Microeconomics paper sample
1. New type of auction
A few days ago, I heard a new type of auction method on the radio: a commodity You are required to bid within the range of 1 to 9999 yuan (the minimum number of digits is angle), and send the price to the radio station via text message. The radio station will select the lowest price without duplication among many bidding prices, and there will be no reserve price.
As we all know, the radio station does not expect to make a profit by selling the product. Instead, it uses the product as bait and takes advantage of people's luck in hoping to get the product at a low price to earn SMS fees. This auction method is different from the existing and widely used British, Dutch, first, and second sealed auction methods that encourage people to tell the truth. It is somewhat similar to "texting" that encourages people who hear the radio to not be lazy. Now let’s abstract and analyze the essence of this new type of auction.
An item allows you to bid arbitrarily within a larger price range, but the bidder must be an independent individual and not collude to send the price to the auctioneer. In fact, there is no advantage even in collusion, because the auctioneer chooses the price with no repetitions, rather than the price with the highest frequency, so there is no need to worry about conspiracy or collusion among the bidders, unless the bidders " "Energy" is very large, and can obtain the distribution of quoted prices in a short period of time, and send the lowest price that has not been quoted before the deadline, or it can restrict all other bidders and prevent their quotes from being repeated with his. Below his quote and without repeating the price. Obviously, these two situations are impossible for ordinary radio listeners. What's more, for a rational person, he will also weigh whether it is worth doing this for a product. It is better to go to the street and buy it himself. Come back and save yourself the trouble (if you really need to). Therefore, in the analysis model, bidders are independent individuals, and collusion between bidders does not need to be considered under this incentive mechanism. However, collusion between auctioneers and bidders cannot be ruled out and may exist, especially in the case of commodities. When the value is high (it is inevitable to miss a sentence here, when it comes to high value, it is easy for collusion between the auctioneer and the bidder to occur. A typical example is the BMW incident in Xi'an. Rational people are too rational. , it is inevitable to go to extremes, protect and amass one's own interests at all costs, let alone operate in violation of regulations and take desperate risks).
From a price point of view, first of all, a larger floating range gives people great temptation. Rational people always think in ways that are beneficial to themselves. A larger floating range means that the lower limit is very small. Low, which implies that they may get the product at a price that is lower than the actual price of the product, but is this really the case? Perhaps we should say that the results will be different depending on the price, but this difference will never produce a qualitative difference. If the product is priced at 100 yuan, then there are a total of 991 prices ranging from 100 yuan to 100 yuan. When the bidders have the mentality of taking advantage, then there will inevitably be no duplication when the number of listeners is less than 991. (In reality, which radio station has so few listeners, it should stop broadcasting). When the number of bidders exceeds 991, because the number of 991 is too small, the chance of repetition is too high. It depends on who is lucky enough to win. If the prices are all repeated, or simply lower than 100 yuan, then if an unlucky guy bids higher than the listed price and it is the lowest non-duplicated price, I can only congratulate him for "winning". It's a pity that he reported with a mischievous mentality. When I bid a price higher than the actual bid, I think: "I chose the lowest price anyway. My bid was higher than the bid, so it can't be me!" "Sorry, I'm waiting for people like you! I thought that others would bid The price is lower than the actual price, why don’t you use your brain to think about so many people, the chance of quoting a non-duplicate price is almost zero! It’s not you who should be unlucky! ” The seller originally didn't expect that he could still make a profit after the actual price was reported. Now he must be popping the champagne to celebrate and laughing at the thought of you. Don't tremble with anger! Secondly, why is it "the lowest price without repetition" instead of "the highest price"? From the seller's perspective, it seems that the highest price should be more advantageous. However, as I said before, sellers do not expect a big price difference. What they focus on is how to get more people to fall into this beautiful trap and send text messages willingly, and the "lowest price" statement is more helpful. They achieve this goal.
This statement seems to be from the perspective of the bidders, because in the subconscious mind of the bidders, the lucky ones among them will eventually get the goods at a price lower than the actual price, so the lowest price should make this price lower than and as far away as possible The actual bid price is to fully maximize the interests of the bidder; but "unfortunately", the product is often bought by the person who bids higher than the actual bid price. At this time, the so-called lowest price just makes the selling price higher than and close to the actual bid price. , this transaction will definitely suffer losses, there is no essential difference between big losses and small losses.
The pie will not fall from the sky. If it does fall, it will definitely not be a pie but a trap!
2. Warnings on the lawn
"It is strictly prohibited to trample on the grass" seems to have little deterrent effect in public places. Those who want to trample on it will still trample on it, but when it is changed, It became "Anyone caught trampling on the grass will be rewarded with 200 US dollars", and the grass was never trampled again. The difference is that the public is originally regarded as the target of supervision and potential punishment. People have more or less destructive desires. The more they are restrained and constrained, the more likely they are to violate the rules. This kind of warning will make managers and people The interests (whether they can trample on the lawn) are subconsciously opposed, making them conflicting and contradictory; after the warning was modified, the reward of 200 US dollars encouraged those who would not trample on the lawn to actively supervise, and restrained the original Those who have a tendency to trample should not trample on them. This is an effective way to solve the tragedy of fair land.
This reminds me that there are now a number of very humane warnings appearing in public places in China, such as "The grass is pitiful, don't bully her", "Fragrant grass... "Green, your heart is long", "For whom are the flowers blooming? I advise you not to pick them" and so on. In the past, what we said about the compatibility of incentives and constraints is to require that the mechanism established can make the interests of the motivating party and the constrained party consistent to the maximum extent, using the driving effect of interests on human behavior, and these humanized warnings It restrains people's behavior to a certain extent by stimulating people's morality, sympathy, and compassion. This can be regarded as an incentive mechanism full of humanity, and its benefits may be regarded as people's spiritual satisfaction.
The incentive mechanism must also keep pace with the times!
3. China’s stock market
I remember when the stock market craze started, I felt vaguely from my father’s words and media comments that stock trading was a matter of speculation and luck. You lose money today and you make money tomorrow, just to see who is lucky and lucky. It has little to do with rigorous market observation, detailed company performance analysis and careful choices. In the ups and downs of the stock market, there are those who get rich overnight, and there are those who lose everything. To sum up, if you want to make money through stock trading, you have to stop when the gains are good, accumulate a little, and add a bit of good luck.
Now I know that the stock market is supposed to be the place where company information is most concentrated and complete. Investors identify advantageous companies through the selection of information and invest in the company's stocks. After the company is running well, investors can Get investment income from it. According to this analysis, prudent investment should ensure profits without losing money (because no one would be stupid enough to throw money at a precarious company), but in reality, not only are there many people who lose money, but the stock market has also become a synonymous with speculation, which is the result of information asymmetry. Information asymmetry causes the deviation between stock prices and the operating performance of listed companies, causing the securities market to lose the market mechanism to evaluate the performance of listed companies and constrain the behavior of listed companies, leading to a reduction in the quality of listed companies in the entire market, and becoming the main source of excessive speculation in the market . In addition to concealing and not reporting this kind of information asymmetry, there are also financial companies making false accounts! It seriously misled investors' investment tendencies. The collapse of the Enron Building crushed the investment dreams of many families! There is also a saying in China that the beautiful scenery in Yinguangxia is just a fictitious thing.
Being helpless and disappointed, I can only pray that the bubble and mist of the stock market will dissipate soon!
4. The Dilemma of Chongqing Hot Pot
At the beginning of 2004, the issue of Chongqing hot pot base mixed with paraffin was once a hot topic. Major cities across the country, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Guangzhou and other places, have implemented a comprehensive ban on hot pot base ingredients produced in Chongqing, and ordered shops named "Chongqing Hot Pot" to close for rectification, causing huge damage to Chongqing's hot pot industry. As we all know, paraffin is a chemical substance that is extremely harmful to the human body.
Some small factories in Chongqing are greedy for immediate profits and use paraffin instead of butter. While they are seeking huge profits, they are destroying the century-old foundation of Chongqing hot pot!
Chongqing hot pot is famous far and wide, but it is very unclear which restaurant or restaurants are famous. We outsiders only know the four words "Chongqing hot pot". After manufacturers and store owners who value quality and reputation use the brand "Chongqing Hotpot" to build a reputation, criminals see profits and opportunities, so they also use this golden sign. If things go on like this, it will lead to a mixed situation. This is probably what is often called the "tragedy of fair land" in economics. Signboards are publicly owned by everyone, while factories and shops belong to different owners; signboards are publicly owned and no one needs to be responsible for them, while factory output and store sales are privately owned by individuals. The more you have, the higher your income will naturally be. .
This problem is expressed in the form of game theory below: Suppose there are two hot pot base restaurants, and they can choose to produce more or less. If both parties choose to produce less and the brand is protected, then everyone will gain the most. If one party chooses to produce more and the other party chooses to produce less, the economic benefits of the person who produces more will increase significantly. But if everyone produces more, the signboard will be destroyed and everyone’s income will be reduced. Manufacturers aim to maximize profits, and the result of the game is that everyone produces more. The result is that overall benefits cannot be optimized.
We can imagine two ways to change the results: First, outsiders take coercive measures to change the benefits of the game. For example, the government sets production quotas. Of course, this method may cause a loss of efficiency, the cost of government supervision will also be considerable, and it may also bring about power rent-seeking and other drawbacks. The second is to use the principle of defining property rights to clarify rights and obligations and promote the effective use of public resources ("Chongqing Hot Pot"). With clear property rights, each manufacturer will consider in the long term, which will help improve the efficiency of the use of corporate resources, thereby solving externality problems.
Problems, in a sense, are not entirely bad. It helps us face up to our own shortcomings and helps manufacturers and shop owners find solutions. This should be the key. .