Fun Video: Utility and Elasticity of Demand and Supply Video Lecture | Microeconomics- Interaction between individual buyer-seller

Welcome to Crash Course Economics, I'm Jacob
Clifford.
And I'm Adriene Hill. We've been talking a
lot about macroeconomics: GDP, unemployment,
fiscal and monetary policy. That kind of thing.
Now we're going to start talking about microeconomics.
Microeconomics looks at individual markets
and the decision-making of consumers, businesses,
and governments. They answer questions
like, "How many workers should we hire?" or
"Is increasing minimum wage and good idea?"
and "Why is health care so expensive?"
Now you might be thinking, which is more important:
micro or macro? The answer is (BOTH) micro/macro.
Actually (BOTH) macro/micro. They're both
important.
[Theme Music]
Let's start with one of the most important
concepts in microeconomics: marginal analysis.
For economists, the word "marginal" is pretty
much the same as "additional". Marginal analysis
looks at how individuals, businesses and governments
make decisions. Basically, they're interested
in additional benefits and additional costs.
Businesses do the same thing when they decide
how many workers to hire. They compare the
additional revenue that an additional worker
will likely generate for their company. And
to the additional cost of hiring that worker:
wages and benefits.
If hiring that worker brings in more marginal
revenue than marginal cost, then, congratulations!
Someone's got a job!
This also applies in the realm of how people
feel about things. Take the development of
city parks: citizens obviously get more total
satisfaction from, like, four city parks than
from only three. But that doesn't necessarily
mean that the government should build four parks.
Instead, the government looks at the additional
benefit or satisfaction generated by the fourth
city park and compares that to the additional
cost and here, when we're talking about cost
we're talking about the use of city land,
and the tax money spent on building the park.
If the additional benefit is higher, then
they build the park. The government keeps
doing this for each additional park. The benefit
of the first park is higher than the additional
benefit of the second park, and on and on.
Eventually, the marginal benefit of another
park will be less than the marginal cost,
so they stop building parks.
Sure it's nice to have lots of parks, but
the difference between having 200 parks and
201 parks is pretty small. This is the Law
of Diminishing Marginal Utility. By the way,
when economists talk about consumers, the
word 'utility' means 'satisfaction' or happiness
people get from consuming a good, or service,
or 201 parks.
So you could reword this as the Law of Decreasing
Additional Satisfaction, as you consume additional
amounts of anything, you'll eventually get
less and less additional satisfaction.
It's like how the first slice of pizza or
cookie that you eat, is awesome, and the second
one might be even better, but eventually, each
additional one gives you less additional enjoyment.
Economists have even made up a new word to
help quantify satisfaction called 'utils'.
Utils are like happiness points and they are
completely subjective.
So one person might get 100 utils of satisfaction
from the first slice of pizza and another
person might only get 10 utils.
So the ideas here make sense, right? But the
whole numbers thing, this 'utils' idea it
does seem a little contrived. People don't
actually make these calculations, do they?
Yeah, they do. You don't write them down or
think about your happiness in terms of utils,
but you do likely unconsciously use marginal
analysis every day.
Let's go to the the Thought Bubble.
Marginal analysis can explain all sorts of
human behaviour. Let's say that Stan goes
to an amusement park. He's unlikely to ride
the best ride in the park, the tallest rollercoaster,
over and over and over, the entire day.
Why? Well even if there's a one-time park
admission fee and the rollercoaster is free,
there's still a cost - that's how long he
has to wait in line.
So Stan estimates his marginal utility of
riding the ride and compares that to the wait.
Riding the best rollercoaster might give him
the highest utility of all the rides in the
park but it might not be worth waiting in
a four-hour line.
A smaller ride gives him less utility but
if the line is super short, he'll choose that
one instead. Even if there's no line for the
large super-awesome rollercoaster, he probably
won't ride it all day because eventually it
gets old.
Marginal analysis explains the behaviour of
consumers like Stan, but it also explains
the pricing strategies of businesses.
Assume instead that the rollercoaster charges
$5 for each ride. Because Stan gets less and
less utility each time, he might not be willing
to pay full price for the third ride
The seller gets this, and figures it might
be better to charge Stan less for the third
ride. That's why we have deals like 'Buy two
and get the third half off'. The point is
we all use marginal analysis when we make
decisions.
Thanks, Thought Bubble. So that's marginal
analysis. Armed with our new knowledge, let's
go back and look at the most important model
in microeconomics: supply and demand, on the runway.
Let's use the market for strawberries. Remember,
the price of strawberries is on the vertical
axis, and quantity is on the horizontal axis.
The demand curve for strawberries is downward
sloping,showing the Law of Demand. When prices
are high, people don't wanna buy very many,
and when prices are low, people want to buy a lot.
The shape of the demand curve reflects the
idea of the law of diminishing marginal utility.
The first pint of strawberries you buy give
you a lot of additional utility.
The second one, maybe not as much. And the
third pint, even less. If you eat ten pints,
you're gonna get sick. So, as you consume
more, you're willing to pay less and less.
This explains why the demand curve is downward
sloping and why it's really just a marginal benefit curve.
The supply curve is upward sloping representing
the Law of supply an increase in price gives
producers an incentive to produce more.
It turns out that supply curves are really
just marginal cost curves. It represents the
additional amount of resources and energy
that each additional pint of strawberries
costs. This graph explains why markets tend
to be so efficient with ours scarce resources.
If strawberry producers produced too few strawberries,
the marginal benefit of the last unit will
be greater than the marginal cost. That's
the market calling out for more strawberries:
"Give us strawberries, please!"
If they produce too much, out here, then the
marginal cost would be greater than the marginal
benefit, they'd be wasting resources on things
that consumers don't value.
Equilibrium is efficient because the marginal
benefit of the last unit consumed equals the
marginal cost of that unit. The market is
making the exact amount that consumers want.
This is reminiscent of an example Adam Smith
used. Why are diamond more expensive than
water? Water is absolutely crucial for keeping us alive,
while diamonds do nothing except sparkle. But
the price of a bottle of life-giving water is around a buck
twenty and that's when you're overpaying for water.
The average one-carat diamond is well over
$3,000. This is called the Diamond Water Paradox,
and it can be explained with marginal analysis
and the law of diminishing utility.
The total utility we get from water is VERY
high, but since it's so plentiful for most
people, the marginal utility is really low.
If you can stay hydrated, cook, take showers,
wash your clothes and occasionally use your
slip 'n' slide, then the additional satisfaction
of yet another gallon of water is small. The
result is a lower price.
On the other hand, diamonds are extremely
scarce because they have to be extracted from
expensive, dangerous, mines. Since there are
relatively few diamonds, the additional satisfaction
of another one is relatively high, so people
are willing to pay a higher price.
If diamonds fell out of the sky like water,
we wouldn't get that much additional satisfaction
from them, and the price would be low. It
might seem irrational that society values
diamonds more than water, but using marginal
analysis, it sort of makes sense.
Relative scarcity does contribute to a product's
value - that's partially why Action Comics
number one, the first comic book with Superman
recently sold for over for over £3m on eBay,
but just because something is limited doesn't
automatically make it valuable.
There are plenty of other things that are
scarce that we don't value as much as diamonds.
For example, panda boogers. They're super-rare,
but we don't put them on engagement rings
or pay an outrageous price for one in mint
condition.
The point is, utility is subjective, and demand
depends on the tastes and preferences of consumers.
That's why there's no market for panda boogers.
Hold on, Stan tells me that, because the internet,
there does seem to be a market for panda boogers.
But it's gotta be a small one. I think the
example still holds up.
Anyway, the demand also depends on the number
of substitutes. For example, strawberries
have plenty of substitute goods - cherries,
raspberries, blueberries. When the price goes
up for strawberries, consumers buy less because
they'll go buy something else instead.
This is a substitution effect and along with the law
of diminishing marginal utility, it helped shape the demand curve.
Let’s see what this looks like in the real
world. Have you ever wondered why gas stations
don’t have sales? It has to do with substitutes
and what economists call elasticity of demand.
Elasticity shows how sensitive quantity is
to a change in price, when the price of gas
goes up people don’t buy that much less gas because
they need it and there are few close substitutes.
Now you can walk, or ride your bike, or get
an electric car but there is nothing else
you can put in your current gas guzzler, this
goes the other direction too, if gas stations
had sales, consumers wouldn’t buy that much
more gas. Economists would say that the demand
for gasoline is relatively inelastic: a large
percent change in price leads to a small percent
change in the quantity demanded.
This is shown on the graph by making the demand
curve steeper, other products that have that
have relatively inelastic demand include electricity,
healthcare and coffee, there’s no substitute
for my five cups of coffee in the morning.
And there are few products that have perfectly
inelastic demand, if the price goes up people
who can afford it will always buy the same
amount, an example is insulin for diabetics
because in that case they need it to live.
What about the demand for pizza? Well there
are many close substitutes, I could eat a
burrito or a burger, I don’t really need
pizza. So a small increase in the price could
cause the price to decrease a lot, for pizza
the demand curve would be more flat, showing
the demand for pizza is relatively elastic.
If a pizza place has a sale a lot of customers
would buy pizza instead of other substitutes
like burgers and burritos.
Now there’s also elasticity of supply. A
steep curve shows the supply is relatively
inelastic, so a large change in price, leads
to a small change in quantity. Like an airplane
is difficult and time consuming to build,
so even if a buyers willing to pay more for
one, they’re still going to have to wait.
Relatively elastic supply is when quantity
is sensitive to a change in price because
producers can respond quickly, stuff like
t-shirts and strawberries. Something like
the supply of Vincent Van Gogh paintings,
well that’s perfectly inelastic because
when the price goes up, the quantity doesn’t
change. It doesn’t matter if people want
more, Van Gogh is not going to be doing anymore
paintings.
So that’s microeconomics in a nutshell,
it doesn’t focus on GDP or on unemployment,
it analyses the details. It’s helpful to
understand concepts like marginal analysis
and elasticity. You’re going to be using
them to make decisions anyways so you might
as well understand what’s going on. Ideally
that’ll help you make better decisions.
We hope the additional benefits of watching
this video was greater than the additional
cost. I’d say it was at least 50 utils for
me.
And not that it’s a util contest but I’d
say 55 utils. See you next week
Crash Course Economics made by the help of
all these nice people. If you’re still watching
the credits, your demand for this video is
just about to outstrip the supply, but you
can create more supply when you support Crash
Course at Patreon, you’ll help keep Crash
Course free for everyone, forever and get
great rewards. Thanks for watching and I hope
you got some utils out of this.