DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economics of Food and Agricultural Markets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economics of Food and Agricultural Markets Chapter 2. Welfare Analysis of Government Policies 2.1 Price Ceiling In some circumstances, the government believes that the free market equilibrium price is too high. If there is political pressure to act, a government can impose a maximum price, or price ceiling, on a market. Price Ceiling = A maximum price policy to help consumers. A price ceiling is imposed to provide relief to consumers from high prices. In food and agriculture, these policies are most often used in low-income nations, where political power is concentrated in urban consumers. If food prices increase, there can be demonstrations and riots to put pressure on the government to impose price ceilings. In the United States, price ceilings were imposed on meat products in the 1970s under President Richard M. Nixon. Price ceilings were also used for natural gas during this period of high inflation. It was believed that the cost of living had increased beyond the ability of family earnings to pay for necessities, and the market interventions were used to make beef, other meat, and natural gas more affordable. Price ceilings are often imposed on housing prices in US urban areas. Rent control has been a longtime feature in New York City, where rent-controlled apartments continue to have low rental rates relative to the free market rate. The boom in the software industry has increased housing prices and rental rates enormously in the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, and the Puget Sound region. Rent control is being considered in both places to make San Francisco and Seattle more affordable for middle-class workers. 2.1.1 Welfare Analysis Welfare analysis can be used to evaluate the impacts of a price ceiling. In what follows, we will compare a baseline free market scenario to a policy scenario, and compare the benefits and costs of the policy relative to the baseline of free markets and competition. Consider the price ceilings imposed on the natural gas markets. The purpose, or objective, of this policy was to help consumers. We will see that the policy does help some consumers, but makes other consumers worse off. The policy also hurts producers. This unanticipated outcome is worth restating: price ceilings help some consumers, but hurt other consumers. All producers are made worse off. This outcome is not the intent of policy makers. Economists play an important role in the analysis and communication of policy outcomes to policy makers. The baseline scenario for all policy analysis is free markets. Figure 2.1 shows the free market equilibrium for the natural gas market. The quantity of natural gas is in trillion cubic feet (tcf) and the price of natural gas in in dollars per million cubic feet (USD/mcf). Chapter 2. Welfare Analysis of Government Policies | 49 Social welfare is maximized by free markets, because the size of the welfare area CS + PS is largest under the free market scenario. As we will see, any government intervention into a market will necessarily reduce the total level of surplus available to consumers and producers. All price and quantity policies will help some individuals and groups, hurt others, and have a net loss to society. Policy makers typically ignore or downplay individuals and groups who are negatively affected by a proposed policy. The two triangles CS and PS are as large as possible in Figure 2.1. Figure 2.1 Natural Gas Market Baseline Scenario: Free Markets The price ceiling policy is evaluated in Figure 2.2, where P’ is the price ceiling. Here, the government has passed a law that does not allow natural gas to be bought or sold at any price higher than P’ (P’ < P). For a price ceiling to have an impact, it must be “binding.” This occurs only when the price ceiling is set below the market price (P’ < P). If the price ceiling were set above P (P’ > P), it would have no effect, since the good is bought and sold at the market price, which is below the price ceiling, and legally permissible. Such a law would not be binding on market transactions. 50 | Andrew Barkley | The Economics of Food and Agricultural Markets If the price ceiling is set at P’, then the new equilibrium quantity under the price ceiling (Q’) is found at the minimum of quantity demanded (Qd) and quantity supplied (Qs), as in Equation 2.1. (2.1) Q’ = min(Qs, Qd) This condition states that the quantity at any nonequilibrium price (P) will be the smallest of production or consumption. At the low price P’, producers decrease quantity supplied, and consumers increase quantity demanded, resulting in Q’ = Qs (Figure 2.2). This is the maximum amount of natural gas placed on the market, although consumers desire a much larger amount. The first step in the welfare analysis is to assign letters to each area in the price ceiling graph. Next, the letters corresponding to the baseline free market scenario are recorded (initial, or baseline, values have a subscript 0), followed by the surpluses under the price ceiling (ending values have a subscript 1). Finally, the change from free markets to the price policy are calculated to conclude the qualitative analysis of a price ceiling. If the supply and demand curves have numbers (actual data) associated with them, a numerical analysis can be conducted. The initial, baseline, free market values in the natural gas market at market equilibrium price P are: CS0 = A + B, and PS0 = C + D + E. Social welfare is defined as the total amount of surplus available in the market, CS + PS: SW0 = A + B + C + D + E. After the price ceiling is put in place, the price is P’, and the quantity is Q’. New surplus values are found in the same way as under free markets. Consumer surplus is the willingness to pay minus price actually paid, or the area beneath the demand curve and above the price line at the new price P’: (A + C). Producer surplus is the price received minus the cost of production, or the area above the supply curve and below the price line (E): CS1 = A + C, PS1= E, and SW1 = A + C + E. Recall that social welfare (SW) is equal to the sum of all surpluses available in the market: SW = CS + PS. The welfare analysis outcomes are found by calculating the changes in surplus: ΔCS = CS1 – CS0 = + C – B ΔPS = PS1 – PS0 = – C – D ΔSW = SW1 – SW0 = – B – D The results are fascinating, since the sign of the change in consumer surplus is ambiguous: the sign of ΔCS depends on the relative magnitude of areas C and B. If demand is elastic, and supply is inelastic, the price ceiling is more likely to yield a positive change in consumer surplus (C > B). The policy makes some consumers better Chapter 2. Welfare Analysis of Government Policies | 51 off, and some consumers worse off. The consumers located on the demand curve between the origin (0, 0) and Q’ are made better off by area C, as they purchase natural gas at a lower price (P’ < P). Consumers located on the demand curve between Q’ and Q have a lower willingness to pay than consumers located between the origin and Q’, and are made worse off by the price ceiling (-B) since they are unable to purchase natural gas at the lower price ceiling (P’ <P). The price ceiling created a shortage of natural gas, as natural gas producers reduce the quantity supplied in reaction to the legislated lower price. The decrease in quantity supplied of natural gas makes these consumers unable to buy the good. Natural gas producers are made unambiguously worse off by the price ceiling: both the price (P) and the quantity (Q) are decreased (P’ < P; Q’ < Q), and the change in producer surplus due to the policy is unambiguously negative (– C – D) The term deadweight loss (DWL) is used to designate the loss in surplus to the market from government intervention, in this case a price ceiling. Deadweight loss is found by reversing the negative sign on the change in social welfare (–ΔSW): DWL = –ΔSW = B + D. The deadweight loss area BD is called the welfare triangle, and is typical for market interventions. Interestingly, and perhaps unexpectedly, all government interventions have deadweight loss to society. Free markets are voluntary, with no coercion. Any price or quantity restriction will necessarily reduce the surplus available to producers and/or consumers in a market. In current debates over rent control in congested urban areas, economists continue to point out the potential impact of rent control policies: a reduction in affordable housing. These policies are often put in place in spite of economic views, with mixed results. Renters who can find a rent-controlled property win, but many renters are unable to find housing, and must relocated outside the urban center and commute to work from a distant home. 52 | Andrew Barkley | The Economics of Food and Agricultural Markets Figure 2.2 A Price Ceiling in the Natural Gas Market As indicated above, price ceilings on food and agricultural products are most often used in low-income nations, such as in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Price supports for food and agricultural products are most often used in high-income nations such as the US, European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, and Canada. 2.1.2 Quantitative Analysis In this example, that beef consumers lobby the government to pass a price ceiling on beef products. This happened in the USA in the 1970s, during a period of high inflation. Beef consumers believe that prices are too high and democratically elected officials give their constituents what they want.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE DEADWEIGHT LOSS from Alan J. Auerbach Working Paper No. 2510
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE DEADWEIGHT LOSS FROM "NONNEUTRAL" CAPITAL INCOME TAXATION Alan J. Auerbach Working Paper No. 2510 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 1988 I am grateful to the National Science Foundation for financial support (grant #SES— 8617495), to Kevin Hassett for excellent research assistance, and to Jim Hines, Larry Kotlikoff and participants in seminars at Columbia, NBER, Penn and Western Ontario for connnents on earlier drafts. The research reported here is part of the NBERs research program in Taxation. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and not those of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Support from The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. NBER Working Paper #2510 The Deadweight Loss froni "Nonneutral" Capital Income Taxation ABSTRACT This paper develops an overlapping generations general equilibrium growth model with an explicit characterization of the role of capital goods in the evaluate and production process. The model is rich enough in structure to measure simultaneously the different distortions associated with capital income taxation (across sectors, across assets and across time) yet simple enough to yield intuitive analytical results as well. The main result is that uniform capital income taxation is almost certainly suboptimal, theoretically, but that empirically, optimal deviations from uniform taxation are inconsequential. We also find that though the gains from a move to uniform taxation are not large in absolute magnitude these of gains would be offset only by an overall rise in capital income tax rates several percentage points. A separate contribution of the paper is the development of a technique for distinguishing intergenerational transfers from efficiency gains in analyzing the effects of policy changes on long—run welfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Externalities and Public Goods Introduction 17
    17 Externalities and Public Goods Introduction 17 Chapter Outline 17.1 Externalities 17.2 Correcting Externalities 17.3 The Coase Theorem: Free Markets Addressing Externalities on Their Own 17.4 Public Goods 17.5 Conclusion Introduction 17 Pollution is a major fact of life around the world. • The United States has areas (notably urban) struggling with air quality; the health costs are estimated at more than $100 billion per year. • Much pollution is due to coal-fired power plants operating both domestically and abroad. Other forms of pollution are also common. • The noise of your neighbor’s party • The person smoking next to you • The mess in someone’s lawn Introduction 17 These outcomes are evidence of a market failure. • Markets are efficient when all transactions that positively benefit society take place. • An efficient market takes all costs and benefits, both private and social, into account. • Similarly, the smoker in the park is concerned only with his enjoyment, not the costs imposed on other people in the park. • An efficient market takes these additional costs into account. Asymmetric information is a source of market failure that we considered in the last chapter. Here, we discuss two further sources. 1. Externalities 2. Public goods Externalities 17.1 Externalities: A cost or benefit that affects a party not directly involved in a transaction. • Negative externality: A cost imposed on a party not directly involved in a transaction ‒ Example: Air pollution from coal-fired power plants • Positive externality: A benefit conferred on a party not directly involved in a transaction ‒ Example: A beekeeper’s bees not only produce honey but can help neighboring farmers by pollinating crops.
    [Show full text]
  • The Contribution of Farm Price Support Programs to General Economic Stability
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Research Papers in Economics This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Policies to Combat Depression Volume Author/Editor: Universities-National Bureau Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-87014-198-8 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/univ56-1 Publication Date: 1956 Chapter Title: The Contribution of Farm Price Support Programs to General Economic Stability Chapter Author: Karl A. Fox Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2808 Chapter pages in book: (p. 295 - 356) THE CONTRIBUTION OF FARM PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS TO GENERAL ECONOMIC STABILITY KAJU. A. Fox, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS Eversince 1929, price support activities have been a central element in the farm program. From decade to decade, research, technology, and education may be more fundamental to the improvement of agriculture and rural life. But from year to year, price support has been the major, and at times the most controversial, expression of public policy in the field of agriculture. In framing price support legislation, Congress probably has been most influenced by considerations of prospective benefits to farmers relative to prospective costs to the federal Treasury. The interests of processors, distributors, and consumers have, of course, been given some weight, as have problems of reconciling farm policy with policy in other fields such as labor, social security, and international trade. The central issues in legislative debate are the level of price support, the commodities for which price support is to be mandatory rather than and the methods by which the farm price level objectives are to be attained.
    [Show full text]
  • Welfare Standards Underlying Antitrust Enforcement: What You Measure Is What You Get
    United States of America Federal Trade Commission Welfare Standards Underlying Antitrust Enforcement: What You Measure is What You Get Christine S. Wilson∗ Commissioner, U.S. Federal Trade Commission Luncheon Keynote Address at George Mason Law Review 22nd Annual Antitrust Symposium: Antitrust at the Crossroads? Arlington, VA February 15, 2019 ∗ The views expressed in these remarks are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any other Commissioner. Many thanks to my Attorney Advisor, Tom Klotz, for assisting in the preparation of these remarks. I. Introduction It is delightful to join you today at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School. Many thanks to the George Mason Law Review and the Law and Economics Center for inviting me. As always, they have put together a great program. Before launching into the substance, I must provide the standard disclaimer: The views I express today are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any other Commissioner. With the administrative details out of the way, I would like to spend my time this afternoon discussing the appropriate welfare standard for antitrust enforcement. This topic was the subject of two panels at the FTC’s Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century in November 2018.1 The discussion of whether we should continue to rely on the consumer welfare standard, which has long underpinned our approach to antitrust, arises in the context of a larger debate. According to some critics, lax antitrust enforcement has led to historic levels of consolidation and concentration, which have led to greater income inequality, stagnant wages, and reduced innovation.2 These observers recognize that the consumer welfare standard, the yardstick used to evaluate mergers and competitive conduct for more than 40 years, is an intellectual barrier for their desired approach to enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Provisions of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (AIB-624)
    Unftrid Statoz7 ArEcu0tur®W, d 0 FAC Economic Research Service Agriculture 4X2 UTw coc@a' () t0( Information -A I Bulletin 3 Number 624 ~1 4 00,/O; " rx po.. ~o. a . ;/// 'ao°S, qi's Easy To Order Anther C©py! Just daU 1-8070-999-6779. Toll free in the United States and Canada. Other areas, please call 1-301-725-7937. Ask for Provisions of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (AIB-624). The cost is $14.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (includes Canada), add 25 percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard, or we can bill you. Or send a check or purchase order (made payable to ERS-NASS) to: ERS-NASS P.O. Box 1608 Rockville, MD 20849-1608. We'll fill your order by first-class mail. Provisions of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990. Edited by Susan L. Pollack and Lori Lynch. Agriculture and Trade Analysis Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 624. Abstract The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-624) establishes a comprehensive framework within which the Secretary of Agriculture will administer agricultural and food programs from 1991 to 1995. This report describes provisions of the 1990 Act as amended by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508). Provisions for all major commodity programs, such as income and price support, are reported, as well as general commodity provisions, trade, conservation, research, food stamps, fruits, vegetables, and marketing, organic food standards, grain quality, credit, rural development, forestry, crop insurance and disaster assistance, and global climate change provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Deadweight Loss by ERIC NIELSEN
    RF Fall2005 v10 revisedpg9.ps - 10/14/2005 4:54 PM JARGONALERT Deadweight Loss BY ERIC NIELSEN t one point or another, all of us have received an inefficient gift, such as grandparents, are also those most unwanted gift from a well-meaning friend or relative. likely to give cash instead of a gift-in-kind. AOut of politeness we may wear the unwanted gar- It is worth noting that Waldfogel’s study explicitly ment at the next family reunion, or make a halfhearted stab ignores any sentimental value people may place on received at reading the 700-page tome. Still, we must reach the gifts. Some psychology studies have found that people place inescapable conclusion that the money spent on the gift was a very high premium on the worth of things they have almost entirely wasted. received as gifts. If this is indeed the case, then gift giving The loss in value described above — the difference could at times be a form of “value creation.” At the very least between what was paid for the gift and what the gift is there may still be social reasons to engage in gift giving, even worth to the recipient — is one example of the economic if it does result in a deadweight loss. concept of “deadweight loss.” Technically, deadweight loss Certain government actions may also produce dead- is defined as the waste resulting from economic inefficien- weight losses. For instance, taxes prevent sellers and buyers cy of any kind, be it through poorly designed regulation, from realizing all the gains from trade, and subsidies encour- antiquated production techniques, leaky pipes, monopoly age more consumption than otherwise would occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Consumer and Producer Surplus
    South Dakota State University Economics 201: Principles of Microeconomics Efficiency of Markets and the Role of Government Surplus Measures Consumer surplus is defined as the difference between a consumer’s willingness to pay and what he or she actually has to pay (the price of the good). When analyzing a market, CS is just the area under the demand curve and above the price. If the demand curve is linear, it is easy to calculate total CS as the area of the triangle formed by the P-axis intercept, the market price, and quantity demanded. e.g. Auto industry. P (1000s$/car) $50 $24 D Q (cars/year) 60,000 (In the above diagram, $50,000 is sometimes called a “choke price”). If the price of a car is $24,000 and 60,000 are sold CS is the area of the resulting triangle, so CS = (1/2)(60,000)($26,000) = $780,000. Basically, this means that consumers gain $780,000 from the opportunity to buy 60,000 cars at a price of $24,000 each. Producer surplus is the difference between the price (what the seller actually gets) and cost (what the seller would have settled for). Again, notice that producer surplus Development of this review sheet was made possible by funding from the US Department of Education through South Dakota’s EveryTeacher Teacher Quality Enhancement grant. corresponds to an area. In this case, it is the area below price and above supply. If the supply curve were linear, it would be easy to calculate PS for the industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 103 Fall 2007 Section F01 Multiple Choice
    Economics 103 Fall 2007 Section F01 Multiple Choice 1. When the price of rice rises, quantity demanded of beans falls. The cross-price elasticity of demand for rice and beans must be a. equal to zero. b. larger than zero. c. less than zero. d. cannot be estimated. 1. As the price of rice rises, quantity demanded of rice will fall. If the quantity demanded of beans also falls as the price of rice rises, then rice and beans must be eaten together and therefore they are complement goods. The cross-price elasticity of demand is negative. Answer: C. 2. If the demand curve for a good is perfectly price inelastic and the government imposes a tax in the market, a. there will be no deadweight loss. b. the government’s tax revenue will equal the loss in producer surplus. c. the government’s tax revenue will be more than the loss in producer surplus. d. the government’s tax revenue will be less than the loss in producer surplus. 2. The figure below shows that as the government imposes a tax in a market where the demand curve is perfectly price inelastic, there will be no deadweight loss. Triangle B is the producer surplus both before and after the tax and rectangle C is the government’s revenue from the tax. Answer: A. 3. As soon as the price of a good goes up, suppliers would like to produce more but may not be able to because they cannot immediately hire more skilled laborers and/or purchase new machinery.
    [Show full text]
  • Marshallian Cross Diagrams and Their Uses Before Alfred Marshall: the Origins of Supply and Demand Geometry
    Marshallian Cross Diagrams and Their Uses before Alfred Marshall: The Origins of Supply and Demand Geometry ThonaasM. Humphrey And Karl Rau (184 l), Jules Dupuit (1844), Hans von Mangoldt (1863), and Fleeming Jenkin (1870) thor- Undoubtedly the simplest. and most frequently oughly developed it years before Marshall presented used tool of microeconomic analysis is the conven- it in his Pzm Theory of Domestic Vafues (1879) and tional partial equilibrium demand-and-supply-curve later in his Pnitciples of fionomics (1890). Far from diagram of the textbooks. Economics professors merely introducing the diagram, these writers applied and their students put the diagram to at least six it to derive many of the concepts and theories often main uses. They use it to depict the equilibrium or attributed to Marshall or his followers. The notions market-clearing price and quantity of any particular of price elasticity of demand and supply, of stability good or factor input. They employ it to show how of equilibrium, of the possibility of multiple equilibria, (Walrasian) price or (Marshallian) quantity adjust- of comparative statics analyses involving shifts in the ments ensure this equilibrium: the first by eliminating curves, of consumers’ and producers’ surplus, of con- excess supply and demand, the second by eradicating stant, increasing and decreasing costs, of pricing of disparities between supply price and demand price. joint and composite products, of potential benefits They use it to illustrate how parametric shifts in of price discrimination, of tax incidence analysis, of demand and supply curves induced by changes in deadweight-welfare-loss triangles and the allocative tastes, incomes, technology, factor prices, and prices inefficiency of monopoly: all find expression in of related goods operate to alter a good’s equilibrium early expositions of the diagram.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Welfare, Redistribution, and the Tradeoff Between Efficiency and Equity, with Developing Country Applications
    Social Welfare, Redistribution, and the Tradeoff between Efficiency and Equity, with Developing Country Applications Jon Bakija Williams College First Draft: August 2012 This Draft: August 2014 Abstract: The economic literature on “optimal income taxation” addresses the question of how to design tax and transfer policy so as to maximize “social welfare,” which is some function of the well- being of all members of society. It clarifies how the social-welfare-maximizing policy depends on one’s philosophy of distributive justice, and on empirical evidence about the behavioral response to incentives, and thus provides a systematic way of evaluating the tradeoff between equity and efficiency. Here, I explain the key insights of the optimal income taxation literature in a way that should be accessible to those with a familiarity with introductory economics, and then provide a brief introduction to some interesting pieces of evidence from around the world that are relevant to this question. 1 I. Social Welfare, the Tradeoff between Equity and Efficiency, and Optimal Income Taxation: Theory Introduction As Arthur Okun (1975) memorably put it, taxing the better-off to finance transfers to the worse- off is like “carrying water in a leaky bucket.” The leak represents the administrative costs of the tax and transfer system, and the deadweight losses caused by the fact that taxes and transfers distort incentives, causing people to change their behavior in an effort to reduce their tax bill or increase the transfer received. Different philosophies of distributive justice lead to different conclusions about how much of a leak we should be willing to accept before we stop carrying further buckets.
    [Show full text]
  • ECONOMICS and MICROECONOMICS Paul Krugman | Robin Wells
    THIRD EDITION ECONOMICS and MICROECONOMICS Paul Krugman | Robin Wells Chapter 5 Price Controls and Quotas: Meddling with Markets • The meaning of price controls and quantity controls, two kinds of government interventions in markets • How price and quantity controls create WHAT YOU problems and can make a market WILL LEARN inefficient IN THIS • What deadweight loss is • Why the predictable side effects of CHAPTER intervention in markets often lead economists to be skeptical of its usefulness • Who benefits and who loses from market interventions, and why they are used despite their well-known problems Why Governments Control Prices • The market price moves to the level at which the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded. But, this equilibrium price does not necessarily please either buyers or sellers. • Therefore, the government intervenes to regulate prices by imposing price controls, which are legal restrictions on how high or low a market price may go. • Price ceiling is the maximum price sellers are allowed to charge for a good or service. • Price floor is the minimum price buyers are required to pay for a good or service. Price Ceilings • Price ceilings are typically imposed during crises—wars, harvest failures, natural disasters—because these events often lead to sudden price increases that hurt many people but produce big gains for a lucky few. • Examples: . U.S. government–imposed ceilings on aluminum and steel during World War II . Rent control in New York City The Market for Apartments in the Absence of Government Controls
    [Show full text]
  • Econ 301 Intermediate Microeconomics Week 2 Lecture - Calculus of Consumer and Producer Surplus
    Econ 301 Intermediate Microeconomics Week 2 Lecture - Calculus of Consumer and Producer Surplus 1 Consumer and Producer Surplus Every time you go to the supermarket and purchase something, you benefit (or at least you expect to benefit), otherwise you wouldn't have made the purchase. Similarly, the owner of the supermarket benefits, otherwise they wouldn't have sold the item too you. Measuring how much each of you benefits is a tricky question, especially if we want to compare them. In economics, we solve the problem by not actually trying to measure the benefits; rather, we try to measure the dollar value of the benefits to both you and the supermarket owner. Then we can add these up and use it as a sort of crude approximation to the total benefits to everyone in the market (even though it's not clear what exactly we mean by \total benefits” but we'll leave that discussion for philosophy class). When we measure the dollar value of all benefits in a market, we split it into two parts | the supply side and the demand side. Consumer surplus measures the demand side | it is the difference between the amount of money the consumer is willing to pay for a good and the amount of money they did pay, summed across each unit of the good purchased (which may be worth less and less as more are purchased) and summed across all consuemrs. Producer surplus measures the supply side | it is the difference between the amount of money the producer receives for the good and the amount they were willing to sell the good for, summed over each good sold and each producer.
    [Show full text]