Feed on
Posts
Comments

Why Money Matters

When economists teach welfare analysis, they demonstrate that the “gains from trade” in an economy come as a result of two people transacting that place different values on a good. Typically the transactions are characterized as between a buyer (who might value a pair of sunglasses at $90) and a seller (who might be able to produce it for $30), but that need not be the case. It is simply any exchange between any two actors who value things differently.

In the example above, the wealth that is created amounts to $60 and is not dependent on the price paid. The price simply distributes those gains between the parties. So, if the price was agreed upon to be $80, then the consumer benefited by $10 while the producer benefited by $50. If the price was $35, the consumer benefited by $55 and the seller by $5. In either case, the gain was $60 – because they gain has nothing at all to do with the price.

In fact, if President Obama decided that consumers were entitled to sunglasses (e.g. healthcare) and enslaved the seller, and forced him to produce the glasses and “sell” them to any consumer for a price of $0, the gains would STILL be $60 – in this case $90 of gain to consumers and $30 of losses to sellers. Or if the President decided that the sunglass industry was important to secure votes from, he could institute a mandate where all drivers had to purchase sunglasses, and that those sunglasses could only be sold for a price of $283.34. In this case the wealth created from each sunglasses sold is still $60! It is just that the gains are now split in favor of the sellers – who gain $253.34 and the buyers are worse off by $193.34.

This might scare some of you. If the only thing the sunglasses czar needed to do was to figure out the appropriate number of sunglasses to produce independent of prices, costs, values, etc. then you might think they would be empowered to try this in all manner of industries. But even if the Messiah was visited from an angel on high, who told him the appropriate number of sunglasses to mandate the production and sale of, we will still have a serious problem on our hands.

That problem, of course, is that prices play two very important roles (aside from divvying up the gains from trade). They not only provide the necessary knowledge by which we know the correct number of sunglasses to produce, once we have that number in hand, they insure that those doing the producing are those that can do so for the lowest cost, and that those doing the buying are actually those that value it the most. We can spend another post later on discussing this important proof, but I wanted to focus on the role of prices in allocating goods to those that value them the most.

I demonstrate extensively in every class that prices are important because they signal to potential consumers the real tradeoffs they must face when they consider purchasing a good. If the price of sunglasses is $50, that represents $50 of other goods and services I cannot consume if I choose to purchase a pair. Thus, if I prefer $50 of other goods and services to that pair of sunglasses, I hold off on purchasing the glasses when they are priced at $50. If I happen to enjoy the services that the sunglasses provide me with more than what I would do if I spent those resources elsewhere, then I would buy them. Notice how my decision would change if there were no money price to allocate the good. If glasses were priced at zero, I am very likely to purchase them, even though I do not value them nearly as much as someone else, and even though I do not value them as much as the resources that were used to make those glasses. But since I did not have to part with an equivalent amount of resources, I purchased them. The world is poorer for it, even if I am nominally better off.

If the price was higher, not only is that an important signal to me about the tradeoffs I must make, but those prices also FORCE me to consider the values and wants and desires of other consumers. And prices do this in an insanely efficient way. No person has to ask me NOT to purchase sunglasses so that there is enough for everyone else. And no one person has to survey anyone else about how much they like sunglasses (we’d all have an incentive to lie anyone). But by looking at the price of $50 (or whatever it is), I am forced to consider how much everyone else likes sunglasses. If the price of $50 seems to hefty for me, then I do not buy them –> thereby leaving them (sharing if you may) for someone else that wants them more than me. But if that price was less, or even zero, there would be nothing preventing me from taking them, even if others valued them more. And all of this is done without moral suasion, pleading, begging, political rationing, nothing.

Contrast this to what happens when Lord Obama makes the price zero, he encourages me NOT to care about what others think or want – in fact, the socialist dream of providing goods free to everyone in the name of community, encourages precisely the opposite behavior in us. Just think what would happen if Amazon announced today that the Kindle was “free” to the first 100,000 customers that showed up in some particular place at some particular time. And compare it to what happens when the price is $495.

But the reason for the title of this post is this – even my best students are confused when I argue that willingness to pay a money price is the best way indicator of the value of a good to someone, and certainly allocating goods via the price system and relying on willingness to pay is the only just way to ration scarce goods. Why? Because they fall into the collectivist trap that leads them to forget that candy bars do not simply rain down from the sky. There is not enough stuff to go around. And once you recognize this fact … this unrelenting and tyrannical fact … then you must understand that something has to allocate who gets it (and in fact who produces it). If not the price system, then some other mechanism gets in line (no pun intended). It can be queuing, it can be lottery, it can be force, it can be good looks, it can be bribes, it can be political decisions, etc. And ALL of these are FAR inferior ways of allocating goods.

Why? Because even if those allocating mechanisms got goods to the people that did in fact value them the most – they ALL ignore the fact that producers need to be incentivized to deliver the goods. There is simply not enough compassion, goodwill, love or any of that to go around to induce me to make sunglasses for you. But furthermore, each of those rationing mechanisms is entirely wasteful. All of the things that people do under those mechanisms to compete for the goods (and compete they will my socialist brother), destroy wealth. That is because the resources used to get to the front of the line, to rig the lottery, the get better looking, could have been employed productively in the creation of goods and services that were of value to the rest of us. Otherwise these rationing mechanisms are all like arms-races, zero-sum games that happen to be the Pet Peeve of many lefty, socialist, corporatists these days. Why is it that they can nitpick about the possibility of zero-sum competition in certain market elements, and then forget that once they impose their political and paternalistic fix for such competition, they MUST, by definition, move to a system that is even more “arms-racy”? Read any of the behavioralists and the conspicuous consumptionists to see what I mean.

But that leaves un-addressed the notion that willingness to pay via money prices is the way to go. I briefly sketched out above why using this mechanism actually encourages positive sum economic outcomes. Why? Because when goods are allocated using the price system, you get things by bidding more for them. But if you lose in the process of bidding, you are still left with all of the goods and services that you had to create in order to secure the money in the first place. Society is richer, and you can still bid for other goods in a world where more goods have been created. Beyond that, why is willingness to pay (as revealed by people’s actual behavior as opposed to what they tell an interviewer) still a great measure of how much one values a good? Well, if you understand that money is simply a short-term financial asset that represents a claim on goods and services produced, then you realize that “willingness-to-pay” is simply shorthand for saying “how much labor effort I am willing to exert to produce goods and services that are valuable to others.” And once you make that realization, is there any better indication of how much someone wants something than what they are willing to sacrifice to get it? Simply standing in line longer than someone else is not the same thing. You can even argue that such a thing is inversely related to how much someone really values a good or service.

I still get confusion because people argue that many people have no money, so allocating goods by money prices is unfair and unjust. But once you understand that money simply represents goods and services that you have produced, and that are found to be valuable by your fellow citizens, you are partway to addressing this dilemma. Everyone has the ability to produce – and the natural state of nature is non-production – it is poverty. Wealth and happiness is not an entitlement, they can only be possible when you take efforts to produce things of value (broadly defined too). The collectivists among us run away from this reality by talking about “causes of poverty” as if nothingness has a cause. Wealth and somethingness is the thing to be explained, and it is up to the astute reader to understand what things make it difficult for people to move from a state of nothingness and into a state of somethingness.

But that’s just not fair they all say. We will address this in extreme detail in the near future. Let me end with a simple story, and one that is not apocryphal. People without the means to purchase sunglasses (for example) often have people advocating on their behalf claiming that if they only had the money (and remember what money means) that they would, in fact, but them for $50. Does a commercial societarian such as myself have any issues with that? No – if they truly valued it like they said they do, then we should see the following. In every case when someone “gifts” a pair of sunglasses to them, we should see them hold onto the sunglasses. But what do we see in most cases? We see them turn around and sell them for $50, or even less, and then use those proceeds to purchase other goods and services that they value. When it comes time to put their money where their mouth is, you know what typically happens.

Next up – what people MUST mean when they argue that Walmart is exploiting its workers.

47 Responses to “Why Money Matters”

  1. Harry says:

    I sure hope your students appreciate your lectures, if the above were notes from a recent one.
    Who are these people who argue that people have no money? Your fellow professors at the U of R?
    Everybody has money, from time to time, especially here in the US. Not everybody is rolling in it like Uncle Scrooge, but we are a prosperous nation. There is always someone out there who will hire you if you are willing to show up and follow instructions, and a promotion is just around the corner if you can demonstrate a few ounces of eagerness. You can even start your own business, assuming that you can afford the occupancy permit, the licensing fees, and the real estate taxes, and demonstrate your viability to the bank and your relatives that you can turn a profit.
    The burr under Obama’s saddle is that some people are more deserving of other people’s money, or their ox, or their ass, or anything that belongs to their neighbor. Therefore, the government should be allowed to declare that if they plug in capital into a failing business they are allowed to take whatever they deem fair, because it’s the law of the jungle. What they fail to recognize is that their every move discourages people from taking the risk of actually making something for sale, which is the wellspring of wealth.
    Thanks, wintercow, for another good essay.
    Now, to throw some food into the cafeteria air, I take issue with your use of the phrase, “to have issues” , meaning that one disagrees with, or is sickened and revolted by, or agrees with in part, with some argument.
    I’ts permissible for John McLaughlin to ask Eleanor Clift about “Issue One” or to discuss how Queen Elizabeth’s issue are behaving, but one should not have issues with those who have issues with those who have issues with them. Et Cetera.

  2. Econobran says:

    Excellent analogy and explanation. If only others could see things that clearly…

  3. Michael says:

    I like to emphasize that the producer surplus also includes wages of the workers. A lot of times, it seems people assume a Marxist position that the producers are these rich managers.

  4. […] The beauty of markets and the price system is that you do not need “vaccine police” to take care of all of these problems. “We” are the vaccine police when production, consumption and allocation decisions are informed by the price system. Let’s think of an analogy – when your city faces water shortages during a hot, dry, summer. […]

  5. Enhance your research capabilities with our precision-built lab ball mills, priced to fit your needs.

  6. Expertly crafted ball mills, balancing precision, durability, and affordability, your one-stop solution for milling needs.

  7. Wow! This could be one particular of the most useful blogs We’ve ever arrive across on this subject. Basically Great. I’m also a specialist in this topic so I can understand your hard work.

  8. sitemap says:

    Do yoou mind iif I quote a few oof your posts aas lobg ass I provide credit andd sourcdes bck too your blog?
    My bpog iis inn the very sae area off interest ass yors aand mmy
    userrs wold certainly benefit from a lott off thhe informaion you providee here.
    Please leet me know if this okay wwith you. Thanks a lot!

  9. Pretty! This was an extremely wonderful article.
    Thhanks foor providing thesse details.

  10. sitemap says:

    Hmmm iis anyone else hwving problejs with tthe mages oon tis blog loading?
    I’m trying to figure oout iff iits a probledm oon my end orr iif it’s thee blog.
    Anny feedbacdk woulld be gratly appreciated.

  11. sitemap.xml says:

    Ahaa, its nice dialogue concerning this paraggraph att this plasce
    at ths weblog, I hae reawd alll that, sso now me also commeting att tbis place.

  12. Thhis wweb sitee really has all oof thhe information I needed
    concerning this subject and didn’t knolw wwho to ask.

  13. gommes cbd says:

    Excellent post. I was checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Very helpful info particularly the last part 🙂 I care for such info a lot. I was looking for this particular info for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.

  14. Keep functioning ,terrific job!

  15. tirge777 says:

    Hello my friend! I wish to say that this article is awesome, nice written and come with almost all significant infos. I’d like to peer extra posts like this .

  16. dewiku slot says:

    Nice blog here! Also your site loads up very fast! What web host are you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host? I wish my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

  17. botak empire says:

    Hi, i think that i saw you visited my web site thus i came to “return the favor”.I’m trying to find things to improve my site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

  18. Its like you learn my thoughts! You appear to understand so much about this, such as you wrote the e book in it or something. I feel that you just can do with some to force the message home a bit, but other than that, that is great blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.

  19. Its like yyou read myy mind! You seem to kow a lott about this, like youu wrote the book iin it
    or something. I think tat yoou ckuld do with a
    feww pcs too drive thhe mmessage hoome a litle bit,
    but instead off that, ths iis fantastc blog. A fantastic
    read. I’ll certainly bee back.

  20. Hello there, You’ve done a fantastic job.
    I’ll certainly digg iit annd personally suggest to myy friends.
    I’m onfident they’ll bee bnefited ftom tis website.

  21. Hi, aftesr reading this remarkaqble popst i am too
    ceerful to sharee mmy know-how hsre wit friends.

  22. 566153 451835This web-site can be a walk-through rather than the data you wished about it and didnt know who must. Glimpse here, and you will surely discover it. 35542

  23. whoah this blg iis fantastic i really like reading ylur articles.
    Stay up thee great work! Yoou realize, lots oof persons are huntiing round for
    tbis info, yyou could help tnem greatly.

  24. 꽁머니 says:

    863783 613160Pretty part of content material. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to assert that I get in fact loved account your weblog posts. Any way Ill be subscribing on your feeds or even I success you access constantly fast. 175462

  25. Good day very cool blog!! Guy .. Beautiful .. Wonderful .. I’ll bookmark your website and take the feeds also?KI am happy to find a lot of helpful information here within the submit, we’d like work out extra techniques on this regard, thanks for sharing. . . . . .

  26. As a Newbie, I am always searching online for articles that can help me. Thank you

  27. I do believe all of the ideas you have presented to your post. They are very convincing and can certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are too short for starters. May you please prolong them a little from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

  28. Excellent goods from you, man. I’ve understand your stuff previous to and you’re just too great. I really like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you are saying and the way in which you say it. You make it entertaining and you still care for to keep it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a terrific web site.

  29. Juan Mcnell says:

    My brother recommended I might like this blog. He was entirely right. This post truly made my day. You can not imagine just how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

  30. zidni satovi says:

    An interesting dialogue is price comment. I feel that you need to write extra on this matter, it may not be a taboo subject however typically people are not sufficient to talk on such topics. To the next. Cheers

  31. I like this site because so much utile material on here : D.

  32. Great write-up, I?¦m regular visitor of one?¦s blog, maintain up the excellent operate, and It’s going to be a regular visitor for a long time.

  33. xvideos says:

    Just desire too sayy yourr article iss as amazing.
    Thee clearness iin yur post is jusat nice and i cold assume you’re an expert oon this subject.
    Well wwith youhr permission llet mme too
    grab youir feed too keeep up to date wkth forthcoming post.
    Thanks a million andd pleasse confinue the enjoyable work.

  34. pgslot says:

    264620 712476Hosting a weblog composing facility (in a broad sense) requires unlimited space. So I suggest you to discover such web hosting (internet space provider) that supply flexibility inside your internet space. 470954

Leave a Reply