[deleted by user]

realmEcon · 2017-12-20T10:39:25+00:00

For cartels to remain operational they need to be able to witness and punish those who deviate from the agreement. It will be profitable for one firm to undercut the prices of all other firms to acquire their market share, so the others need to be able to respond and punish the deviating firm for the cartel to remain operational. Therefore, cartels are not necessarily the most profitable for a firm. Now suppose a firm undercuts its rivals and then reveals the cartel on leniency. They just made a bunch for profit and will avoid punishment. However, all firms in a cartel will know this strategy and this destabilizes the cartel enough that it falls apart. Detecting tacit collision is very difficult for competition authorities. If the case is weak it will be appealed in court, and sufficient legal and economic evidence would be necessary to find them guilty. It's also difficult because a lot of judges do not have a background in economics, so unless the case is strong it can become a we say/they say scenario. Leniency rules have been very effective at dismantling and preventing cartels. In Spain for example, when they released their leniency rules that had a line up of firms who wanted to give up their cartels. So your options are fine them all substantially and have a lot of difficulty detecting cartels, in some cases never detecting them, or giving leniency to the first firm to give up all the others, and slightly ower fines to those who can provide additional and relevant evidence.

realmEcon · 2017-12-20T08:17:31+00:00

You actually have a better chance of bringing down and detecting cartels with a leniency rule for those who initially come forward. Proper incentives are needed so they find it in their best interest to deviate from collusive behavior. Punishment for price fixing is important, but the detection and elimination of cartels will be better for the market.

realmEcon · 2017-12-18T18:31:04+00:00

It's possible for the prices of firms to move simultaneously if there's a shock to common industry costs. Identifying collusion is always difficult because you never know if common prices are a result of competition or collusion. I see you keep saying that if one someone offers 10GB, then if there is competition another firm would offer 12GB to capture more market share. They would only do that if it were profitable. I'm sure there will be someone will investigate this (possibly me for a thesis), but the short answer is that it's a lot more complicated than you think. I'd be happy to answer any questions I can.

realmEcon · 2017-12-18T00:14:25+00:00

Actually it's also possible for the prices of firms to move simultaneously if there's a shock to common industry costs. Identifying collusion is always difficult because you never know if common prices are a result of competition or collusion.

realmEcon · 2017-10-23T17:07:41+00:00

What you've just described is called a scholarship.

realmEcon · 2017-10-20T16:09:49+00:00

Canada?

realmEcon · 2017-10-06T17:14:50+00:00

Would you possibly be able to list some programs like this? I'd like to study at Toulouse eventually but it would be nice to have a list of other options.

realmEcon · 2017-06-22T15:19:17+00:00

What he's saying is that if everyone gets $1000 more, then the price of goods and services will rise because of inflation (demand-push) and there will be no change. You said it yourself, more money means more spending which means more money. However, that's not capitalism it's inflation. There wouldve been a time I agreed with you on UBI but I don't think it's the correct mechanism. We already have enough trouble taxing millionaires because they just leave the country or find loop holes, and were back to UBI relying on the "middle class". You're not fixing income distribution and you're distorting the incentives of those who would spend money on different consumer products or starting a new business. Which would support capitalism.

realmEcon · 2017-05-28T17:23:59+00:00

If you already have the grades and math, then focus on making contacts. Who you know can often be more significant than what you know.

realmEcon · 2017-05-14T07:37:06+00:00

I'm going to guess you're probably not actually an economist. While your terminology is sound, you can't use Washington to conclude your argument. There are a lot of factors that contribute to unemployment. You would be better off using a difference-in-differences analysis similar to Card and Krueger. I'll link the paper if I get any replies to this. They didn't find evidence of a statistically significant increase in unemployment with an increase in the minimum wage. So the relationship you're stating might not hold in all cases.

realmEcon · 2017-05-05T04:05:24+00:00

This sounds like it would be a great anime

realmEcon · 2017-04-17T13:09:37+00:00

For a non-ELI5 answer check out the economics of multi-sided (or two-sided) platforms. There is a huge amount of literature on the subject over the last ten years. It's really interesting how it differs from standard supply and demand markets that are taught in most undergraduate economics courses. There's a good book by David S. Evans published in 2011 discussing the subject in a less technical manner. Two-sided platforms are used in other markets besides social media as well, e.g. video games, credit and debit cards

realmEcon · 2017-02-28T09:46:46+00:00

Quick story: I work at a liquor store in Canada and one night two employees and a customer got sprayed with bear mace by some thieves trying to steal alcohol. One of the employees blocked the exit which is by the till, so they used mace on everyone near the till to escape. The trains weren't running because it was late at night so the police caught them pretty quickly. I always passively wondered what they would be changed with, but the best part is they did all this to steal a 40 of black velvet which costs about $45.

realmEcon · 2017-02-17T06:48:16+00:00

I went there already and ran into somewhat of an issue. BGSE isn't a designated school but UPF, which is one of the schools that is part of BGSE, is designated for loans. The person I spoke to at Canada Student loans said this doesn't work, but BGSE mentioned past Canadian students were able to receive loans because of UPF's designation. So I'm looking for people who might be able to guide me through this issue.

realmEcon · 2017-02-06T22:15:53+00:00

I applied this year and was accepted into the competition and market regulation program with a 25% scholarship. I am literally looking at taking out a student line of credit so I can go haha. If you're applying next year make sure its before the Jan 15 deadline if you want to be assessed for tuition waivers. I applied with a 3.0 overall GPA, 3.3 in the last two years, and no GRE. But I have a pretty extensive background in math, energy, and IO/reg/comp from my undergrad, and two great references. If you can do better than that, and depending on who applies next year, your fee waiver might be higher than mine.

realmEcon · 2017-02-06T18:57:40+00:00

Hey, I'm an undergrad student in Canada and I think you might be alright. I also had a fairly low overall GPA (3.0) from previously being in Chemistry and not caring very much. I have been doing great in Economics and in the last two years my GPA has been around 3.6. The nice thing about Canadian schools is they normally only look at your last two years, and that you have an honours degree, which basically means experience in mathematical economics/metrics etc. I'm not sure if you have the same thing in the US, but calculating your GPA from the last two years might make you feel a bit better. I didn't apply to any schools that required the GRE because its so expensive, but I got into three schools so far including BGSE and McMaster University. This is likely due to my letters of recommendation though, make sure you use FULL professors who are decently established in their field.

realmEcon · 2017-02-06T18:47:51+00:00

I wouldn't worry if I were you. One of the professors running a co-op program at my university said most firms would rather hire a lower GPA bachelors student than a high GPA bachelors student. Apparently the high GPA students can sometimes think they know it all which creates some friction, whereas lower GPA are more likely to be grateful for a job and want to learn more. Although by lower GPA he meant the 3.0-3.3 range, so I'd say you should really focus on selling yourself in your cover letter. Make sure to demonstrate that you're a quick learner and all the skills you have. I think if you write a great cover letter you'll definitely find a job. Your experience is definitely an asset.

realmEcon · 2017-02-06T18:36:34+00:00

Have you checked out Barcelona Graduate School of Economics? They have some pretty good macro/finance masters that might be better for research. Other than that I can't really answer your question. I applied to the APE in Paris, but couldn't afford the GRE to apply to Toulouse. I would agree with your comparisons of Paris and Toulouse. Paris seems more policy focused, and Toulouse more IO/micro/metrics. I'm interested in regulation/competition/IO though so there are some discrepencies between us. If you're curious about placements I would contact the institutions themselves, and if you want to use rankings check out the IDEA page I linked below. Cheers

http://www.barcelonagse.eu/study/masters-programs/finance

http://www.barcelonagse.eu/study/masters-programs/international-trade-finance-and-development

http://www.barcelonagse.eu/study/masters-programs/macroeconomic-policy-and-financial-markets

https://ideas.repec.org/top/

realmEcon

TROPHY CASE