In the
last post, I listed 9 classes of objects that are pertinent to the study of
economics. I stopped short of describing all 9 classes. Left are prices, expectations,
and entrepreneurship. Each of these deserve their own post. Today I start with investigating
prices, their place within economic analysis, and the system that they form.
As I
mentioned previously, the price of a good is equal to the
thing given up in order to attain it. If I give a dollar to a gas station
attendant in exchange for a candy bar, the price that I pay is $1. However, not all
prices are denominated in currency. Let’s say that the ladies and gents at a "free
hugs" booth decide to start paying to give hugs because they have found zero
willing participants at zero price. They set a price of 1 mini candy (you know… those candies
that you give out during Halloween and put in the bowl at Christmas). The price
paid implies an opportunity cost. We assume that the agent giving the hug
expects this strategy to yield an outcome better than the next best outcome
that could have been attained by some alternate use of the candy. This next
best use may be consumption of the candy or its exchange for something. Or
maybe one “hugger” would enjoy throwing out a candy onto the sidewalk just to
see a passerby pick it up. This is known as opportunity cost. The
agent imagines alternate uses for the object exchanged and places some value on
these uses. We cannot know what these exact values are, or if they can even be
represented by exact values. All we know is that the huggers prefer to use the
candy to pay for a hug from a passerby compared to all other uses recognized by
the hugger.
Typically
in economics, when the word price is thrown around the author is referring to a
market price. I might ask, “What is the price of one share of “Apple” stock?” For
an answer, I check the stock price on the financial TV station or on a
financial website. There is thought to be one price, at least during trading
hours, as the vast majority of trades take place on the exchange. But does this
hold for a commodity that can be bought or sold anywhere? Consider a scenario
where two gas stations within proximity of one another charge different prices.
Can we say that there is a single market price? Clearly these gas stations are
charging different prices. How can we say that the
law of one price
holds? Remember, price may be
objectively
represented by a value denominated in currency. Notice that the value of currency
is not the only price paid by an agent. If he or she prefers to act out of
habit, going to the cheaper gas station across the street may be a cost
incurred in addition to the nominal price. Or maybe the agent prefers to not
check prices. Whatever the reason, you are willing to incur the higher price.
This does not disprove the law of one price as there must be some point at
which the size of the discrepancy between prices motivates you to go the
station with cheaper gas. The perceived cost of switching stations is equal to whatever
that difference is to the agent and that perceived cost may not remain constant
across time. Or put another way, if the agent is aware of the discrepancy and
still shops at the more expensive station, the additional cost of purchasing
gas from the apparently less expensive station, as perceived by the agent, is
greater than the price discrepancy. This explanation can be made clear by an extreme case. Let’s say that one gas station decides to charge a dollar more
than the other gas station across the street. While there may be some buyers
that do not switch to the cheaper gas station, enough will switch as to promote
a state where the station that charges a higher price lowers it and/or where the
gas station charging the lower price will raise it. If neither of these occur, we can expect the station charging a dollar more for gas to go out of business. There are bounds within
which notional prices are free to move as a result to subjective interpretations
of price. In competitive markets, this range tends to be relatively narrow.
It is by
this tendency toward convergence for prices of like goods that a constellation of
relative prices can arise. Agents do not need prices to perfectly represent
information about market conditions. Rather, price need only approximate market
conditions in order for agents to make economic decisions that coalesce with
one another. With this standard met, agents can interpret nominal prices of
different goods as relative prices. In this way, an agents can compare the
price of substitutes for inputs and outputs and make decisions about what products
to make and what inputs to use. It is the consumer who provides information to
producers concerning whether or not their choice of products to produce and inputs
used to produce them were “correct”. Negative feedback – AKA, a growing stock of
unsold goods or realized losses – helps the producer to decided whether or not
to continue producing a particular good in a particular manner.
In the
above case, prices convey information of which producers may have no
knowledge. In what is perhaps his best known academic work, “
The Use of Knowledge in Society”, Hayek tells a story about the price of tin to this
effect:
Fundamentally, in a system in which
the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can
act to coordinate separate actions of different people in the same way as
subjective values help the individual to coordinate the parts of his plan. . .
Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw
material, say, tin, has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has
been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose – and it is very
significant that it does not matter – which of these two causes has made tin
more scarce. All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin
they consume is not more profitably employed elsewhere and that, in
consequence, they must economize on tin. There
is no need for the great majority of them even to know where the more urgent
need has arisen [emphasis mine], or in favor of what other needs they ought
to husband the supply. If only some of them know directly of the new demand,
and switch resources over to it, and if the people who are aware of the new gap
thus created in turn fill it from still other sources, the effect will rapidly
spread throughout the whole economic system and influence not only all the uses
of tin, but also its substitutes and the substitutes of these substitutes, the
supply of all things made of tin, and their substitutes and so on.; and all
this without the great majority of those instrumental in bringing about these
substitutions knowing anything at all about the original cause. The whole acts
as one market, not because any of its members survey the whole field, but
because their limited individual fields of vision sufficiently overlap so that
through many intermediaries the relevant information is communicated to all. (1945)
It is by this process that social economies appear to be
auto-poetic, or self-organizing. Neither of these is too strong of a term to describe markets where autonomous
agents are free to make and enact plans and engage in a process of trial-and-error
where they bear the costs – and benefits – of their actions. It is the ability
of agents to organize their plans in accordance with current relative prices and
expectations of relative prices that allow markets to function. Thus the price
system is “not the product of [any single] human design and … the people guided
by it usually do not know why they are made to do what they do (Hayek 1945).” Of course, not all social institutions can be defined within this paradigm, nor do markets exist in isolation of political influence. These are interesting and important arrangements to analyze, but they are outside of the purview of a pure analysis of the price system.
Related Posts
A brief theory of goods and prices
2017-02-07
Economics is the study human action in light of a budget constraint. It observes action in terms of means and ends. The agent perceives her environment and is able to imagine how she may acquire some end. We assume that the agent values any end that she seeks to realize. Traditionally, this valuation reflects utility that the agent expects to receive. By hypothesizing that the agent measures...
Read more
The Emergence and Functions of Money 2.0
2017-02-21
To the lay observer, the existence of money appears to be a given, and this is if they even notice money’s peculiarity. Money is a good, but unlike other goods, its primary use is as a medium of exchange. In the pre-modern era, money was typically linked to a commodity, but in the modern financial system, this is no longer true – at least not for base money. So how does money become an object of...
Read more
A theory of social economy II: reformulating a framework for economic analysis
2017-01-18
In his Principles
of Economics , Carl Menger tells us that his goal is to “reduce the
complex phenomena of human economic activity to the simplest elements that can
still be subjected to accurate observation, to apply to these elements the
measure corresponding to their nature, and constantly adhering to this measure,
to investigate the manner in which the more complex economic phenomena...
Read more