|
Chapter 4: Profits: The Consumer's Best
Friend
Few economic concepts are as misunderstood
as profits. The common view is that firms increase profits
at the expense of consumers. It seems plausible that firms'
profits rise when they charge higher prices, so there must
be a conflict between the well-being of consumers and the
profitability of firms.
The truth is that profits are the consumer's
best friend. The most effective consumer protection policy
is one that allows firms to make as much profit as possible
(without the help of government protections or subsidies).
Profits are the most effective means consumers have of communicating
their preferences to firms.
Consumers will reward a firm with a
profit only if the firm is using resources to produce the
goods consumers value most. If a firm uses resources to produce
less value than other firms could produce with the same resources,
consumers will punish that firm with a loss and reward the
other firms with profits. This allows the firms providing
the most value to expand production by bidding resources away
from firms providing less value.
Furthermore, consumers' ability to reward
some firms with high profits and punish others with low (or
negative) profits results in lower prices. Indeed, firms with
the highest profits often charge the lowest prices.
Profits and Motivation
To understand the role of profit, we
first have to know what it is. Profit is the difference
between the revenue received from producing and selling goods
and services and the cost (always opportunity cost) of the
resources used to produce them.
The owner (or owners) of a firm is vitally
interested in how much profit it makes; the more the better.
In small firms, the owner decides directly what to produce,
how much to produce and how to produce it. Economists refer
to these owners as residual claimants because they
have a legal claim on the firm's profits, or the residual
between revenue and cost.
In large corporations the residual claimants
are the shareholders, who are so numerous that instead of
making corporate decisions themselves, they hire managers
to run the firm. But even here, tying management pay and tenure
to the company's stock performance can motivate managers to
act like residual claimants by encouraging them to make profits
as large as possible.
So while profits may seem like an extra
cost to consumers, profits actually lower prices by motivating
firms to produce the right products, in the right amounts,
as cheaply as possible.
Consider
what occurs when there is no residual claimant. Government
agencies don't make a profit; they receive appropriations
at the beginning of each fiscal year. Any money not
spent at year's end goes back into the general fund,
and the agency may get a smaller appropriation the following
year. To avoid this, managers will desperately search
for something to spend excess money on—more computers,
travel, office space, anything—regardless of whether
it adds to the value of the service provided.
The result is that the cost of providing
government services is much higher than it needs to be, and
citizens pay far more in taxes than they would if the services
were provided efficiently. Obviously, the residualclaimant
owner of a business would never panic at the prospect of revenues
exceeding cost and waste the difference. Instead, the owner
constantly looks for ways to reduce costs and thereby increase
profits.
Lower Prices
While finding ways to reduce costs
increases profits, it will generally not do so for long. Much
of the cost decrease will be passed on to consumers in lower
prices, since a firm's long-run profitability depends on meeting
or beating the competition.
Even if a firm ends up with lower costs
than its competitors, it can still find it profitable to pass
some of the cost savings on to consumers to increase its market
share. A small price decrease can attract a large increase
in customers. But in the longer run, firms either match the
cost decreases of rival firms or go out of business. So most—and
often all—of a cost reduction is soon passed on to consumers
through lower prices. The only way a firm can hope to maintain
higher than normal profits is by continuously cutting costs
faster than its competitors.
Innovation
The competition for higher profits
also motivates firms to develop new products. For example,
personal computers, and the many products made possible by
the miniaturization of electronic circuits, now provide benefits
to people that science fiction couldn't anticipate a few decades
ago. The cost of developing and producing new products is
often very high, but doing so can be profitable because a
few wealthy people will pay big bucks to possess hot new products.
Fortunately for those of us who aren't
rich, the desire for profits causes the price of innovative
products to start falling and soon become cheap enough for
almost everyone to afford.
It should not be surprising that falling
prices result from firms competing for higher profits. After
all, there will never be more than a relatively few extremely
rich people. So selling only to the rich is not the best way
to make large profits.
The most successful firms are those
that figure out how to reduce the cost of goods and services
so that the masses can afford them. Andrew Carnegie did it
with steel, John D. Rockefeller with oil, Henry Ford with
cars, Richard Sears and Sam Walton with retail stores. Michael
Dell is doing it with computers and Bill Gates with software.
No matter how successful a business,
or how rich its owners, most of the benefits from profitable
firms go to consumers in the form of better products at lower
prices. Profits motivate producers to anticipate and cater
to the desires of consumers and enable consumers to transfer
more resources to the firms doing the most to enrich their
lives.
Profits also allow consumers to impose
discipline on producers, making possible the freedom firms
need to research and innovate. The result is constantly improving
goods and services and ever-lower costs. The connection between
discipline and freedom is the topic of the next chapter.
The Real Cost
of Living
New goods and services are
often very expensive for consumers and very profitable
for producers. But because profits attract competitors
and motivate a constant search for ways to improve
quality and lower costs, consumers benefit from
better products at less cost.
Even when the price goes
up, the product often costs consumers less. That's
because the real cost of a good is best determined
by how many hours of work it takes to buy it.
So if salaries and wages rise faster than the
price of a good, the good is getting cheaper,
even if its price is going up. Consider some examples
of how the cost of goods has changed for the average
American production worker:
- In 1915, a three-minute coast-to-coast telephone
call cost $20.70, or 90 hours of work. In 2002,
the same call—easier to dial and with
a much clearer connection—costs 15 cents,
or 39 seconds of work.
- In 1930, a 1,000-mile plane trip cost $83,
or 152 hours of work. In 2000, the same trip—only
faster and safer—cost $145.70, or 10 hours
of work.
- In 1970, 1 megahertz of computer-processing
speed cost $7,600, or 2,129 hours of work. In
1999, it cost 17 cents, or 44 seconds of work.
- In 1984, a cell phone cost $4,195, or 456
hours of work. In 2002, a far better phone costs
$99.99, or seven hours of work.
|
|
|
| 
|