone. It would help southern Europe restore competitiveness without just relying on deflationary policies.

Questions on monopsony

18 November 20171 September 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

“Readers Question – A microeconomics question. In you labour market section you discuss a monopsonist.You say that “in order to employ one extra worker the firm has to increase the wages of all workers”- why? You give a coal mine as a possible example of a monopsonist, do you really think that a coal mine owner hired an extra worker(the marginal cost) and then increased the “wages of all workers”? Can you clarify this.

Just think of an upwardly sloping supply curve of labour.

If the firm offers a wage of £100, it can employ 10 workers.
To employ 11 workers, it would have to increase the wage rate to £110.

Therefore, according to this supply curve, if the firm needs to employ 11 workers the firm has to pay every worker £110. Therefore the marginal cost of employing an 11th worker is £210 (11*110 = £1,210 – 10*100). The marginal cost of the 11th worker is greater than the average cost

Theory and in practice

1. Wage discrimination. One exception would be if a monopsonist could wage discriminate – i.e. pay £110 to the extra worker, but continue to pay £100 to the existing mine workers. In reality this could be possible. For example, the firm could introduce a special post or job title which pays £110, whilst the existing workers get stuck on £100. If the monopsony can get away with this, then it will not have to pay every worker £110.

2. Elastic supply. Also, another possibility is that the supply curve is very elastic, therefore there may be infinite (or at least a very large) supply of labour at £100. For example, in a period of high unemployment, there are probably many workers willing to supply there labour at £100. Many coal mine owners may find, even at low wages, a large pool of unemployed workers willing to take a job at £100.

However, the theory of an upward sloping supply curve suggests that the marginal cost of employing an extra worker will increase faster than average cost.

Readers Question: My confusion gets worse as on the same page you say that one of the problems with a monopsonist is it can “lead to lower wages for workers”. Doesn’t this contradict your above point about a monopsonists increasing all workers’ wages as it employs one extra worker?

The key thing is that a monopsonist is reluctant to hire extra workers, precisely because it would have to increase wages of all workers (high marginal cost). Because of this prospect the monopsonist prefers to employ less workers and pay lower wages. To profit maximise, it avoids the extra marginal cost of paying all workers more.

monop

This diagram shows a theoretical monopsony. It’s profit maximising decision is to employ only Q2 workers at a wage of W2. (where MRP = MC). This is a lower wage and lower quantity of workers than in a perfectly competitive market.

See: Monopsony for more explanation

Thanks for questions – back from holiday

18 November 20171 September 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Thanks for the questions, which have been building up in Readers Questions During the summer holiday, I find it difficult to get into writing economics, but now the new term has started I will get back into the flow. Feel free to ask any more questions. By the way, away from economics, the highlight of …

How Much Bargaining Power Do Workers Have?

2 November 202118 July 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Readers Question: How much bargaining power do workers have? Bargaining Power is the ability for firms or workers to get what they want. An example of bargaining power is related to the power of trades unions. If a part-time worker works for a firm with monopsony power, they will have very low bargaining power. However, …

The economics of Hollywood

18 November 201718 June 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Readers question: Why does Hollywood make so many superheroes movies nowadays? What can be the economics behind it?

I’m not really a movie goer. I think the last Superhero move I watched was the original Superman back in the days when Coal miners were still a political force and people used to rent videos to watch in VHS tape players.

One reason I don’t like the usual Hollywood movies is that they are so predictable, and frankly you can get soon bored of the same formula – good guy goes down on his luck, but when things look really bleak – Superman comes back from the brink, defeats the bad guy and everyone lives happily ever after.

So, if they are so depressingly predictable, why do so many super-hero style movies get made by Hollywood?

Risk vs solid reward

Making movies is a risky business. But, ultimately studios are interested in making a profit – not in producing artistic films which may appeal to hard bitten film critics. You have to put a lot of money in, and you need to guarantee that you get a good return. With superhero style movies, they have a strong track record of getting decent revenues. If Superman 1,2,3, and 4 all made a profit. Then you could make an approximation that Superman 5 has a good chance of making profit too.

Suppose some new film director came along with a risky plot – something very independent, different, ‘artistic’ and challenging. – It could be a great success, but equally it could be a flop. You could make slightly higher than usual profits, but equally you could make a loss. Given the choice between a risky new style film and a guaranteed ‘banker’ – there is a strong economic incentive for you to choose the ‘safe’ option of another superman hero movie.

A good example, is the TV series ‘Breaking bad’ – It is critically acclaimed as one of the most innovative and well produced TV series of all times. But, when the creator approached TV networks, no one wanted to touch it. TV producers couldn’t see any track record for successful / profitable TV based on a chemistry teacher cooking crystal meth. It was very successful in the end, but the success was unexpected. Generally, TV producers would rather commission something with a more certain audience (like minor celebrities eating worms in the jungle)

Advertising and brand loyalty

One difficulty with producing films is that you have to gain strong brand loyalty in a short space of time. If nobody has heard about the subject of the film, it will be harder to attract interest. The advantage of producing a superhero movie is that there is an instant brand loyalty and awareness of the superhero like Spiderman / Superman. By using well known comic characters, you have effectively got a lot of free advertising – from the long period of customer awareness of the superhero.

The most successful film franchise – James Bond has a huge advantage because the brand of the film series is so well known. You know a James Bond film may be quite predictable, but at least you know you are going to see some good action shots, fast cars, beautiful women and spectacular backdrops.

It is one reason why books are often made into films. Awareness of the books, helps with the advertising for the film.

Does an increase in wages cause a loss of competitiveness?

6 February 202012 June 2014 by Tejvan Pettinger

Readers Question: Given the current environment, is it a valid argument of companies that increasing workers salaries will cause a loss of competitiveness? For example, cutting entry-level and middle-level workers salary while increasing management salaries will not change the profit levels of a company much. Wages are a part of a firm’s costs. If wages …