I have long made the point that economic value is not GDP – not even in theory. You don’t have to step outside of economics to see this. Its right there in Econ 101.




Two markets. Same contribution to GDP. Very different Consumer Surpluses and hence very different economic values.
The George Mason lunch group asks
What non-subsidized common products and services do you think have the highest average consumer surplus? Cell phones? Shampoo? Antibiotics? Just wondering.
Tyler responds with
Obviously it depends what margin you are at; for many people antibiotics or pharmaceuticals mean the difference for life or death but right now they do not for me. And surely we cannot answer with “all food” or “all water.”
So I am not sure what he means by the margin here. I thought the question was asking if we add up the total consumer surplus and then divide by the number of consumers which market has the biggest number. This is inherently an average based stat. But, anyway.
I do think potable water would rank pretty high though in general it is subsidized. If the we think about the alternative of getting your water through household production then I am pretty sure people would be willing to trade away much of their endowment – the wealth, talent and physical labor power they were born with – in order to get market supplied water.
Food probably not as much, actually.
My “non-necessity” answer though is pretty conventional: internet content. Not access. Content. Most people pay nothing for it. However, if there was a scheme that eliminated transactions costs but nonetheless charged for everything you watch, listened to or read online, I am guessing it would fetch a hefty fraction of most families income.

9 comments
Comments feed for this article
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Johnnie Linn
The revenue rectangles under the curves are the goods’ contributions to nominal GDP. In the aggregate, there will be only one curve, the aggregate demand curve, and if velocity and supply of money are constant, it will have unit elasticity at equilibrium GDP, so with a linear approximation of aggregate demand at that point, nominal consumer surplus will be one-half of nominal GDP.
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Karl Smith
Its not clear to me that consumer surplus in AD-AS makes sense because “price” is not in reference to some numeraire good but simply the overall price index.
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Johnnie Linn
Thanks for your reply.
I think that “price” will make sense at least for the short-run aggregate supply curve, which assumes a fixed nominal wage. If labor supply were not leisure-sensitive, all workers would show up at any positive wage and either no workers or all workers would be hired, depending on the “price” of output. But since labor is leisure sensitive, the workaholic workers would show up first in line. If workers have a normal distribution in their preference for leisure, and if hired, must work a full 40-hour workweek, the aggregate supply curve will have a symmetrical ogive, or Z-shape. Incidentally, in that case, the producer surplus will be one-half of GDP, and if the “consumer surplus” under dispute is the other half, total surplus and nominal GDP would be equal.
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
jazzbumpa
I’m guessing they’d pay about what they pay for cable TV, not a hefty fraction of income.
Many people are too constrained now to pay a hefty fraction for anything that isn’t a necessity.
Oh, but interweb is a necessity. Hmmmmm.
Cheers!
JzB
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
dWj
Consumer surplus for “all food” is essentially infinite, in a way that “all food except for beans and some source of vitamin C” may not be. On the other hand, consumer surplus for “beans and some source of vitamin C” isn’t especially high. GDP is additive, but consumer surplus very much is not. I assume that’s what Tyler means about margins.
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Karl Smith
No because there is household production of food.
You don’t have to buy food to eat.
Monday ~ September 20th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Johnnie Linn
One-fiftieth of food-production is in-household. The rest generates consumer surplus. If all GDP is food, it is unit elastic because expenditures on food is invariant.
Thursday ~ October 21st, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Yglesias » The Consumer Surplus Era
[...] seems like a good time to trot out Karl Smith’s handy demonstration of the difference between a given sector’s contribution to GDP and its sector to consumer [...]
Thursday ~ October 21st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
bdbd
so perfect price discrimination increases a sector’s contribution to GDP?