Matt Nolan

Fast food and health standards

/5 Comments/in , , /by

As I was waiting in line to grab some McDonalds before going to see the latest Harry Potter movie I got to thinking about why the line was so long.  In fact, I got to thinking about why, when there are other perfectly good foods around the food court, was half the place lining up to grab some greasy McDonalds.

I realized the best way to analyze this is to think about my own behaviour.   Now I virtually never go to the McDonalds in the food court (that day I just had a hankering for a Boss burger), I usually go to the Chinese place.  However, when I’m in some foreign land (such as Hamilton), I always go for McDonalds or Subway.

When I go to buy food in a foodcourt in Wellington, I know I will be going back there again soon, so their is an incentive for me to experiment, find out what I like and then stick to that.  Simply put, its a repeated game.  When I arrive at a foodcourt in Hamilton, this is a one-off experience, I have no intention to come back to the city of the future.  So this is a one shot game.

Now, franchises like McDonalds offer a standardized product, I know what I will get.  The rest of the shops could sell anything.  As a result, McDonalds is the less risky option, there is less variance in the quality of McDonalds meals.  So even if the average food court meal is better, as long as i’m risk averse there is scope for me to grab MiccyD’s.  If it is a repeated game, then experimenting gives me information for future periods, as I know that some of the food is better than McD’s food, I’ll try things until I hit something (or a bundle of foods) I like, then I will repeatedly consume it (or repeatedly consume some time varying combination of fast foods based which is dependent on previous consumption).

By virtue of this blog I have to bring this rant back to government.   I think I can do that with health standards.  By setting and enforcing health standards the government cuts out the worst foodcourt places, and as a result lifts the average standard and reduces the variance/risk of eating at other stores.  Now even if McD’s was within the health standards before these regulations, they will be forced to up the quality of their product, or risk losing their one off customers.

So govt. health standards lift the standard of franchises, and reduce the risk of getting killed when you go for a meal.  That sounds like positive government intervention to me.

Matt Nolan

Broadband penetration

/3 Comments/in , /by

Found this little gem on Marginal Revolution.  It says that the OECD methodology for measuring Broadband penetration is flawed, as it measures per capita instead of per household rates (so countries with larger households are penalized, since people living in the same house can just share a connection). 

Now the OECD methodology for pretty much everything is flawed, but it did get me thinking, we are 21st in their measure of broadband penetration, could this be because of their inappropriately defined boundaries on what defines broadband uptake.

The answer is sadly no.  Under the new measure NZ comes in 23rd, down two places.  To make matters worse, Australia jumps 3 places to 13th.  Damn Telecoms lack of penetration.

Matt Nolan

Dairy farmers and their bling

/in , /by

So, it looks like the dairy farmer is doing well.  This raises an interesting quesiton.  Are dairy farmers doing well because of:

a) Government help

b) The fact that their milk is sold by a monopoly

c) Favourable world commodity prices

d) Some mix of all three (note you can give a zero probablity to one of the options when doing this)

I think its mainly c).  Now the real issue I’d like us to try and figure out, is whether the government provided a positive role in the current dairy boom.  Has the government provided some structural assistance that could not of been provided in the free market?

Personally I doubt it.  But if someone can make a convincing argument for it, that would be pretty cool 😉

Matt Nolan

Telecom separation

/16 Comments/in , , /by

So Telecom is to be operationally separated. To prevent the issue of double marginalization, the commerce commission is going to regulate the price set in the access market.

Do you think this is the correct way to regulate the access network.

While I believe it will lead to more competition in the wholesale and retail markets, I can understand the argument that states that this type of regulation will lead to lower investment (as firms invest until MB=MC, if the marginal cost of investment increases in the amount of investment, then lowering the price will lower the marginal benefit, and lead to a less investment.) I hear the government has a plan to improve Telecoms incentive to invest, does anyone know what it is? If so, do you think it will work?

Matt Nolan

The Warehouse merger

/11 Comments/in , /by

So the commerce commision has released documentation on their refusal to let Foodstuffs or Progressive buy the Warehouse. They believe that the merger would not influence the general merchandise or wholesale foods market, but would negatively influence supermarket competition.

Do you think that a merger would negatively impact supermarket competition, and if so how?

It is important to note that one of the significant factors behind the increase in the value of retail sales in the past few months has been rising supermarket prices. But is this the result of a lack of competition, or a result of the success of the Warehouse grocery chain (given that the Warehouse sells their grocery products at a higher price).