Article #2

Article #1

The article Chicago's cigarette tax could approach New York's (by Megan Hickey) focused on the possibility of Chicago increasing taxes on cigarettes. There are several underlying reasons for the proposal; one being a $298 million budget shortage, the other to increase awareness of smoking for health purposes. Chicago already has the second highest tax on cigarettes in the US, the average cost for a pack being $10.25, after New York at $12.50. The total combined tax amount is $5.67 which is made up of a federal tax of $1.01, Cook County tax of $2, Illinois tax of $1.98 and a government tax of $0.68. The possibility of increasing this tax would lead to less consumption of the product, less revenue for tobacco companies and more deadweight loss for consumers and producers. However the Chicagoan government believes that the health benefits gained from less tobacco consumption are far greater than that of cost. To continue this tax hike (continued increase in the tax of cigarettes) would continue the trend of declining tobacco consumption and could decrease the youth in smoking by 7.2%. Not only would the state receive health benefits but the government would be able to increase their revenue through this tax hike.

The article Supply, Not Demand, to Blame for Pullback in May Home Sales addressed the issue of a lack of supply being the cause for the recent decline in house sales. In May, 1.5% of sales had fallen and the decline of properties is usually associated with the lack of demand. However recently, demand has been exceeding supply. A lack of supply leads to a left shift of a supply curve (price of houses and supply of properties) as there is a decrease in supply. The determinant of this shift is caused by productivity. Productivity is the input vs. the output; firms wish to minimize input to gain the greatest output. In this case, productivity has decreased as the input is not being met to meet the maximum output therefore leading to a lack of supply. It also relates to the basic economic problem of scarcity and that the resource (houses) is scarcer than before which affects the production therefor the supply of the good. However economists predict an increase in the supply of goods, despite these recent developments. Perhaps this lack of supply, this left shift of the supply curve was caused by a supply shock.

The article Catfish Farmers Fight Fish Glut and High Fee Prices centered on the left shift in demand for catfish. There has been a steady decline in the demand for catfish in the last decade, causing its demand curve to keep shifting left. Last year, the supply of catfish was low which in turn led to higher prices (due to its scarcity). These higher prices led people to substitute (determinant of demand) catfish with other goods such as inexpensive imports or similar species of fish. The catfish industry has not been able to recover. This year (2012) the supply of catfish has managed to surpass the demand. The high supply led to cheaper catfish costs this year, which in theory should have led to more demand, however people seem to be sticking with their substitutes despite the price change. The feed prices for catfish (feed being a factor of production) are at an all-time high which is causing farmers to suffer; with high costs of production and low prices, they are receiving little profit. With the whole industry suffering, the government has decided to purchase 10 million dollars' worth of catfish hoping to act as a positive determinant of demand (trying to shift the demand curve to the right). This has not had a great effect on the catfish industry and people are starting to question its value; whether people are willing to buy catfish. The declining of this industry has already led to many catfish ponds being replaced with new crops.

This article was about the decrease in demand for catfish due to substitution and a change in taste and preferences by consumers. This has caused the demand curve to shift to the left. Because it has shifted left, the price of catfish has decreased therefore signaling that catfish is not as scarce as it used to be and its value has decreased. How have consumer incentives been impacted by this? Because the price has decreased and the good has become less valuable, people would be more inclined to buy it due to the lowered price. How would producers be impacted by this? As demand has decreased the price has decreased, and the lower the price the lower the quantities of goods firms are willing to supply. Therefore the supply of catfish will decrease. This demand shift will have a negative effect on substitute markets as consumers may find the price of catfish cheaper which may lead them to switch from their product to catfish. Lastly, how will this impact resource allocation? As there is a decrease of demand, therefore a decrease in supply, less resources will be used for the catfish industry and invested in other more profitable markets.