Selling Mattresses on Memorial Day

A nagging thought kept creeping into my more somber thoughts this Memorial Day. Why did retailers turn a day of remembrance into an opportunity to sell large consumer goods?

Wikipedia provide a nice history of the holiday but a short piece by McNutt & Partners explains some retailing aspects. For generations after the Civil War, it was called "Decoration Day" during which acknowledgement for the sacrifices of the dead were paired with commemorations meant to instill pride for country. It was renamed "Memorial Day" after WWII but a more significant change occurred in 1971 when it was moved from May 30 to create a three-day weekend. This made possible quick vacations and more time to consider large irregular purchases. 

In economic terms, it concentrated demand for mattresses, and similar big-ticket items, into a single weekend (and then two weeks around the date). This is efficient if there are economies of scale so that retail costs fall with sales volume. This may also permit some price discrimination as those who are more demand elastic seek out these deals and schmucks like me pay higher prices the rest of the year.

Biggas Savings

A funny commercial from a while back uses puns aimed at my adolescent sense of humor. Kmart wants to entice potential customers into its store, so it discounts the complementary product. I always enjoyed playing this video to classes.

Fabulous post on central planning from MarginalRevolution

If our textbook gets to an eight edition, this will make it into Chapter 1.

MarginalRevolution on Central Planning:

The dilemma is this. There is a problem of information. Supercomputers will in fact help process information better. But if the information coming in is junk, and if that junk is built into the system because of the incentives that operators have in workplaces to lie, you will not have a planning system that can be put on its feet through the advent of computers or artificial intelligence or anything like that. I don’t see any reason to think that that strategic misalignment of incentives is simply there because of Russian backwardness or poverty.

..the burden of proof is on us, on the Left, if we want to continue with this slogan of replacing the market with the plan. The burden of proof is on us to show that it can work. You might say that along with this ought to come a kind of humility about facts and about the world. ... it would be criminally negligent to ignore the experience of decades upon decades of planning and say to yourself, “Well, that wasn’t what my vision of socialism is, so I’m going to ignore it.” Because if you do that, I can guarantee 100 percent you will end up repeating many of the mistakes and falling into the same dilemmas that the planners did. 

Lessons from Sweden's Capitalist Makeover

WSJ:

• By 1990, center-left raised taxes/spending to 70% of GDP

THEN:

• cuts to unemployment, housing subsidies, pensions
• privatization of public services
• cuts to taxes
• Limit govt. debt to 36% of GDP (vs 129% U.S.)
• govt. spending drops to 24% of GDP (vs. 30% for France, Italy)
• Businesses invent new technologies.
• GDP, house prices, and inequality soar

LESSONS:  

• Incentives drive innovation and inequality
• Innovation drives 2% growth: income doubles in 36 years

HT:  Justin

FDA screens out studies with selection bias

The Free Press:

• ..one of the studies looked at a group of people for six weeks—three weeks after they were vaccinated, and then another three weeks after that. If they were healthy after the second three-week period, the researchers concluded that it meant the vaccine was safe. In addition to the absurdly short length of time—six weeks to conclude the vaccine is safe?—it has an obvious and inherent bias toward healthy people, who are the most likely to get vaccinated. 

•  Another study used an approach called “test negative”: It looked at people who came to the hospital with flu-like symptoms, some of whom had Covid and some of whom didn’t. If the group who were vaccinated had fewer people with Covid, it was supposed to mean that the vaccine worked. But in reality, it could simply mean that people who are vaccinated are more likely to show up at the hospital.

Waning Credit Card Market Power?

 

Historically, Visa and Mastercard earned substantial interchange fees because merchants had few practical alternatives. But FedNow, RTP, “pay-by-bank” systems, and blockchain-based settlement reduce switching costs and create new competitive options for merchants and fintech firms. Recent reporting from American Banker noted that RTP and FedNow transaction volumes are growing rapidly while firms simultaneously experiment with stablecoin-based international transfers that bypass traditional correspondent banking systems. Meanwhile, regulators are increasingly scrutinizing the market power of incumbent payment firms, including a new UK competition probe involving Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal. Network effects can create durable market power, but interoperability, regulatory pressure, and technological innovation can gradually transform even seemingly entrenched monopolies into far more competitive markets.

For decades, Visa and Mastercard benefited from one of the strongest forms of market power: network effects. Consumers tend to apply for cards that are accepted by more retailers and retailers accept cards that are held by more consumers. The resulting feedback loop favored first-mover credit cards and made subsequent entry difficult. But now new payment “rails” are beginning to erode that dominance. Real-time payment systems like FedNow and RTP now allow money to move directly between bank accounts in seconds, bypassing traditional credit card networks entirely. At the same time, stablecoins and open-banking systems are creating alternative methods for transferring funds with lower fees and faster settlement. Reuters recently reported that Visa’s annualized stablecoin settlement volume has already reached roughly $7 billion, while Mastercard is spending up to $1.8 billion to acquire stablecoin infrastructure firm BVNK. These investments reveal that incumbents increasingly view new payment rails as potential substitutes for traditional card networks.

A Hiccup in a Price War

Many antitrust economists are wary of the efficacy of predatory pricing, the strategy of pricing below costs to drive a competitor out of a market. The usual counter-argument is that, for it to work, the inevitable losses this will entail must be recouped after the rival has exited. Recoupment requires higher prices ... that can attract rivals again. Additionally, there are many tactics the prey can implement during the predation phase to try to thwart the predator.

A new one to me is giving away booze. As described in an article for Southwest Airlines 50th anniversary, Southwest pioneered frequent, cheap flights within Texas in the 1970s. In 1973, Braniff and Texas International started a price war offering $13 tickets. This was below Southwest's costs and was intended to drive Southwest out. Southwest countered with two-tiered prices. They would match the $13 price but also offer a $26 price that included a fifth of liquor. Most of its customers were business travelers who would expense the $26 ticket and keep the liquor. Since the liquor cost Southwest less the the the difference in the prices, it made more on the $26 tickets. Few of its customers opted for the money losing $13 tier. And, of course, the publicity of "free booze" was priceless.

Demand for Metro Rides to FIFA Matches is Inelastic

A recent Forbes article helps explain why getting to FIFA World Cup matches by will cost spectators $150 just for the metro train ride to get to the stadium. One contributing factor is that demand becomes more inelastic when it is a complement. Fans who have already committed to travel, lodging, and match tickets may have already budgeted $5,000 for the event. What’s another $150? The World Cup in NYC is a once-in-a-lifetime event for many attendees, and transportation costs are a small share of total trip expenditures. Combine that with few viable substitutes ways to reach the stadium and you have a market where consumers are effectively “captive.” Under these conditions, even large price increases result in only modest reductions in quantity demanded, allowing providers to charge prices far above normal levels.

From a pricing perspective, mega-events shift firms toward the region where optimal markups are high because elasticity is low. The inverse elasticity rule implies that when consumers are less price responsive, firms (or cost-recovering public agencies like NJ Transit) can pass through more of their costs without losing much demand. The $150 fare is therefore less an aberration than a predictable outcome of event-driven economics. The broader lesson is that mega-events elevate willingness to pay for complements, making demand more inelastic.

Nationalistic Self-Sorting

 

Un Français hisserait-il jamais le drapeau d'un autre pays?

Vertical Integration and Screening

 

Cutler et al have published a new paper that adds to the catalog of reasons why firms might vertically integrate. They examine Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) owned by hospitals. SNFs make referrals to hospitals for their residents who develop medical issues. But some referrals are more lucrative than others. The SNF has private information about which referrals will earn the hospital more profit. An unaffiliated SNF will capture none of this, but a vertically integrated SNF/hospital can profit by screening in the more lucrative patients and screening out the less lucrative patients.