3.4Price Ceilings and Price Floors
the shift from the original , D0 to D1 on the diagram (labeled Shift 3), and the moves from E2 to E3.”
FIGURE 3.20Shifts of or Supply versus Movements along a or Supply Curve A shift in one curve never causes a shift in the other curve. Rather, a shift in one curve causes a movement along the second curve. At about this point, Lee suspects that this answer is headed down the wrong path. Think about what might be wrong with Lee’s logic, and then read the answer that follows. Answer: Lee’s first step is correct: that is, a drought shifts back the supply curve of wheat and leads to a prediction of a lower and a higher . This corresponds to a movement along the original (D0), from E0 to E1. The rest of Lee’s argument is wrong, because it mixes up shifts in supply with , and shifts in with . A higher or lower never shifts the supply curve, as suggested by the from S1 to S2. Instead, a change leads to a movement along a given supply curve. Similarly, a higher or lower never shifts a demand curve, as suggested in the shift from D0 to D1. Instead, a price change leads to a movement along a given demand curve. Remember, a change in the price of a good never causes the demand or supply curve for that good to shift. Think carefully about the timeline of events: What happens first, what happens next? What is cause, what is effect? If you keep the order right, you are more likely to get the analysis correct. In the four-step analysis of how economic events affect equilibrium price and quantity, the movement from the old to the new equilibrium seems immediate. As a practical matter, however, prices and quantities often do not zoom straight to equilibrium. More realistically, when an economic event causes demand or supply to shift, prices and quantities set off in the general direction of equilibrium. Even as they are moving toward one new equilibrium, a subsequent change in demand or supply often pushes prices toward another equilibrium.
3.4 Price Ceilings and Price Floors
LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Explain controls, ceilings, and floors
To this point in the chapter, we have been assuming that markets are free, that is, they operate with no government intervention. In this section, we will explore the outcomes, both anticipated and otherwise, when government does intervene in a either to prevent the of some good or from rising “too high” or to prevent the of some good or from falling “too low”. Economists believe there are a small number of fundamental principles that explain how economic agents respond in different situations. Two of these principles, which we have already introduced, are the laws of and supply. Governments can pass laws affecting outcomes, but no law can negate these economic principles. Rather, the principles will become apparent in sometimes unexpected ways, which may undermine the intent of the government policy. This is one of the major conclusions of this section. Controversy sometimes surrounds the prices and quantities established by and supply, especially for products that are considered necessities. In some cases, discontent over prices turns into public pressure on politicians, who may then pass legislation to prevent a certain from climbing “too high” or falling “too low.” The and supply shows how people and firms will react to the incentives that these laws provide to control prices, in ways that will often lead to undesirable consequences. Alternative policy tools can often achieve the desired goals of laws, while avoiding at least some of their costs and tradeoffs.
Price Ceilings
Laws that governments enact to regulate prices are called controls. controls come in two flavors. A keeps a from rising above a certain level (the “ceiling”), while a keeps a from falling below a given level (the “floor”). This section uses the and supply framework to analyze ceilings. The next section discusses floors. A is a legal maximum that one pays for some good or . A government imposes price ceilings in order to keep the price of some necessary good or service affordable. For example, in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina, the price of bottled water increased above $5 per gallon. As a result, many people called for price controls on bottled water to prevent the price from rising so high. In this particular case, the government did not impose a price ceiling, but there are other examples of where price ceilings did occur. In many markets for goods and services, demanders outnumber suppliers. Consumers, who are also potential voters, sometimes unite behind a political proposal to hold down a certain price. In some cities, such as Albany, renters have pressed political leaders to pass rent control laws, a price ceiling that usually works by stating that landlords can raise rents by only a certain maximum percentage each year. Some of the best examples of rent control occur in urban areas such as New York, Washington D.C., or San Francisco. Rent control becomes a politically hot topic when rents begin to rise rapidly. Everyone needs an affordable place to live. Perhaps a change in tastes makes a certain suburb or town a more popular place to live. Perhaps locally-based businesses expand, bringing higher incomes and more people into the area. Such changes can cause a change in the demand for rental housing, as illustrates. The original (E0) lies at the intersection of supply curve S0 and D0, corresponding to an of $500 and an of 15,000 units of rental housing. The effect of greater or a change in tastes is to shift the for rental housing to the right, as the data in shows and the shift from D0 to D1 on the graph. In this , at the new E1, the of a rental unit would rise to $600 and the would increase to 17,000 units.
FIGURE 3.21A Example—Rent Control The original intersection of and supply occurs at E0. If shifts from D0 to D1, the new would be at E1—unless a prevents the from rising. If the is not permitted to rise, the remains at 15,000. However, after the change in , the rises to 19,000, resulting in a . Original Quantity Supplied Original Quantity Demanded New Quantity Demanded $400 12,000 18,000 23,000 $500 15,000 15,000 19,000 $600 17,000 13,000 17,000 $700 19,000 11,000 15,000 $800 20,000 10,000 14,000 TABLE 3.7Rent Control Suppose that a city government passes a rent control law to keep the price at the original equilibrium of $500 for a typical apartment. In , the horizontal line at the of $500 shows the legally fixed maximum set by the rent control law. However, the underlying forces that shifted the to the right are still there. At that ($500), the remains at the same 15,000 rental units, but the is 19,000 rental units. In other words, the exceeds the , so there is a of rental housing. One of the ironies of ceilings is that while the was intended to help renters, there are actually fewer apartments rented out under the (15,000 rental units) than would be the case at the market rent of $600 (17,000 rental units). Price ceilings do not simply benefit renters at the expense of landlords. Rather, some renters (or potential renters) lose their housing as landlords convert apartments to co-ops and condos. Even when the housing remains in the rental market, landlords tend to spend less on maintenance and on essentials like heating, cooling, hot water, and lighting. The first rule of economics is you do not get something for nothing—everything has an opportunity cost. Thus, if renters obtain “cheaper” housing than the market requires, they tend to also end up with lower quality housing. Price ceilings are enacted in an attempt to keep prices low for those who need the product. However, when the market price is not allowed to rise to the equilibrium level, quantity demanded exceeds quantity supplied, and thus a shortage occurs. Those who manage to purchase the product at the lower price given by the price ceiling will benefit, but sellers of the product will suffer, along with those who are not able to purchase the product at all. Quality is also likely to deteriorate.
Price Floors
A is the lowest that one can legally pay for some good or . Perhaps the best-known example of a is the , which is based on the view that someone working full time should be able to afford a basic . The federal in 2022 was $7.25 per hour, although some states and localities have a higher . The federal yields an annual for a single person of $15,080, which is slightly higher than the Federal of $11,880. Congress periodically raises the federal as the cost of living rises. As of March 2022, the most recent adjustment occurred in 2009, when the federal minimum wage was raised from $6.55 to $7.25. Price floors are sometimes called “price supports,” because they support a price by preventing it from falling below a certain level. Around the world, many countries have passed laws to create agricultural price supports. Farm prices and thus farm incomes fluctuate, sometimes widely. Even if, on average, farm incomes are adequate, some years they can be quite low. The purpose of price supports is to prevent these swings. The most common way price supports work is that the government enters the market and buys up the product, adding to demand to keep prices higher than they otherwise would be. According to the Common Agricultural Policy reform effective in 2019, the European Union (EU) will spend about 58 billion euros per year, or 65.5 billion dollars per year (with the December 2021 exchange rate), or roughly 36% of the EU budget, on price supports for Europe’s farmers. illustrates the effects of a government program that assures a above the by focusing on the for wheat in Europe. In the absence of government intervention, the would adjust so that the would equal the at the point E0, with P0 and quantity Q0. However, policies to keep prices high for farmers keep the above what would have been the level—the Pf shown by the dashed horizontal line in the diagram. The result is a quantity supplied in excess of the quantity demanded (Qd). When quantity supplied exceeds quantity demanded, a surplus exists. Economists estimate that the high-income areas of the world, including the United States, Europe, and Japan, spend roughly $1 billion per day in supporting their farmers. If the government is willing to purchase the excess supply (or to provide payments for others to purchase it), then farmers will benefit from the price floor, but taxpayers and consumers of food will pay the costs. Agricultural economists and policy makers have offered numerous proposals for reducing farm subsidies. In many countries, however, political support for subsidies for farmers remains strong. This is either because the population views this as supporting the traditional rural way of life or because of industry's lobbying power of the agro-business.
FIGURE 3.22European Wheat Prices: A Example The intersection of (D) and supply (S) would be at the point E0. However, a set at Pf holds the above E0 and prevents it from falling. The result of the is that the Qs exceeds the Qd. There is , also called a surplus.
3.5 Demand, Supply, and Efficiency
LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Contrast , , and social surplus
- Explain why floors and ceilings can be inefficient
- Analyze and supply as a social adjustment mechanism
The familiar and supply diagram holds within it the concept of economic efficiency. One typical way that economists define efficiency is when it is impossible to improve the situation of one party without imposing a cost on another. Conversely, if a situation is inefficient, it becomes possible to benefit at least one party without imposing costs on others. Efficiency in the and supply has the same basic meaning: The economy is getting as much benefit as possible from its scarce resources and all the possible gains from trade have been achieved. In other words, the optimal amount of each good and is produced and consumed.
Consumer Surplus, Producer Surplus, Social Surplus
Consider a for tablet computers, as shows. The is $80 and the is 28 million. To see the benefits to consumers, look at the segment of the above the point and to the left. This portion of the shows that at least some demanders would have been willing to pay more than $80 for a tablet. For example, point J shows that if the were $90, 20 million tablets would be sold. Those consumers who would have been willing to pay $90 for a tablet based on the they expect to receive from it, but who were able to pay the of $80, clearly received a benefit beyond what they had to pay. Remember, the traces consumers’ willingness to pay for different quantities. The amount that individuals would have been willing to pay, minus the amount that they actually paid, is called . is the area labeled F—that is, the area above the price and below the demand curve.
Text from Principles of Macroeconomics 3e, OpenStax, licensed CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Access for free at openstax.org.
My notes
No notes yet on this page.
