There was a flood somewhere and the road was blocked. People inside can't get out, and people outside can't get in. Soon, many people stopped cooking.
Wang Er runs a grain store, so he has some grain in his hand. Wang Er decided to send porridge to do good deeds and solve the temporary difficulties of the victims. The problem facing Wang Er is very realistic and severe: there are 1000 people who need to eat, while Wang Er only has 100 people to eat.
This incident made Wang Er very upset. 100 people's food was distributed to 1000 people. Who will give it? Wang Er's son has learned a little introduction to economics and found it easy. He said, "Dad, the demand curve is downward. The higher the price, the less demand. The best way is that you don't send porridge, but sell it to the highest bidder 100. Wouldn't that make things easier? Don't wait in line, don't call, and don't worry about who to give it to. The invisible hand has been made for you. Adam Smith discovered it hundreds of years ago. You see, it is still useful to learn some economics? "
Wang Er felt inappropriate and said, "Didn't you let me make dirty money? Moreover, if this continues, in the end, porridge is not bought by the rich, and the poor can only starve? "
The son's answer is simple: "Dad, why can't you figure it out?" You don't sell at a high price, but after others take it, you can still sell at a high price. Isn't it the same in the end? This is called' yellow cattle'. Besides, the price of porridge you sell is open and transparent, and there is no open discrimination against the poor. If the poor are really hungry, they will be willing to pay a high price; Not paying a high price means that people are not hungry enough. You don't have to feel uneasy. "
Wang Er still felt uncomfortable and said, "Let's get porridge on a first-come-first-served basis. In this way, I feel fairer. "
Wang Er's son immediately said, "Dad, it's not fair at all! Why are the people who need porridge the most in the first place? Those who come first have plenty of time. And it will cause great waste. Many people had to wait in line all night Isn't this a waste of time? Finally, you still can't stop people from taking porridge and selling it. Won't the porridge end up in the hands of people who are willing to pay a high price? If you want to violate the economic laws, you will not only solve the problem, but also increase the trouble. "
Wang Er said, "Trouble is trouble. I think it's more reasonable to come first. Don't say any more. "
When I go to Spring Festival travel rush every year, whether the train ticket should be increased in price becomes a hot topic. What needs to be understood is that the problem of train ticket fare is actually a problem of how to allocate limited train capacity among the crowd. There are 1000 people who want to go home by train, but the railway system can only provide 800 seats, which makes it a headache for whoever gets on the bus and who doesn't. In fact, there is no perfect solution to the basic contradiction that demand exceeds supply, because no matter how to solve it, 200 people will not be able to go home by train in the end. Anyone who thinks he has a wonderful solution to the ticket problem may have to admit modestly that there is no wonderful solution.
Faced with the situation that demand exceeds supply, the most classic solution, which is also the correct solution in most cases, is to raise prices. It is very simple that things are scarce and train tickets are few, so they are expensive. Therefore, those suggestions that advocate price increases are completely reasonable.
But we must realize that the price increase of train tickets has distributional consequences. Distribution results have two different meanings. If the income of the whole population is exactly the same, the only difference is their willingness to go home by train for the New Year, then by raising the price, those who want to go home by train can finally buy tickets, and the consequences of this distribution are understandable. The problem is that our income is not exactly the same. Some people have money, some people generally have money, and some people have little money.
When we easily propose to squeeze out 200 people by means of price, we must realize that the 200 people squeezed out will not be a random group. So the first level of distribution means that by raising prices, are we crowding out the disadvantaged groups in society? This is exactly what Wang Er is worried about. If he lets the highest bidder get porridge, will all the poor people end up without porridge?
What's more, even those who finally get tickets have to pay more to go home after the price increase. Therefore, another distributive significance of the price increase is that passengers must pay more money to the Ministry of Railways to get the same service as in the past. Rainbow: Well, the Ministry of Railways really has to face the question of whether it is making black-hearted money.
Therefore, people who oppose the price increase of train tickets also have reasons, and their reasons are not weaker than those who support the price increase in any sense.
Some people will say, wait a minute, the reason against price increases seems to apply to any commodity. Does this mean that the distribution consequences must be considered whenever the price increases? To some extent, this is true, which is one of the reasons why inflation is the enemy facing the economy. Not everyone will suffer from inflation, which has a greater impact on low-income groups, so inflation often leads to serious political consequences. But of course, the way to deal with inflation should not only limit the rise in prices, but also eliminate inflation at its root, such as tightening the currency.
Back to the issue of train tickets in Spring Festival travel rush, there are at least four points that make Spring Festival travel rush train tickets different from ordinary goods. First, Spring Festival travel rush's peak demand for going home is a kind of inflexible demand. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that going home during the Spring Festival is a rigid demand. Rigid demand refers to the demand that people will meet at all costs, but most people will probably agree that the Spring Festival reunion is very important for China people, and they will not stay at home because the tickets are a little expensive. This means that if the passenger flow is suppressed by raising the price, the price must be raised very high to be effective, which aggravates the distribution consequences mentioned above.
Second, going home during the Spring Festival is an either-or choice: going home or not. A house is also a necessity, but it is very expensive. You can also choose to buy a smaller house and live farther away, rather than not having a house at all. Going home is different. You can't choose to go back to half your home, you can only go back or not. Therefore, the consequences of the price increase of train tickets are different from those of residents using water, for example. The result of raising residents' water price is that everyone may use less water, and finally achieve the purpose of saving water.
The result of the price increase of train tickets is that 200 people are squeezed out by the price, instead of saying that 1000 people sit 20% less, which still aggravates the problem of distribution consequences mentioned earlier. Third, the supply of railways is not sensitive to price, whether it is short-term or long-term. Normal goods, if the demand exceeds the supply, the price will rise, the supply will come up soon, and then the price will be pulled down, so the price increase is an effective signal that can stimulate the supply.
Railway is a monopoly department, and the growth of railway capacity is probably not directly related to the price. Fourthly, the level of peak fares in Spring Festival travel rush does not directly affect the efficiency. If the water price is set low, it will cause waste of water resources; If the electricity price is set low, it will cause electricity waste; Tickets in Spring Festival travel rush are set at a very low price, so capacity will not be wasted-no one will take more trains just because the train tickets are cheap.