Glenn Jones studied several hundred menus in the United States, going back into the past. He made a remarkable discovery: there was a time when lobsters were so cheap that they were used as fertiliser! They were so abundant that they were fed to prisoners and children in orphanages. Servants deplored the fare, bargaining with their employers not to be served the crustacean more than twice a week.
Then lobsters became scarce, and their price began to rise. In 1870, a meal cost $4 (in today's money), but $30 dollars or more around 1970.
That's when the lobster became a prized delicacy, sought by the rich.
This is an excellent example of the failure of economic theory: economic theory predicts that the more expensive a product, the less people will consume it. When the supply of lobsters began to shrink, the price rose, and the product came to be in greater demand, pushing prices even further.
This observation was made a hundred years ago by Thorstein Veblen: he noticed that the rich engage in conspicuous consumption; they value things just because they are expensive (diamonds, for instance).
If you're still not convinced, consider the case of diamonds ('girl's best friend'): if diamonds were cheaper, more people would buy them, right? Wrong! Diamonds can be as cheap as glass, and hardly anyone would buy them then.
The only reason why diamond is not cheap as glass is because DeBeers, the cartel, hoards several billion dollars worth of diamonds in its vaults: it releases just enough to ensure that the price remains high – but not too high. Does that make sense? It certainly goes against economic theory: if diamond drops sufficiently low in price, nobody will buy diamonds!
It is the same case with gold: there is enough gold in the world's central bank vaults and the IMF's hoard to make gold as cheap as any metal. Then who would ever buy gold?
Still not convinced? Consider silver: at one time, it was very expensive; today it is cheap, and how many people crave silver?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment