Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

The answer to the Economics problem

Posted by alan k on 1/23/02 at 08:56 (070957)

The answer is yes and no. Elliot is all wrong in his reasoning, and I will explain why, but he might be right in his intent, and I'll explain.

A seller is often interested in their bottom line: the total amount of profit they make, not the amount they make on any single item, but the profit on entire sales over a period of time. The volume of sales will often increase with lowered prices. Some people may really want to eat Elliot's special apple and tartar sauce sandwiches, but at $3 many of them ultimately decide not to. But at $2, it turns out that a whole lot find that reasonable and take the plunge.

So, let's say your cost on an item is $1 and you sell it for $3, making $2 a pop. You sell 10 units a month at $3, resulting in $20 profit per month.

If you lower the retail price, but sales increase, you are making more with a lower retail price, even if there is no competition and you are not buying materials in more bulk (also a factor though, as was pointed out). Now the price is $2, with $1 profit per pop. But because you are now selling 30 units a month, your total profit is $30 rather than $20, even though your profit per unit is cut in half!

This is especially the case with iffy items, like a balm, where-- let's face it-- it is rather hard to believe it can work. The marketer understands this and had to do free trials because who is going to believe enough to shell out $30 for a cream? Only john h would do that, which means you only sell one unit. Free trials, plus a reduced price, can help to increase the volume of sales, which will increase profits.

So in this case, the marketer is doing what any rational business person would and would have to do. Those that are very grateful to the marketer should also understand the business motivation.

Adam Smith understood all this about pricing, by the way. So Elliot is absolutely wrong in one sense, but in another it is reasonable to doubt the motives of the marketer. The marketer says increased sales allow him to offer a lower price. Is he suggesting that all he wants is for everyone to be happy and he would pass it out free if he could? I don't think the wording of his post clearly shows anything either way. Nevertheless, a simple understanding of margins in economics shows that he actually can profit more from the lowered price.

It is this discrepency that is potentially suspicious. Why not say, 'Hey folks, I figured out that I can make more money off of you, and you can get my product cheaper at the same time! Isn't that great, we all win!'

Well one answer to that may be that the marketer really does care, really does believe in his product, and really does want many people to get better. Such people do exist in the world. At the same time they are human: they need to make a profit on their activities because they are not multi-millionaires who can pass out things for free.

What we need to do here is consider both possibilities simultaneously: that of good intentions and of self-interest (and what's wrong with self-interest anyway?). Some may be more skeptical like Elliot, and some are willing to consider a bigger moral picture. The board on the whole will have a balance then. There is nothing wrong with the discussions here, in my opinion.

Also, the marketers need to take a good look at themselves and sort out their own motivations honestly. Marketers who fib a little-- to themselves and to others-- might find that the actual truth is not so bad really.

alan k
marketer of Acu-Flex

Re: Elliott's all wrong; that's all that matters :-)

elliott on 1/23/02 at 10:23 (070965)

But saying so doesn't mean it's true, and I disagree.

You make it sound like this is a multimillion dollar corporation that figured out how to maximize its profits by hiring the right number of oompa-loompas. We're talking about Jade. Tubes, labels, and secret ingredients. I'm well aware that it is possible at times to sell more items for cheaper and come out ahead. I alluded to that in my post. But that's not what's going on here.

I think you and the others are not getting straight what came first. You yourself talk about no one buying it at a certain price. Then the price is lowered and ONLY THEN is demand increased, and then profits increase. Dr. R didn't say increased sales allowed him to lower the price. He said increased demand did. This may be farfetched for some of you, but maybe, just maybe, not enough people were buying at $29.95. The price was lowered to $19.95. More people started to buy. So it was decreased demand that lowered the price. Then and only then, demand increases and profits are more reasonable. Is that a scenario just for skeptics? If you think that scenario is no more likely than one where all of a sudden, masses began buying Jade and then it is decided to lower the price to generate yet more profits, well, I give up.

---

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

john h on 1/23/02 at 11:02 (070973)

Alan: at last an economist appears. that was my major in college but I profess no special knowledge. you have knowledge because you lived in the world of selling a product. economics of course is not a science and world class economist can often differ even today. this debate could be endless but we have gotten away from what is important and that is does Jade help or not? Dr Reynolds motives, economics, are all irrevelant in the battle against PF. We are swating at mosquitoes while the tiger is carrying us away.

Re: Elliott's all wrong; that's all that matters :-)

Nancy N on 1/23/02 at 17:11 (071022)

Elliott--

I don't think I have ever discussed anything with you on the board--could be wrong about that, but if I did, it doesn't come to mind. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that I am one of those people who you think don't like you, but to be honest, I don't have any feeling about you one way or another (though I have to say that I agree with Wendy's post to you today--I can see why people might get upset with the way you say something, rather than what you're actually saying. That's a very important distinction, in my book). And for the record, while I'm hoping that the smiley in your subject means you're not taking this too seriously, I honestly can't tell from your actual post. But I digress.

Like I said, I am eminently unqualified to argue economics. But I would like to point out one small possibility. You keep saying that increased sales could allow you to lower your price, but increased demand could not. Might it not be the case that this is a simple matter of semantics? That Dr. Reynolds, who I am guessing is also not an economist, might have used the wrong word when describing the price change? I certainly might have done such a thing, since I wouldn't naturally understand the difference.

It really might be that simple, it seems to me, and make the Econ101 lesson interesting, but somewhat less than relevant.

Just a thought.

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

Carole C on 1/23/02 at 18:35 (071033)

You are just too too modest, John! But you have a point about the tiger. :)

Carole C

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

BG CPed on 1/23/02 at 19:11 (071040)

Other factors to consider

The 80-20 rule

If costs go up to meet increased demand i.e. more people want the new loco chiahua taco. To meet the demand you offer a coupon. Many more people come in for the deal. It also increases your demand. In most products increased demand goes hand in hand with increased costs i.e. more employess to fill orders require more wages, time, benefits etc. Also have increased use of utilities and other equip. Not to say that you make less with more but there are things that influence it

Another aspect is perceived or real value. If an item is too cheap it creates a negative in some cases. If you had a Dr Scholl device for $2.99 at a flea market being sold by a guy with a bullhorn vs the same device being sold by a guy in a lab coat at a clinic for $29 most folks would perceive the $29 product to be of greater value.

We have all heard of somebody say wow that guy paid $25,000 for that watch. It may be ugly as sin and not very functional but the value perceived by the buyer would be that it costs alot and is flashy. A runner may buy an ironman watch for $100 based on the fact it has many functions and is utilitarian. The $25,000 watch guy may think he looks stupid wearing an ironman watch and that it should only cost $29.95

That was good went from demand to perceived value and pricing. I hope I further confused this thread

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

paula on 1/23/02 at 19:20 (071045)

it really depends on a lot of factors .a company might raise the price or lower it for an item ...and demand might factor in for either or those options depending on other things. it is not cut and dried. and it is very possible that more demand can lower an item's price in some cases. but what difference does this subject make to this baord at this point?

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

wendyn on 1/23/02 at 23:22 (071075)

I took Economics. Liked it, got an A - but that was a long time ago. You guys have lost me.

I still think that the world wide population of fertile emu factors in somewhere.

It always does.

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

Julie on 1/24/02 at 02:59 (071080)

My Economics 101 professor in 1953 was a left-of-centre New Deal economist. He ran a stimulating course, most of which went over my head and disappeared from view, but all these years I've remembered him telling us 'The system runs on faith'.

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

nancy s. on 1/24/02 at 05:23 (071085)

julie, your economics course 'went over your head and disappeared from view'? thank you for my first laugh of the day!
nancy

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

Julie on 1/24/02 at 08:14 (071094)

That's a pleasure, dear Nancy. I hope you get many more laughs today and every day.

Re: Elliott's all wrong; that's all that matters :-)

alan k on 1/24/02 at 08:23 (071096)

Maybe you should calm down elliot and see that what you said in your post just now is not different than what I said in mine. So I'm glad we agree.
Sorry if this comes while you are still licking your wounds. Double :-) :-) to you.

Also sorry to those who don't want to see people discuss economic questions. I'll stop now.

best wishes, alan k

Re: Elliott's all xxxxx; that's all that matters :-)

elliott on 1/24/02 at 11:11 (071122)

OK, let's assume he meant increased sales. Maybe you can tell me how increased sales leads to a decrease in price. It is not easy without introducing new variables not implicit in Dr. R's statement. Everyone here keeps saying, 'hey, I know a lot of cases where it's possible to do better selling more at a lower price than less at a higher price'. Yes, yes, yes, but what does that have to do with increased sales (or demand) leading to it? Even without increased sales, he can lower his price and do better. Get it? This is not a semantics trick, and you don't have to be an economist to understand it.

I'll take a stab at how increased sales can lead to a decrease in price. It involves the big C-word, competition (or the threat of it). Company A's product (call it Jade1) takes off. Company B notices and decides it too can manufacture a similar item (call it Jade2) and to cut into the market, sells it at a lower price. The price of Jade1 then comes down (competition). A similar example is where Company A comes out with Jade1, an exclusive product. It waits till it gets enough cash from sales at the higher price to pay off its startup costs and then lowers its price to ward off potential competitors, even if that means less profit in the short term. Or it buys in bulk or builds a bigger, more efficient factory, and passes on some of the savings to reduce competition or the threat of it. If you or another have examples of how increased sales leads to a price reduction not involving competition (or the threat of it) or generosity, please list them. Preferably, let them be reasonable in the context of Jade as we know it. Note: there are several general economics examples (e.g. boutique value of a product) already on the board, but this is specifically about increased sales leading to a price decrease.

I remarked before that competition is likely not playing much of a role in Jade; I hope that's not being contested here too. And even if that were the driving factor, Dr. R's words would be misleading, for he said it was increased demand for Jade that enabled a price decrease. More accurate would be to say that competition forced a price decrease.

Again, you have an economic model, and introduce an increase in demand. If anything, the price should go up, not down (until the Big C moves in). That is classic economics and intuitively obvious, certainly not all wrong. So far, I've heard 'Elliott's all wrong', 'selective analysis', and irrelevant examples. I know it's unpopular, but how about one 'gee, maybe Elliott's right [if he wouldn't be so obnoxious about it]'. Brackets optional.

Re: maybe you can explain to the board...

elliott on 1/24/02 at 11:20 (071123)

why you prominently started another thread at the top instead of responding inside the original thread, which at the time was still pretty close to the top. And was 'Elliott's all wrong' really necessary for the argument? Where's wendyn when I need her? And at least if you say it, be sure it's true. Cuz you'll look funny if turns out 'Elliott's all wrong' is wrong.

---

Re: maybe you can explain to the board...

alan k on 1/24/02 at 12:42 (071131)

I think I'll opt out at this point. Thank you and have a nice day.

Re: Maybe Elliott's right (but a kinder, gentler approach might help!):-)

Suzanne D on 1/24/02 at 20:08 (071176)

I had time tonight to read all the Economics discussions and must say that I have learned more than I did in my college class on that subject! (I mostly had good teachers throughout my education, but this one was an exception.) Thank you for all who offered their opinions and understanding! I have learned from everyone and you all made good points. I know nothing of Dr. R - not having been on the site when he arrived - and have no opinions about that. I will be like John H. and give everyone the benefit of the doubt! I wish anyone luck with Jade Balm and am thinking of ordering some myself just to see!

Elliott's economics discussions did make good sense to me. As a teacher, I'll give you an A, Elliott, in economics and just want you to work a little on delivery! A somewhat kinder, gentler approach might keep minds more open. My mama used to say, 'You can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar!' :-)

Best wishes to everyone!

Re: or, ...

Carole C on 1/24/02 at 20:52 (071180)

I agree with you completely, Suzanne. Yet we all know how bad tempered pain can make us. At one point I posted some pretty short tempered, sarcastic posts here too, due to the pain I was suffering at the time. I can't remember who they were aimed at but it might have been one of the Nancy's. Pain can really distort our delivery and render it much more acidic or 'vinegary' than it would normally be!

I think that Elliot has been in a lot of pain lately, due to his back as well as any foot problems. Even though he's male, and a bit of a smart-aleck sometimes, I think he's a teddy bear at heart and just hurting and irritable sometimes, like we all are from time to time here. Elliott, if you are reading this I hope you don't take it as condescending but simply as an acceptance of the situation and some faith in you.

Carole C

Re: but...

Carole C on 1/24/02 at 20:55 (071181)

But, if you're not hurting a lot, Elliott, then double ditto to Suzanne's post! (grin)

Carole C

Re: Elliott

wendyn on 1/24/02 at 22:23 (071189)

You don't NEED me Elliott - but if you want to talk to me you always know where to find me.

You folks lost me on this Economics discussion a long time ago.

Re: of course!

Suzanne D on 1/25/02 at 06:51 (071209)

Yes, I certainly agree with you, Carole! And I in no way meant anything disparaging to Elliott - pain or no pain. I just think he has so much to offer but sometimes all that information and insight can get 'lost' when it is delivered in a way which may put off people. But I hasten to add that I am not his judge; just 'jumped into' the discussion with my thoughts and to also say that he DID make sense with the economics thing...

But, again, I probably should stick to the social board. Our first grade economics consists pretty much of 'No, you cannot buy that penguin folder at the bookstore because then you won't have enough for lunch!...Yes I know there are a lot of 'monies' there, but let's count them, and you'll see that you only have enough for lunch...No. thank you...that's nice of you, but you cannot give some of your monies to him. Your mama sent it for YOUR lunch...Yes, I have said to share, but not with money...' :-)

Re: of course!

Carole C on 1/25/02 at 07:31 (071211)

LOL! Suzanne, my understanding of economics is right on a level with your first graders. Bigger scale economics just doesn't seem to be part of my daily life.

Carole C

Re: Elliott

JudyS on 1/25/02 at 11:40 (071253)

Ditto that, Wendy! This week's Econ discussion was just as scary as it was in college!

Re: Elliott's all wrong; that's all that matters :-)

elliott on 1/23/02 at 10:23 (070965)

But saying so doesn't mean it's true, and I disagree.

You make it sound like this is a multimillion dollar corporation that figured out how to maximize its profits by hiring the right number of oompa-loompas. We're talking about Jade. Tubes, labels, and secret ingredients. I'm well aware that it is possible at times to sell more items for cheaper and come out ahead. I alluded to that in my post. But that's not what's going on here.

I think you and the others are not getting straight what came first. You yourself talk about no one buying it at a certain price. Then the price is lowered and ONLY THEN is demand increased, and then profits increase. Dr. R didn't say increased sales allowed him to lower the price. He said increased demand did. This may be farfetched for some of you, but maybe, just maybe, not enough people were buying at $29.95. The price was lowered to $19.95. More people started to buy. So it was decreased demand that lowered the price. Then and only then, demand increases and profits are more reasonable. Is that a scenario just for skeptics? If you think that scenario is no more likely than one where all of a sudden, masses began buying Jade and then it is decided to lower the price to generate yet more profits, well, I give up.

---

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

john h on 1/23/02 at 11:02 (070973)

Alan: at last an economist appears. that was my major in college but I profess no special knowledge. you have knowledge because you lived in the world of selling a product. economics of course is not a science and world class economist can often differ even today. this debate could be endless but we have gotten away from what is important and that is does Jade help or not? Dr Reynolds motives, economics, are all irrevelant in the battle against PF. We are swating at mosquitoes while the tiger is carrying us away.

Re: Elliott's all wrong; that's all that matters :-)

Nancy N on 1/23/02 at 17:11 (071022)

Elliott--

I don't think I have ever discussed anything with you on the board--could be wrong about that, but if I did, it doesn't come to mind. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that I am one of those people who you think don't like you, but to be honest, I don't have any feeling about you one way or another (though I have to say that I agree with Wendy's post to you today--I can see why people might get upset with the way you say something, rather than what you're actually saying. That's a very important distinction, in my book). And for the record, while I'm hoping that the smiley in your subject means you're not taking this too seriously, I honestly can't tell from your actual post. But I digress.

Like I said, I am eminently unqualified to argue economics. But I would like to point out one small possibility. You keep saying that increased sales could allow you to lower your price, but increased demand could not. Might it not be the case that this is a simple matter of semantics? That Dr. Reynolds, who I am guessing is also not an economist, might have used the wrong word when describing the price change? I certainly might have done such a thing, since I wouldn't naturally understand the difference.

It really might be that simple, it seems to me, and make the Econ101 lesson interesting, but somewhat less than relevant.

Just a thought.

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

Carole C on 1/23/02 at 18:35 (071033)

You are just too too modest, John! But you have a point about the tiger. :)

Carole C

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

BG CPed on 1/23/02 at 19:11 (071040)

Other factors to consider

The 80-20 rule

If costs go up to meet increased demand i.e. more people want the new loco chiahua taco. To meet the demand you offer a coupon. Many more people come in for the deal. It also increases your demand. In most products increased demand goes hand in hand with increased costs i.e. more employess to fill orders require more wages, time, benefits etc. Also have increased use of utilities and other equip. Not to say that you make less with more but there are things that influence it

Another aspect is perceived or real value. If an item is too cheap it creates a negative in some cases. If you had a Dr Scholl device for $2.99 at a flea market being sold by a guy with a bullhorn vs the same device being sold by a guy in a lab coat at a clinic for $29 most folks would perceive the $29 product to be of greater value.

We have all heard of somebody say wow that guy paid $25,000 for that watch. It may be ugly as sin and not very functional but the value perceived by the buyer would be that it costs alot and is flashy. A runner may buy an ironman watch for $100 based on the fact it has many functions and is utilitarian. The $25,000 watch guy may think he looks stupid wearing an ironman watch and that it should only cost $29.95

That was good went from demand to perceived value and pricing. I hope I further confused this thread

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

paula on 1/23/02 at 19:20 (071045)

it really depends on a lot of factors .a company might raise the price or lower it for an item ...and demand might factor in for either or those options depending on other things. it is not cut and dried. and it is very possible that more demand can lower an item's price in some cases. but what difference does this subject make to this baord at this point?

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

wendyn on 1/23/02 at 23:22 (071075)

I took Economics. Liked it, got an A - but that was a long time ago. You guys have lost me.

I still think that the world wide population of fertile emu factors in somewhere.

It always does.

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

Julie on 1/24/02 at 02:59 (071080)

My Economics 101 professor in 1953 was a left-of-centre New Deal economist. He ran a stimulating course, most of which went over my head and disappeared from view, but all these years I've remembered him telling us 'The system runs on faith'.

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

nancy s. on 1/24/02 at 05:23 (071085)

julie, your economics course 'went over your head and disappeared from view'? thank you for my first laugh of the day!
nancy

Re: The answer to the Economics problem

Julie on 1/24/02 at 08:14 (071094)

That's a pleasure, dear Nancy. I hope you get many more laughs today and every day.

Re: Elliott's all wrong; that's all that matters :-)

alan k on 1/24/02 at 08:23 (071096)

Maybe you should calm down elliot and see that what you said in your post just now is not different than what I said in mine. So I'm glad we agree.
Sorry if this comes while you are still licking your wounds. Double :-) :-) to you.

Also sorry to those who don't want to see people discuss economic questions. I'll stop now.

best wishes, alan k

Re: Elliott's all xxxxx; that's all that matters :-)

elliott on 1/24/02 at 11:11 (071122)

OK, let's assume he meant increased sales. Maybe you can tell me how increased sales leads to a decrease in price. It is not easy without introducing new variables not implicit in Dr. R's statement. Everyone here keeps saying, 'hey, I know a lot of cases where it's possible to do better selling more at a lower price than less at a higher price'. Yes, yes, yes, but what does that have to do with increased sales (or demand) leading to it? Even without increased sales, he can lower his price and do better. Get it? This is not a semantics trick, and you don't have to be an economist to understand it.

I'll take a stab at how increased sales can lead to a decrease in price. It involves the big C-word, competition (or the threat of it). Company A's product (call it Jade1) takes off. Company B notices and decides it too can manufacture a similar item (call it Jade2) and to cut into the market, sells it at a lower price. The price of Jade1 then comes down (competition). A similar example is where Company A comes out with Jade1, an exclusive product. It waits till it gets enough cash from sales at the higher price to pay off its startup costs and then lowers its price to ward off potential competitors, even if that means less profit in the short term. Or it buys in bulk or builds a bigger, more efficient factory, and passes on some of the savings to reduce competition or the threat of it. If you or another have examples of how increased sales leads to a price reduction not involving competition (or the threat of it) or generosity, please list them. Preferably, let them be reasonable in the context of Jade as we know it. Note: there are several general economics examples (e.g. boutique value of a product) already on the board, but this is specifically about increased sales leading to a price decrease.

I remarked before that competition is likely not playing much of a role in Jade; I hope that's not being contested here too. And even if that were the driving factor, Dr. R's words would be misleading, for he said it was increased demand for Jade that enabled a price decrease. More accurate would be to say that competition forced a price decrease.

Again, you have an economic model, and introduce an increase in demand. If anything, the price should go up, not down (until the Big C moves in). That is classic economics and intuitively obvious, certainly not all wrong. So far, I've heard 'Elliott's all wrong', 'selective analysis', and irrelevant examples. I know it's unpopular, but how about one 'gee, maybe Elliott's right [if he wouldn't be so obnoxious about it]'. Brackets optional.

Re: maybe you can explain to the board...

elliott on 1/24/02 at 11:20 (071123)

why you prominently started another thread at the top instead of responding inside the original thread, which at the time was still pretty close to the top. And was 'Elliott's all wrong' really necessary for the argument? Where's wendyn when I need her? And at least if you say it, be sure it's true. Cuz you'll look funny if turns out 'Elliott's all wrong' is wrong.

---

Re: maybe you can explain to the board...

alan k on 1/24/02 at 12:42 (071131)

I think I'll opt out at this point. Thank you and have a nice day.

Re: Maybe Elliott's right (but a kinder, gentler approach might help!):-)

Suzanne D on 1/24/02 at 20:08 (071176)

I had time tonight to read all the Economics discussions and must say that I have learned more than I did in my college class on that subject! (I mostly had good teachers throughout my education, but this one was an exception.) Thank you for all who offered their opinions and understanding! I have learned from everyone and you all made good points. I know nothing of Dr. R - not having been on the site when he arrived - and have no opinions about that. I will be like John H. and give everyone the benefit of the doubt! I wish anyone luck with Jade Balm and am thinking of ordering some myself just to see!

Elliott's economics discussions did make good sense to me. As a teacher, I'll give you an A, Elliott, in economics and just want you to work a little on delivery! A somewhat kinder, gentler approach might keep minds more open. My mama used to say, 'You can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar!' :-)

Best wishes to everyone!

Re: or, ...

Carole C on 1/24/02 at 20:52 (071180)

I agree with you completely, Suzanne. Yet we all know how bad tempered pain can make us. At one point I posted some pretty short tempered, sarcastic posts here too, due to the pain I was suffering at the time. I can't remember who they were aimed at but it might have been one of the Nancy's. Pain can really distort our delivery and render it much more acidic or 'vinegary' than it would normally be!

I think that Elliot has been in a lot of pain lately, due to his back as well as any foot problems. Even though he's male, and a bit of a smart-aleck sometimes, I think he's a teddy bear at heart and just hurting and irritable sometimes, like we all are from time to time here. Elliott, if you are reading this I hope you don't take it as condescending but simply as an acceptance of the situation and some faith in you.

Carole C

Re: but...

Carole C on 1/24/02 at 20:55 (071181)

But, if you're not hurting a lot, Elliott, then double ditto to Suzanne's post! (grin)

Carole C

Re: Elliott

wendyn on 1/24/02 at 22:23 (071189)

You don't NEED me Elliott - but if you want to talk to me you always know where to find me.

You folks lost me on this Economics discussion a long time ago.

Re: of course!

Suzanne D on 1/25/02 at 06:51 (071209)

Yes, I certainly agree with you, Carole! And I in no way meant anything disparaging to Elliott - pain or no pain. I just think he has so much to offer but sometimes all that information and insight can get 'lost' when it is delivered in a way which may put off people. But I hasten to add that I am not his judge; just 'jumped into' the discussion with my thoughts and to also say that he DID make sense with the economics thing...

But, again, I probably should stick to the social board. Our first grade economics consists pretty much of 'No, you cannot buy that penguin folder at the bookstore because then you won't have enough for lunch!...Yes I know there are a lot of 'monies' there, but let's count them, and you'll see that you only have enough for lunch...No. thank you...that's nice of you, but you cannot give some of your monies to him. Your mama sent it for YOUR lunch...Yes, I have said to share, but not with money...' :-)

Re: of course!

Carole C on 1/25/02 at 07:31 (071211)

LOL! Suzanne, my understanding of economics is right on a level with your first graders. Bigger scale economics just doesn't seem to be part of my daily life.

Carole C

Re: Elliott

JudyS on 1/25/02 at 11:40 (071253)

Ditto that, Wendy! This week's Econ discussion was just as scary as it was in college!