here's the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/12/mexico.slim.ap/index.html
Carlos Slim, the world's 3rd richest--and gaining--man, is a perfect example of the wealth disparity in Mexico. Slim currently owns a monopoly in the telephone market. His company, Telemex, is the largest mobile phone company in Mexico. And he has branched his empire out to cover banking, brokerage, internet services, insurance, retail stores, etc. While Slim's good business sense and economics have payed off for him, it is very much at the expense of those who are forced to use his company(s). Because Slim has a monopoly on mobile phones, he can, and does, charge very high prices. The Mexican governemnt has tried to break up monopolies, but so far have had no luck.
In a country where the majority of people live on less than two dollars a day, i find it disturbing that Slim could post profits of $19 billion. it makes me very, very thankful for the legislation and general attitude opposing monopolies here in the US. Though many of the services in the United States are privitized, they are not, in general, monopolized, and that in large part is why we enjoy the relatively cheap prices that we do. It looks like the Mexican governement really needs to impose a price ceiling on mobile phone service, among other things.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Does bigger mean safer?
the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/02/28/motoring.safety/index.html
this article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of driving an SUV. recently SUVs have been getting a bad rap as flashy, gas-guzzling, road hogs--which, they may indeed be--but they are also generally considered less safe in accidents, as they have been proven to roll easily. this article brings to light new data from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an independent group that has been working to improve traffic safety for over 35 years, and other road data from the UK that big vehicles may actually be safer. one study showed that drivers of SUVs are five times less likely to hit a crash barrier.
i, personally, dislike SUVs immensely. however, looking at the article from an economic standpoint, i had a few questions:
1. will this article/these studies improve consumers' confidence in SUVs enough to affect the demand curve at all? or will the previous reports of their poor performance outweigh this study?
2. how does this affect the opportunity cost of purchasing an SUV?
3. ok, this doesn't relate to econ, but would you rather roll your SUV or crash your car?
and 4. how much more pollution, as an externality, is produced as SUV, and therefore gas, consumption goes up?
in answer to my own questions:
1. it depends on how many people read this article and what their previous experience with SUVs has been. and, as it is from an English publication and deals with data from English groups, it is more likely to influence the brits.
2. the opportunity cost goes down in the sense that buying an SUV means there is lass of a potential to be seriously injured in a car accident, which is not only painful but expensive. on the other hand, the opportunity cost goes up because you have to buy more gas.
3. i'd rather crash my car. i'm claustrophobic and the idea of the ceiling collapsing is not a pleasant one.
4. the externalities will have to increase. not only do SUVs use more gas, they also use more steel to make. in order to get the steel, as or coal must be used, releasing more pollution, etc.
anyone have anything to add/dispute?
this article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of driving an SUV. recently SUVs have been getting a bad rap as flashy, gas-guzzling, road hogs--which, they may indeed be--but they are also generally considered less safe in accidents, as they have been proven to roll easily. this article brings to light new data from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an independent group that has been working to improve traffic safety for over 35 years, and other road data from the UK that big vehicles may actually be safer. one study showed that drivers of SUVs are five times less likely to hit a crash barrier.
i, personally, dislike SUVs immensely. however, looking at the article from an economic standpoint, i had a few questions:
1. will this article/these studies improve consumers' confidence in SUVs enough to affect the demand curve at all? or will the previous reports of their poor performance outweigh this study?
2. how does this affect the opportunity cost of purchasing an SUV?
3. ok, this doesn't relate to econ, but would you rather roll your SUV or crash your car?
and 4. how much more pollution, as an externality, is produced as SUV, and therefore gas, consumption goes up?
in answer to my own questions:
1. it depends on how many people read this article and what their previous experience with SUVs has been. and, as it is from an English publication and deals with data from English groups, it is more likely to influence the brits.
2. the opportunity cost goes down in the sense that buying an SUV means there is lass of a potential to be seriously injured in a car accident, which is not only painful but expensive. on the other hand, the opportunity cost goes up because you have to buy more gas.
3. i'd rather crash my car. i'm claustrophobic and the idea of the ceiling collapsing is not a pleasant one.
4. the externalities will have to increase. not only do SUVs use more gas, they also use more steel to make. in order to get the steel, as or coal must be used, releasing more pollution, etc.
anyone have anything to add/dispute?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)