i took a visit with my psychology class to a certain zoo. The basis of this was to look into animal behaviour... how ever when we stopped for lunch my mind tuned to an interesting example of Micro economics.
For my lunch I had a chicken burger with chips and a medium soft drink, this was at a frankly extortionate price of £5.50! High price.. good quality? NO it was perhaps the worse meal i have had in months.
£3.59 - larger, better quality ingredient, better packaging, better taste,
£5.50 - Small, droopy, cold, side order of stomach pain
First thought: MARKET FAILURE
This was clearly an example of a monopoly, once you enter the zoo you are in a world with no free market. The shops, the restaurants and everything else is a total monopoly. This is no competition, supply is restricted and demand is high. I settled on disgruntled on this analysis for some time then i had a second thought..
Second though: Positive Externalites?
Upon further contemplation i considered a new route of analysis.. your not paying for the burger, your paying for the animals. Perhaps there is a positive externality in comsumption of the dodgy burger, by consuming the burger you are giving money to the zoo which pay for the animals. The more burgers bought the more animals the zoo can afford. Its of course not a positive externalitiy in a orthodox sense because lowering the price to increase demand will remove the effect, but there are positives of consumption.
So the question is which is it? what do u think?
Also where were the kangaroos...........?