Although this might not be true everywhere, from what I have observed living in Portugal a bottle of the same wine can be worth twice or even three times as much if consumed at a restaurant than if bought at a supermarket. I have always wondered why that is. (Disclaimer: I know this from being around my dad, as he is a wine lover. This does not directly relate to my own experiences, (although I am old enough to legally to drink in Portugal.))

It makes sense, and it comes as no surprise, that restaurants sell their meals and drinks at a higher price than they are bought, since they have to make a profit. Still, it seems to make more sense that there is an increase in the retail price of meals than in the retail price of wine. If I wanted to eat lasagna and decided to buy the ingredients at a supermarket to cook at home, I could easily spend only half the money I would have spent had I gone to a restaurant. However, I would have to go out and buy it myself, prepare everything, cook it myself and, most likely, my lasagna wouldn’t be nearly as appetizing as the one I would have been served at the restaurant. It makes sense, then, that a meal that costs me $3 to make could be sold for $6 at a restaurant. Wine, however, is not prepared or cooked at the restaurant. Since there isn’t that much extra work for the restaurant, it seems odd that the retail prices for both meals and wine are doubled or tripled compared to their wholesale prices. Not only that, but a price markup of $3 seems relatively small and easy to ignore (from the point of view of the consumer) when compared to a markup of $30 in wine prices. Still, most restaurants do it and people still drink wine.

There are a few options as to why this exorbitant increase in the price of wine does not scare customers away. First, many customers may be unaware of how much cheaper wine is at a supermarket or liquor store and how much they are paying extra for having it at a restaurant. But even if customers are aware, it doesn’t seem to stop them from either going to the restaurant or drinking wine while there. Another possible scenario, then, is that people simply do not order wine and opt instead for a beer or some other substitute drink. However, there are still people who drink wine even though they are aware of the difference in price. If not, it seems that not many people would drink wine at restaurants, and there would be little purpose for restaurants to charge so much for it. It seems, then, that there is yet another case where people are aware of the price difference but chose to drink nonetheless.

These people, for the most part, are susceptible to taking up the price increase for a few reasons. They can really enjoy wine, and opt to spend less money on other items by, for example, cutting back on the bread or even by ordering a cheaper meal. Another options is that they can be more vulnerable to accept whatever price is presented to them because the occasion that brings them to the restaurant is festive or emotional in a way that will make people tolerate the markup, such as a party, a business meeting or romantic dinners. In these scenarios it seems that, for the time that they are there, the demand curve for these types of consumers is fairly inelastic.

Additionally, even if most people opt not to drink wine because of how expensive it is, having unsold wine at the restaurant isn’t a huge burden to the restaurant owners since it does not go bad quickly and it only takes a few people to make a huge profit. It then seems to make sense that restaurants would keep these prices and that people would keep on accepting them.

I started playing the violin when I was around 4 years old. My parents pushed my two brothers and I to adopt and instrument, which soon become part of ours daily lives as we pilled up orchestra, chamber music, summer camps competitions and private lessons. It was only natural for me to continue my 8 years of orchestra, which I had done back in Brussels. Having arrived at Carleton, I initially signed up for orchestra for fall term but then opted out as my fears of not being able to keep up with the academic rigor pilled up during International Student Orientation and NSW. After taking some time to adjust to the workload I realized two things. First of all, I did in fact have time to play in the orchestra and secondly Carleton requires 6 credits worth of “Arts Practice” which orchestra fulfills. In consequence, I joined at the beginning of winter term but ever since day one of site-reading our sheet music, I have wavered on quitting. As tomorrow is my registration time, I am once again forced to decide whether or not I will sign up to be in Carleton’s orchestra again.

Orchestra rehearsals for the string section are every Monday and Thursday from 6:30pm to 8pm. In terms of opportunity cost, my next best option would be to spend this time doing schoolwork as normally feel like packing up my violin and walking out of rehearsal when I have a significant amount of homework. There have even been times where I have skipped orchestra, as I felt overwhelmed with work. Orchestra is also at a very inconvenient time, my chemistry prefect sessions usually occur at that time and so will the ones for next term’s chemistry class. It also forces me to choose between eating extremely early or vary late. As foolish as that may seem, I have noticed that I work well at an interval of +/- 3hours after/before I have eaten. Orchestra shortens the time for which I experience maximum efficiency. To compensate for this I have to use Sayles dollars to be able to not have a stomachache at around 10:30pm instead of saving them for all-nighters, late-night studying and exam periods.

On the other side, orchestra is an amazing opportunity for me to take a break from work. It is an almost therapeutic experience as I am generally a very stressed person. It also gives me the opportunity to be part of team and to be surrounded by people, which is a very positive and uplifting environment instead of staring at a computer screen insolated in the libe. Apart from having a good impact on my morale, orchestra is one of the only times I get to practice and play on my violin. To determine which option has the lowest opportunity cost, I have to consider the fact that I am in College to first of all study, so to get the highest GPA it would be better for me to drop orchestra so that my academics can thrive more.

Even though one of the main reasons I joined in the first place was the credits, I did not take this fact into account when I looked at the explicit and implicit costs for each decision as I no longer value the importance of this 1 credit. This is because I spend as much time in orchestra as I would in any given class but only get 1/6 of its credit value and there are many substitutes that I can factor into my decision for fulfilling the requirement. An almost perfect substitute for orchestra, which would take away the large time component, is Chamber music. By taking this musical option, I would still obtain my 1 credit and reap the benefits of orchestra while being able to decide on rehearsal times with the other musicians in my group. The only drawback is that I have to find my own group members, and many musicians, or the ones I have talked to at least, seem quite reluctant about stopping orchestra and starting a chamber music.

Then of course, I could just opt to take one of the many 6 credit “Arts practice” courses that Carleton offers. By taking this option, I would finish the requirement in one term instead of letting it linger over time. The problem with this is that I would only be able to choose two other courses that term. In addition, we take on average a total of 36 courses during our stay at Carleton. I have no AP credit or credits that I can transfer as Carleton does not recognize the French lycée system, this means I need to take 35 classes, as that would give me the 210credit minimum to graduate. Part of the College experience is going abroad for one term which I plan on doing in my junior year, this would mean I would lose a maximum of 18 credits as I will probably under load while “campsing”. Club tennis and Alpine Skiing will give me a total of 8 credits and there are 9 trimesters left (8 where I can gain credits) so I would have to do orchestra during all the trimesters when I am on campus do be able to graduate, go abroad and fulfill Carleton’s requirement.

After having gone through this thinking process, it is clear that I either need to take Orchestra or sign up for Chamber music for every term to come. Since I would prefer not taking orchestra, yet I have determined that I have to if I am going to study abroad, Chamber music is in fact my option with the lowest opportunity cost. Chamber music eliminates the schedule and time problems that orchestra posed, while allowing my to graduate according to plan. So, for my registration today, the real question now is whether or not I will be able to find chamber music partners before I am due to register. So wish me luck!

In the past few years my hometown of Tucson, AZ has seen a recent rise in the number of food trucks. This is a trend that I think is common across the nation. What is causing this trend? How are these mobile food vendors able to compete with stationary restaurants?

There are economic advantages to both food trucks and restaurants. First, you can compare the costs required to operate each. Both have the variable costs of food and labor, although restaurants will have a higher labor cost because they employ waiters and usually more cooks. Restaurants also have sunk costs such as rent and utilities for the building they are in and the furniture used. Food trucks have a sunk cost of the truck itself and an additional variable cost that is gas. Comparing the fixed and variable costs of each, one could assume the total cost of operating the restaurant is higher, which would require it to charge higher prices. Being able to charge lower prices would attract customers which would allow more food trucks to enter the market.

Another thing to consider when comparing restaurants with food trucks is the supply and demand curves for each. If you were to compare the supply curves of restaurants and food trucks the supply curve of food trucks would be shifted backwards and to the left from that of restaurants. This is due to the fact that a truck simply cannot hold as much food as a building so the truck cannot supply as much food in a given period of time. This would suggest that the equilibrium price for a food truck would be higher and the equilibrium quantity would be lower. When you look at the demand side of things, one reason food trucks have been popping up all over town is that they are the most recent fad. Consumer preferences push the demand curve outwards and to the right. Food trucks are also complements of alcohol sold at bars. There is a bar in Tucson that doesn’t sell food and will frequently have food trucks parked outside. This complementary relationship also shifts the demand curve outwards. The shift in demand caused by preferences and complements will also cause the equilibrium price to rise.

When comparing the costs with supply and demand, it becomes ambiguous whether food trucks will sell food at a higher or lower price than the average sit-down restaurant. When you look at real life examples you see that in general restaurants charge higher prices over-all. This would suggest that the lower average variable and fixed costs have more of an effect on pricing than the shifts in supply and demand. Being able to charge lower prices is one way in which food trucks have a competitive edge.

There is yet another economic factor to consider when considering the recent success of the food truck industry in Tucson. While the main competitors for food trucks are restaurants, they are not perfect substitutes for one another. What is it that makes these products different enough that food trucks have an edge over traditional restaurants? Most importantly, food trucks are mobile while restaurants are not. The ability to easily move around town allows trucks to choose the most convenient locations for customers depending on the time of day or day of the week. On week days a truck can station itself near office buildings for workers to grab lunch, or near parks on weekends for families to stop by and grab a bite to eat. In terms of convenience, food trucks have an advantage over their building-bound competitors.

Why is Orange County (and Southern California in general) so segregated?

I grew up there, in the shade of the palm trees.  The overwhelming population of Caucasian kids would often be a joke thrown around in the halls between classes.  Well we didn’t actually have halls per se; it’s sunny 300 days a year so we just sort of had buildings with paths between them.  I played soccer in high school, and since my high school was mostly white, the soccer team was mostly white, which didn’t stand out too much, until we played teams that were mostly Hispanic.

Driving around Orange County offers a similar experience.  In my days I have done quite a bit of driving through the county and the divides between Hispanic neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, and Asian neighborhoods was (and still is) often quite stark.  A block passes by inconspicuously enough and then all of a sudden the signs are in Spanish and there are places to buy horchata.    It’s all very strange.

So how has this happened?  Allow me to digress and say that while my high school team was mostly white, my club team was mostly Hispanic. From my experiences here I’ll offer up an optimistic answer: because it’s easier.  For everyone.  As a Mexican immigrant it is easier to move into a neighborhood that speaks Spanish, likewise for a Vietnamese immigrant or a Korean immigrant.  It is no secret that Orange County is the one overwhelmingly conservative part of California.  So not only is it easier for the people immigrating, but it is also easier for the current residents who may have an issue with immigration.  There is of course a more sinister explanation, that the status quo is forced into becoming equilibrium by a hand that sees color all too clearly.  These are delicate topics to move into and I think they exceed the reach of my meager abilities and so I think I will stop here and move on to a peculiar phenomenon in Los Angeles.

Racial lines once drawn are difficult to pick up but it does happen.  In the 90’s Compton, California, in South Central Los Angeles, gained a reputation for spawning many of the popular hip-hop groups of the day.  N.W.A., Dre, Snoop Dogg all call Compton their birthplace.  And in the 90’s it certainly was mostly African-American  (53%) but now, according to the 2010 census, it is only 33% black.  In 1990 it was 42% Hispanic as opposed to 65% now.  So why the switch?  West Hollywood’s lawns.  The affluence of western Los Angeles (Malibu, Beverly Hills) creates a demand for construction and gardening, two occupations often taken by Hispanic immigrants.  South Central is closer to Malibu than east LA so to make the commute shorter many Hispanic immigrants moved there and in so doing displaced a large portion of the African-American community.

Now on to the city of Long Beach, in the 90’s it was a boiling pot for racial tension and often cited as one of the most diverse cities in the nation.  Putting segregation aside for a moment, what makes it so diverse?  A simple explanation could be that it’s an industrial city with an industrial economy set in the middle of an area that bases most of its economy on the service industry.  It is the biggest shipping port in Southern California.  Since it is such a hub of industrial activity, there is a lot of opportunity for work for immigrants, and so immigrants flock.  What made it so segregated?  A much bigger question, that again I think I’ll leave open-ended.

These are simpler (the simplest, crazy oversimplified) cases of how the potential for these lines can get created.  What isn’t as obvious is how and why they get drawn.  More importantly it doesn’t explain how segregation has lead to tension in the past, but perhaps it can point to solutions in the future.

If you ever plan to visit South Korea, I would recommend you trying one of our most famous food called “kimbap” (click here for image). People often refer to kimbap as Korean style sushi rolls, but they differ in their ingredients which I will talk about in this blog post. The main reason why Kimbap is so popular is because people view it as the best “carrying food (literally, food that is easy to carry such as burritos).” I have applied economic concepts that we have learned in class so far to analyze how kimbap has gained such reputation.

As mentioned above, the primary reason why kimbap is so popular in South Korea is because of its conveniency. Kimbap, if translated word to word, means “seaweed rice.” As you can see from the picture I linked above, kimbap is simply steamed rice rolled in a piece of seaweed with carrots, spinach, ham, egg, cucumber, pickled radish, and fish cake inside. The preparation for making kimbap is very simple. Most of the ingredients that are used in kimbap are vegetables, which do not need to be cooked. The rest are processed ham or tuna, which you can easily purchase in any grocery markets. Once you have these simple ingredients ready, it takes less than a minute to roll one kimbap. In other words, kimbap has less implicit cost than making any other Korean dishes, such as kimchi stew, because making kimbap takes much less time.

The opportunity cost of eating outside is another reason why kimbap is famous among people who are busy, such as office workers and students. Kimbap is portable because you can easily slice it into pieces and carry them in a zip-lock while a full set of Korean meal with soup and side meals are not as easy to carry. Many Koreans agree that kimbap is an “easy meal” because the food contains everything that you need in just one roll: rice, ham/tuna/beef, and vegetables. Simply put, a roll of kimbap is equivalent to one meal. Therefore, for workers or students who don’t have time to step out the building for a lunch break can either purchase kimbap or make one for themselves before going to work so that they can save time. For these people, time is very valuable, which means the opportunity cost of going out to eat lunch is very high because they are giving up their time to work.

Finally, kimbap is a great way to minimize our explicit cost. On average, the total cost of purchasing all the ingredients used in making kimbap is about $10. From my own experience, these ingredients are enough to make 5 rolls of kimbap. One roll of kimbap is enough for an individual to be full. Assuming that one roll equals one meal, an average explicit cost of making a roll of kimbap is about $2. Of course, preparing and making kimbap requires time, an implicit cost. However, there is also an implicit cost of eating out because you need to leave your work to go to a cafeteria or a restaurant. When you make an order, you also have to wait for your food to come out, thereby even increasing your implicit cost of eating outside. The act of eating kimbap alone, however, has almost zero implicit cost: it is common to see people working or studying while eating kimbap with their hands. Moreover, the average price of a meal in Korea is about $8, which is about four times the price of a roll of kimbap ($8 / $2 = 4). Given these costs, it makes sense why people favor kimbap in their everyday life. The food is undoubtedly delicious, but at the same time, eating kimbap is an effective way to minimize both our explicit and implicit costs at workplace.

or Yes Another Blog Post About Movie/TV Stuff or TV’s Just Better With Some Blood, Swearing, and T&A

Let’s clear one thing up right away – I’m not counting The Bachelorette  or Breaking Amish as “good TV.” I don’t care how much you love them, I’m not counting them. So if shows like that are what you consider to be the “best shows” on TV, you’re probably going to hate this column. For everyone else . . .

Let’s take a quick look at some of the “quality” shows (and the scare quotes don’t mean that some of these shows aren’t flat-out amazing) that are airing right now, either currently on air or in-between seasons: Mad Men (AMC), Hannibal (NBC), The Good Wife (CBS), Louie (FX), 24 (FOX), Homeland (SHOWTIME) etc., etc.  Plus there’s shows like Breaking Bad, The West Wing, and The Shield that have finished their time on air. Not a bad bunch, right?

But now let’s glance over HBO’s current crop: Game of Thrones, True Detective, Boardwalk Empire, Girls, Veep, Silicon Valley, True Blood, and The Newsroom. And I’m probably missing something. And that’s without counting shows that have concluded their runs like The Sopranos, Deadwood, Oz, Six Feet Under, Eastbound and Down, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Generation Kill, Band of Brothers, and oh, that little thing called The Wire.

I’m not listing all the great (or even good) shows from the other networks, but the point I’m trying to make should be clear from that list: a huge number of the “best TV shows” are from HBO (and yes, I know “best” is subjective and all, but work with me here, willya?). Why is that? There’s a couple reasons this could be true (and some are even economics-related and not just based around my pro-creativity-in-movies/tv rants), but to do so, I’m gonna take a quick detour to explain (as best I can) how most TV works:

In Brief: A writer pitches a show to a Network (capitalized for a reason), either based on a concept or a script they’ve written. If the Network likes the pitch, they order a pilot, the first episode of a series. If the pilot turns out well (and sometimes even when it doesn’t, depending on who owes who a favor and other boardroom BS), the Network can order the show to series, that is, order more episodes (12 extra for a cable series, 21 extra for CBS/NBC/ABC/FOX basic network tv) to fill out a season. The Network then sells ad space for the show, and the more anticipated the show is (based on stars, pedigree, whatever), the more money they make off the add spaces. Once the show airs, people tune in to watch it, and the number of people that watch the first airing of an episode live is then registered as a show’s Nielsen Rating for the week. In normal people speak, the higher the rating, the more viewers, the more viewers, the more the Network can charge for ad space, and if the show is doing well, it gets to keep making episodes. Basically, as long as a show gets decent ratings, it can stay on air because it’s making money for the Network. This is true for most networks, such as the “Big Four” mentioned above, AMC, TMC, Comedy Central, TNT, USA, FX, etc.

HBO does not work like that.

HBO and channels like Showtime and Starz are subscriber-based, or premium channels, which means people pay their cable company extra to get those channels on their TV. HBO doesn’t have ads because it charges upfront for its services, and thus doesn’t need them (plus people are, in part, paying to not have ads play on HBO).

Still with me? Great. So what does this all have to do with HBO’s shows being, on average, better than everybody else’s? And how is that economics? Well this is the part where I tell you, since I know you all must be breathless with anticipation (and bear in mind that what I’m saying doesn’t mean great shows can’t appear on other networks; AMC is home to Breaking Bad and Mad Men after all). HBO’s shows are better because HBO the company doesn’t have to care about how many people watch them.

That sounds weird, I know. To clarify: yes, HBO cares about subscribers. More subscribers = more money, which is what HBO wants. So they do care about demand in that sense. But the actual number of people who watch a given show is totally irrelevant. Because people pay up front for the premium channel, it doesn’t affect HBO whether or not they make use of what they paid for. Money has already changed hands. And because there’s no ads on premium networks, they don’t care about how many people watch their shows live because they don’t need viewers to bring in advertisers to bring in money. AMC has to worry about how many people watch Mad Men every week – if ratings are slipping, they can’t make money off of it, and the budget for the show (its Average Total Cost (per episode)) might become larger than the money it makes off of ads each week (its Total Revenue). That’s why shows that, while good or even great TV, such as Awake, Firefly, Twin Peaks, etc. get cancelled – they just aren’t making money, because nobody’s really watching them. Because of this, most network shows have to play it safe (Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Hannibal being three recent exceptions to the rule). If they upset the status quo too much, audiences might not stick with them, and so they follow the rules. That’s why you see so may crime or medical dramas that are all pretty much the same on TV.

Not having to worry about viewers gives the showrunners of programs like Game of Thrones or True Detective the chance to take huge risks in their storytelling and approach to TV, and this, in many cases, pays off by creating better shows (HBO is also able to give them bigger budgets to play with, but that’s not the focus here). With potential viewers paying up front for the service, revenue is already taken care of. It also helps that because they’re on a premium channel, HBO’s programs aren’t regulated by the FCC, which allows them to tackle stories and content other shows simply aren’t allowed to (which is why Game of Thrones is currently the only place you can get your sexposition fix on TV). These two factors combine to create an absolute freedom of creation, allowing the writers and directors (and actors) at HBO to focus entirely on the art, and not necessarily on creating something that will entice people to tune in every week.

And it’s not like people don’t tune in: Game of Thrones pulls in a huge audience for a premium cable show; True Detective’s finale crashed HBO Go. It’s just that the viewership is incidental to the art. It’s not the goal, it’s the side effect.  And for a lot of these shows, this has resulted in increased audience demand – see the aforementioned about True Detective, note how Game of Thrones has only gotten more popular since its first season, hell, even Girls has had a cultural impact. The demand for HBO shows is high, but it’s that way because the shows are good, and they’re good because HBO’s business model allows them to take chances (HBO is also one of the best places to work as a creative, by all accounts).

I’m not saying that all HBO shows a great, some of them aren’t even that good (I’m looking at you Entourage). But HBO is the only place a show like Treme could exist. That show would have died in three episodes on a basic network, if it even got picked up. The Wire probably would’ve died there too. But because HBO is subscriber-based, shows like that can exist, even thrive. The Wire isn’t considered the best TV show of all time for nothing. That’s why the best shows are on HBO. Because advertisers don’t even come into it. Because HBO’s method of commerce, their economics, makes it about the art, not the product.

It’s all about making great TV.

In the study of psychology, there is a methodology called behaviorism, which concerns itself over the behavior of humans and animals and allows for behavior to be predicted, given certain conditions. This has a lot of functions in economics, as, after all, economics is essentially the study of how individuals, groups, and organizations behave when given scarce resources in a market. Indeed, in the field of behavioral economics, psychology and microeconomic theory are combined to study how decisions are made by economic agents. Economic theory, then, is the sum of a number of assumptions about human behavior in a market on a large scale and is inextricably linked to psychology. Yet, what are these fundamental assumptions and what are they based upon?

The first and most basic assumption that economics relies upon is that humans assign varying degrees of value to goods and service and thus desire things of higher value. Though this is not the case if you’re a monk who relinquishes all attachments, in general, humans are assumed to be desiring beings. The prime motivation for any human is first the fulfillment of its needs then the acquisition of objects of value. Economics refers to this as demand and has developed a model that explains varying degrees of value in indifference curves, measuring an object or services value in terms of utility. As desiring beings, humans want what they do not have and the more they have of something, the less it is valued, which is expressed by the concept of marginal utility.

The second assumption is that humans want to maximize their value while reducing their costs. If successful, this is called profit. However, in any economic transaction, both buyer and seller are trying to profit the most, and so a middleground is found where both profit equally, which in economics is called an equilibrium. Economics measures how much each side profited with consumer and producer surplus. This second assumption is extremely important to psychology, especially in the practice of conditioning. The goal of operant conditioning is to manipulate value and cost in order to influence behavior. Positive reinforcement represents giving a desired value, which can be seen as profit, while negative reinforcement represents the removal of something of negative value, which can be seen as the removal of a cost. Positive and negative punishment work in this same way, as they either introduce a cost or remove value.

One can view that the majority of human behavior, at least, in a Western capitalist culture, is the result of applied economic concepts. Though not a proponent of capitalism, Marx based his theories on the assumption that economics was the root of human behavior and society. The practical uses of economic thought are many, yet, they nonetheless rely on the assumption that humans are rational beings. Often, the difference between theory and reality is a result of the failing of this assumption. While there are many predictable elements to human behavior that economics keys in on, there are always rogue elements that prove theory wrong. One might refer to this rogue element as free will or perhaps is the result of one party making an uninformed decision that proves unprofitable. For example, in the ultimatum game where two players must split a dollar bill, 50:50 seems a logical equilibrium but one player can demand more of the share or else refuse to trade, which rewards neither player. If one player is forced into a situation where their opponent receives 99 and they receive 1, the penny matters little to them, so they can refuse the deal and give their opponent nothing simply out of spite, when theoretically they should take whatever value is offered.

It is important to note that the range of these probabilities is somewhat limited because every economic transaction represents an agreement of two parties acting in self-interest. This variability is modeled well by supply and demand curves, which show that, even at the highest price, there might be a consumer willing to pay much more than the good is worth at equilibrium. Even then, it is difficult to predict and control an economy when human behavior often defies theory. Thus, when the assumption that humans are rational beings proves to be false on a grand scale, the dire results, to name a few, include bankruptcy, economic crisis, recession, inflation, and so on.

Pokémon, a hand held video game made by Statoshi Tajiri in 1996 is about a character who explores the world training Pokémon and using them to battle against other trainers.  Today there are 6 generations of Pokémon games, 23 different core series games, and over 700 Pokémon, all of which I have loved playing.  I received my first game: Pokémon Blue, back in 1997, the year I also learned to read, after my mom got tired of staying up reading Pokémon to me all night.

Since those fateful days staying up with a flashlight under my covers, Pokémon has aged with me, like a fine wine. As it turns out, Pokémon is more complex than meets the eye, both in player-to-player interactions and in the main game. Now that I am older and have taken Micro Econ, I have recognized the presence of several monopolies in the Pokémon games.

So, lets take a look at the Pokémon economy.  In Pokémon, the player buys all of their goods either from individuals who sell specialty items like Lavaridge cookies or MooMoo milk, or from the Pokémart. Pokémarts are a strong example of a monopoly in the Pokémon games. In order to complete the game, one must buy Pokéballs in order to catch Pokémon, potions to heal them in battle, and other items, which increase the base stats of Pokémon. Since Pokéballs are directly necessary in order to beat the game, and items like potions are extremely helpful, the demand for these products is highly inelastic. Additionally, all of these products must be bought in Pokémarts scattered across the land. All of these Pokémarts maintain the same appearance and prices. We can assume, since all trainers must buy Pokéballs, and those who buy other items have a significant advantage, that the Pokémart monopolies can mark up prices significantly in order to maximize profits. We see this by comparing the products made in Pokémarts to other items available in game.

One interesting phenomenon in the Pokémon games is the relative prices and efficiencies of different healing items. For instance, the store bought item Potion costs 300 Poké-dollars to heal 20 hit points, whereas the Fresh Water item heals 50 hit points for only 200 Poké-dollars. So how does the Pokémart monopoly get away with this huge markup? Well firstly, Fresh Waters can only be bought at vending machines in specific locations in the game, whereas Pokémarts can be found in virtually every city in the game. Another reason is that they aren’t perfect substitutes for higher-level trainers. While Fresh Water offers the best Hit Points to Poké-dollar ratio, one of the main uses of healing items is in the heat of battle. This is where Fresh Water falls short. Fresh Water can only heal 50 hit points maximum, but Hyper Potions which cost 1200 Poké-dollars can heal for 200 hit points, albeit for a lower hit point-Poké-dollar ratio. However, for higher-level Pokémon, 50 hit points is an insignificant amount, especially when expecting a big attack.

Another way I have applied the concept of monopoly to the Pokémon games is in my player-to-player interactions. Sparing you all the nitty gritty details about Pokémon breeding let me tell you that it is very difficult to train Pokémon adequate for competitive battling and to breed just one would take days of work. I wanted to build a team of 6 Pokémon, but I knew I didn’t have enough time. This all happened towards the end of winter term and I realized that the opportunity cost of breeding Pokémon all day was a significant drop in my GPA. So, I came up with a strategy to create a monopoly on one type of competitively viable Pokémon, then to trade it for different Pokémon of the same worth. See, while it may take days to breed the first competitive Pokémon, the second and the third take only minutes afterwards. In a simplistic way, this is like the concept of an economy of scale, wherein the first unit is expensive to produce, while the next are less so, making this the perfect set up for a natural monopoly. In order to do this right, I needed to pick a Pokémon that is strong despite fluctuations in the metagame (or current dominant strategy). This meant that my product had inelastic demand, meaning I could demand stronger Pokémon in return for my trade. I also decided to pick a scarce Pokémon and give it a scarce move through a series of time consuming steps. This created a significant barrier for entry for others looking to breed similar Pokémon, giving me stronger monopoly power. All told, I was able to make a number of beneficial trades with others who had similar monopolies on different Pokémon. This illustrates the fact that by specializing and trading, each Pokémon master could save time but still make a powerful team in order to be the very best.

All told, Pokémon actually illustrates the concepts of monopoly fairly well, both in game and in player-to-player interactions. For those interested in the Pokémon I used to make a monopoly, it was jolly Lucario with the egg move bullet punch. Unfortunately, Lucario has since been banned to the über tier and so my monopoly power is mostly gone.

This past fall I spent six months studying abroad in Santiago, Chile. I lived with a Chilean host family, and was enrolled at a large private university in the city, the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (PUC). Once I adjusted to the shock of being constantly immersed in the Spanish language, I began to notice other cultural, rather than linguistic, differences between the U.S. and Chile. One difference that became jarringly clear was the fact that the university I was attending had no residential housing. Every building was either for academic, athletic, or dining purposes. Upon making this realization I questioned my host mom, Mary, as to why PUC didn’t provide housing, on-campus or otherwise. Mary, usually quick to answer any questions I had, paused, gave me a perplexed look, and responded, “Why would they?”

And so, I found out that residential housing is simply not offered by the majority of Chilean universities. Most students live at home during university and commute to campus daily. Those who end up attending universities far from home, a small minority, have to rent apartments near their university. Coming from Carleton, where some 75 students are permitted to live off-campus each year, the lack of college-provided housing was genuinely surprising to me. In many ways, however, it made sense. Living and eating at home is a lot cheaper than paying for room and board. Moreover, if the goal of college is to receive an education, why does that require anyone to live on-campus? By the end of my time in Chile, I found myself questioning the logic of the very system I had grew to love during my first two years at Carleton.

Nevertheless, there were certain aspects of the Chilean system that left me thoroughly relieved to be living on-campus this January when I returned to Carleton. Primary among them was the issue of commute time. Santiago is a large city, and my homestay was fairly far from my university. So, each morning I faced a three part commute: first a 10 minute walk to the bus stop, then a 15 minute wait/bus ride to the nearest metro station, and finally a 35 minute subway ride to campus. Time is money, and the opportunity cost (not to mention the actual cost of bus and metro tickets) of the two hours I spent commuting everyday was huge. Comparatively, the longest distance between two buildings at Carleton (the Weitz Center and the Rec Center) can be traversed, on foot, in less than 20 minutes.

Furthermore the American understanding of a college education tends to be more expansive than simply academic. There are certain lessons and experiences that a non-residential college can’t begin to offer. These experiences, many of which have to do with learning to live away from home, are hard to put a price on. Surely though, the cost of room and board at a university is worth the included benefit of gaining a sense of independence.