E.coli Economics (what is good economics)

The E.coli outbreak is just another thing to at to the list of things making this world a bit of dreary place at the moment, so many negative externalities to current events. The E.coli outbreak is an example of another external factor its very difficult to put into models, economics is very dynamic and far reaching and so is the world on it.

The future of salad sales or even tourism to europe is uncertain, its likely the cucumber market will take years to recover after wild accusations. Equally will this see a shift in investment? This area of medicine could see a boost, its difficult to know. The decision to invest in a E.coli treatment opposed to another treatment could save or cost lives and that kind of decision can fall into the rhelm of economics. Economics is not just fiddling with graphs in a dusty room, the future of humanity relies of economics.  its always been that way, we just didn't call it economics. Economics is philosophy, politics, psychology, maths, history, geography.. it touches all other subjects and in my opinion a good economist knows that. 

I've found there is a rivalry between academic areas, stereotypically physicists look down their noses at psychologists who call themselves scientists, geographers don't like economists 'butting in on their subject' but after all all subjects cross over. If you want to a build a space shuttle you need everyone, you need the mathematician to calculate, you need plenty of physicists, it won't work with out your computer scientists and chemists. If you want to know if its worth while or how to get the resources to do it you need an economists or at least an economic climate that lets you built it; weather thats a firm after a profit of a communists government showing off! You need to know what space will do to people so thats your psychologists and sociologists, the list goes on and on. 

Ideas should be put together, people should work together, thats all people and after all thats pretty much the reason the interest is so critical. Stagnation of ideas or worse, refusal to listen to others is what will be the down fall of everything! 

Free communication and cooperation is key and the most important thing in economics should be ideas! You can't do anything to the factors of production with out enterprise, in what ever form it takes. A closed minded economists won't get far because as annoying as it may be, economics models break over and over again and every recession throws up a new wave of problems. 

The E.coli outbreak might at first seem to fall into the rhelm of medicine but its clear its effects are far reaching. 

BUS WARS: Chapter 1: The city of Preston

Preston is a city with a strange affilation to buses! There have been in the past year many wars fought between companies, politicains, citizens and government bodies over the simple mater of buses. 

Preston is home to one of the worlds largest bus stations which has been the focal point of the 'tithebarn project' a plan to redevelope the city. The iconic Preston bus station is loved and hated by many and its disition to be torn down has caused much debate amoung citizens of Preston. 

http://www.leegarlandphotography.co.uk/

That is another tale which can be read here

Yet Preston Bus station has been the scene of an other war, a battle between a small local firm known as Preston Bus Plc and the national bus giant stage coach. What seemed at first a battle between two firms soon became a war of legislation and law as the Competition Competion fought with Stage Coach for the fate of Prestons bus services. 

This is the story of the Preston Bus Wars!

The routes covered by Preston Bus PLC

Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is a term that has been appearing across the internet and in American Media, but what is it and how does it link to Economics.

What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality means neutrality across the internet, which is the theory that each user on the internet should have equal access to websites and each website should have an equal chance.
In other words you pay for internet access but not for each website.

Why is it an issue at the moment?
Net neutrality has become an issue at the moment because some american internet provides are not following the ideals of net neutrality, they are changing more for some websites than when accessing others.

What is the importance of Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is vital, at present the internet is a 'free' while you must pay for access once on the internet each website has an equal footing with the next website. If firms start charging for access to websites there are huge social and economic consequences!
Socially it will mean that smaller websites will be weakened against larger websites, if their is free access to main stream media and it costs a lot more to access an independent website then instantly the free of speech on the internet becomes threatened. The advantage of the Internet now is that everyone has an equal say, you can go to any website and it will cost the same as accessing another, so you can choice where to get your news, information and entertainment. If firms break net neutrality then they can price out the competition.
Economically the fall of Net Neutrality is a disaster. What is glorious about the internet is is very few barriers to entry, which has greatly increased competition is most markets and in the internet industry itself lead to huge leaps of innovation and markets that are close to that of perfect competition (the blog market for example).
Also with the fall of net neutrality firms have an anti-competitive weapon to used to wipe out their competitors, as explained in the video bellow if internet providers can charge consumers for each website they access then they can offer some for free and charge huge amounts for others which will wipe them out.

Steve Wozniak co-founder of Apple is amount many trying to save net neutrality. It should be a social and economic priority for all peoples and nations!

Top American Youtube news reporter and Vlogger Phillip DeFranco explains the concept perfectly in this video:

The new macro economic challage, supply side woes of getting things moving!!

Forget fiscal policy to get agreegate demand moving, it appears that this winter we are stuggling to get anything moving at all!

Its easy to over look the impact of weather in Economics but is a very important factor.
For a start weather gives out externalities, a rainy day could have negative externalities believe it or not! Perhaps the snow will make people happier and more productive.. though this is debated!

Where weather plays a key part though is the supply side of the economy. Shifts in weather conditions could damage crops or reduces solar power yeild lower agreegate supply. Famines can damage supply in market increasing prices and panic buying due to weather has drastic effects on sum markets.
This quick example shows the classical theory for what happens in the market for tinned beans short term in a panic buy. The supply is fixed short term as shown by being totally inelastic. The demand is also inelastic as demand will not be effectected by price rises. A jump to D1 leads to a drastic increase in price from P to P1.

This is exactly what plucky shop keepers can do in times of high demand. Although the large super markets like tesco and sainsbury's could be hindered by pricing policy, in this case it would be the small independent shops and francises (like Spar) that would benefit. Although classic theory tends not take into account customer loyalty that would be damaged for years to come for any shop keeper that abused his customers this way.

However the problem facing the UK at the moment is the effect of weather, in this case snow, on the mobility of the factors of production. Mobility of labour, land, capital and even enterprize is a very important supply side concept. To improve the supply side of the economy we can improve infrastructor like motorways to improve mobility of these factors.. so what happens when the economy is snowed to a stand still?
"The insurer RSA estimated that the freezing weather could cost the UK economy up to £1.2bn a day, with retailers and the restaurant and bar industries likely to be the worst affected." -Big freeze could cost UK economy more than £6bn - guardian.co.uk
For each person that does not get to work, each factory that's supplies are delayed and each school child that can't be educated the economy suffers.

Yet there is some good news, due to the internet things are not as bad as they could be. People are working from home and businesses can use webcams and phones to hold meetings, I know infact of a business now conducting a board meeting via skype.
Businesses are also offering their own solution, Miniture scifi model producer Games Workshop emailed its customers telling them while they can't promise Chirstmas orders they are offering online vouchers that can be given over the internet to solve Christmas gift woes. Ending their email with an appropreate image, I've shared with you bellow, to lift thier fans spirits.

Snow causes chaos but we just have to 'battle' through and hope the smiles a white Christmas will put on peoples faces will out weight the chaos, after all at the end of the day Economics is not really about money its or even dare i say it factors of production, but whats best for us all and thats happiness. 

The Tithebarn Debate!

17th of November 2010: Preston gets go ahead of Tithebarn project

The Tithebarn project is a project is a project of great significance to me. It is a plan to develop the city centre of Preston the city in which i live (around). I personally am opposed to it for a number of reasons but may think it is a great idea.

The plan is to knock down Preston bus station (a dump but is very widely considered an building of architectural significance, it has been in may books of buildings to see before you die and TV programs) and build a smaller bus station further away from town... and build a huge new shopping complex. It is designed to rejuvenate Preston's economy however i argue that it will only hurt the economy by attracting huge monopolies to wipe out smaller shops and retail is not what the city needs. 

 I felt so strongly about it that i posted a wall post on the Preston City Councils facebook page and what followed was a heated debate, in which i used everything in my economic and political armoury and they responded in kind! It makes a great reading (if I don't say so my self) if you have time to read a young student spar with the city councils facebook page administrator! 

Putting it to the city council via facebook

(1st of September 2010)

Jon @ preston council: I have you seen the number of people in this group? if you so up for finding out what people want and being on Facebook then pay attention to this.

'save preston bus station' - fans: 1815   (Tithebarn - fans: 3) (Proud Prestonian - Friends: 2930)

Preston council (Proud Prestonian): As part of the Tithebarn scheme, the bus station is due to be demolished to make way for £700m regeneration of the city centre. The bus station is not fit for purpose, it is too big and costs too much money to upkeep and inside it is run down. It is essentially a huge car park and the space can be made better use of. The minister for local government agreed that it wasnt worthy of listing and we are now awaiting the outcome of the Tithebarn public enquiry which is due any day now.

Also, there is obviously support for saving the bus station but there is just as much support for not saving it and for regenerating the city centre which is in need of investment. Without demolishing the bus station the scheme would be over and we would lose all that investment for the sake of a bus station which is not fit for purpose and which is a drain on ratepayers money

Jon: Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. 

The city centre does need regenerating, granted. But I disagree that demolishing the bus station is key to that. The fact that it does have large parking facilitaties is surely an advantage if you are attempting to attract further people into the area. Why remove parking spaces if you intend to bring more people into the area? Its is not normally empty it is certainly in use. It is run down but why to use renovate it? Its iconic architecture could be used to help the cities economy.
 The minister for local government saw it not fit for listing surely that is a conflict of interest if he wishes to see this project go forward?
 There are to my knowledge a number of empty shops in the city, if we are not at full capacity for what space we have now why do we need to build more shops? Also why is it assumed that bringing in huge department stores will help the area, could it not just shift business away from other shops? 
Given the economic circumstances it would surely not be wise to risk the start of such are large project until we are confident we are clear of a double dip recession nationally. What if investors pull out?

I have talked to many people about this project just generally since the time I heard about it, and the best response I’ve found is at best scepticism. These are from different people of the city in different professions and age ranges.
I am young, I have lived her all my life and I care deeply about this city. It seems to me your are not looking at the needs of the people and making an assumption that there is a quick fix – building a huge John Lewis. There is no quick fix.

Please point me in the direction of groups of local residence, that are protesting to tear down the bus station... there are no as i am aware.. although i may be wrong

Preston council:  The project would not be complete for a number of years and so the threat of a double dip recession this year is irrelevant, the developer has the money available for the work to go ahead. There is no guarantee that the economy would be back to where it was when the project is finished, but we cannot just sit around and do nothing and let Preston fall into a poor state whilst all our neighbouring towns improve and regenerate leaving us behind. 

Some of the buildings in the city centre are in a poor state, the redevelopment will encourage investment in the city which has been on hold for many years.
The city needs to move forward, we cannot be held back because some people object to change. We receive complaints about how there is no regeneration happening in Preston, there is no way we can please everyone.
It is not a conflict of interest for the Minister to decide, that is their job! It would be if we gave ourselves permission!
Building a huge John Lewis is not the whole of the project and it cannot be referred to as that.
I am not aware of any Facebook groups around demolishing the bus station but from looking at forums including your own page, there are plenty of people who do not want the bus station to stay.
Not everyone will agree on this issue but we must await the outcome of the Tithebarn enquiry and then go from there.

Jon: I agree that development is need, peoples complaints for redevelopment can't be seen as a vote for the project.. they are telling you to come up with a solution not telling you they agree with the solution. Only time will tell if they do.

"some people object to change" is not strictly true, i certainly don't object to change. I just disagree with this proposed change. Sometimes we are so for change we don't look at what we have. Something does need to change in Preston.
On the point of it being a conflict of interest, the point I'm addressing concern to is that the Minister for local government and the city counsel and the tithebarn enquiry are all the same thing.. are they all not just local government? Are they not all open to influence by the same people? Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I'm merely enquiring not slandering.
The building of the John Lewis is the main bulk of the project.. it is marked on your vision for the project and named. Yes it says other shopping developments but these are not named, also headlines in local new papers have centred on the John Lewis.
Yes we can't be left behind, but if all these other towns and cites are developing should we be doing the same as them exactly? We should not be copying shopping developments on the assumption it will save the city. If all the towns build huge shopping centres then they will have no effect because you have to take customers from elsewhere. An example: You take custom from blackpool with the tithebarn, so they build a huge shopping complex and then take it back.. why not try something different to just building shops and hoping for the best. We could just make preston into an other cone city of britain with endless chain stores, which could just move out if they wanted.
People always have conflicting views on projects like this, but can blame me for expressing mine to you? I just hope that we will get whats best and what everyone wants.

Preston Council: Preston has always been known as a good shopping destination, people come from neighbouring towns like Blackpool for shopping, whereas people go to Blackpool for its tourism.

You mentioned car parking, the scheme will see the creation of more parking spaces than we currently have.
 No the minister for local government is a cabinet minister in central government and considers the application for the building to be listed.
The enquiry is completely independent and hears the arguments for and against from ourselves and those opposing it, Blackpool and Blackburn. Then it makes a decision based on the evidence submitted. This is not linked to gevernment in any way, but the minister will usually go with their decision.
Preston has suffered from a lack of investment in the last decade as investors wait to see what happens with Tithebarn. If you look at cities like Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool whose universities and jobs have helped them expand hugely in the last 10 years. despite the growth in our university that hasnt quite happened in Preston. No city centre apartments have been built, no new shops or offices in that time either.
This would be the springboard for the city being redeveloped.
We lose a lot of our talented garduates because they dont want to stay in Preston when they leave as the jobs and opportunities and even culture that a city should provide is not neccessarily here for them.
The Tithebarn project is not just about John Lewis, it is about transforming the city and bringing it into line with 21st century cities in the north.
The bus station simply does not fit into that. Why does Preston need the biggest bus station in Europe? It doesnt! Its too big, it costs too much to upkeep and its not in the right location.

 Jon:  I was merely using Blackpool as an example. I agree with you that Preston is used as a shopping area from people around Blackpool, Lytham way, considering that it does make sense to regenerate that sector. But could the development just take business away from the market? The tithebarn would have to bring in a lot more people or you would just shift customers around from existing business to the new huge stores. Which would hurt the economy because actually the new stores would simply drain money out of the local economy to their head offices. 

If the minister for local government is totally independent from the counsel in every way then i apologise.
 Yes the bus station is not prefect for the job but it is more than a mere bus station, its one of a kind and it just seems a shame to loose something that is unique to something that will be near identical to Manchester or Liverpool.

Preston Council: There is more than enough trade for Preston to sustain this size of retail complex, that is why it has been designed in this way after careful planning by the council and the developers, who would not put £700m if they thought it wasn’t sustainable. You must remember that a lot of people go shopping to the Trafford Centre or to Liverpool One and we would like to keep that trade in Preston but at the moment we don’t have the capacity to compete. 

We simply cannot keep the bus station because it is unique, it is a drain on finances, to bring it up to standard would cost £4 million alone! People often the quote the £700 million investment here but that isnt our money, its the developers money and they wouldn’t pay £4 million to clean up the bus station i'm afraid.
 Obviously people have different opinions on everything and we are aware that some people really want the bus station to stay but this is about moving forward and our elected councillors are doing what they genuinely believe is the best thing for Preston.
 The best person to speak to about this would be the Leader of Preston City Council, Cllr Ken Hudson, his office is here in the town hall if you would like to write to him. I think I have told you all I can tell you and at the end of the day he is the person in charge and I am sure he can answer your concerns better than I can.

Jon: ok, well thank you anyway. We shall see what the enquiry comes up with. Have a good day.

Preston Council And you!

What do you think?  Good or bad? Disagree with any of my points or the councils? Please comment.

Vince defends Cable Prices

A battle is unfolding between a politician and the founder, CEO and Chairman of one of the most infamous companies in the world!
The story really begins at the Liberal Democrat party conference, but that's another tail we shall start at the first strike:
4/11/2010 is not a day that is likely to go down in history but perhaps it should for this is the day that Vince Cable stood up to Economic evil incarnate; Rupert Murdoch. Calling upon all his powers as business secretary Vince struck a blow against the evil monopolist holding to his vows for free markets and standing against his Conservative superiors In other words, the business Secretary intervened in the free market to prevent a take over.

News Corporation is the 3rd largest media conglomerate in the world, but what is really dangerious about News Corporation is its monopoly grip on media in certain countries. In the UK it owns the Times, the News of the World and The Sun that's a total of 37% of national news paper market. Then it also owns  17.5% of ITV and 39.1% of Sky and perhaps surprisingly it owns US social networking site Myspace. From an economic, political and social perspective this is dangerous! In a sense it was News Corps holdings that lead the attack on Ex-PM Brown and rallied the support for David Cameron so attacking news corp a brave move by Lib Dem Vince Cable? VERY brave.

Vince Cable spoke in his party conference speech that the economy must be managed through strong competition policy, not the Labour idea of a large state but equally not the Conservative blind hope in completely free markets, at least the Liberal Democrat seems to be true to his words in this case. He argued the move by Murdoch to take complete control of Sky would create too much market power for News Corp and be damaging to the consumer. He said that the monopoly power News corp would gain would see unfair price rises for customers. Much more than this, he reffered it to OFCOM for further investiagtion! Vince may even be moving to split Murdocks empire in half!

As I said before the attack on Murdoch is very brave, he is a powerful man to make an enemy of. Murdoch is a strong ally to the Conservative party making Vince an unpopular man within the coalition, but also Murdoch could be provoked into using his media power against the Liberal Democrats. However while it seems politically stupid short term, long term Vince puts himself in good stead, within the party and their voters he will better respected after all the liberals never really had a love for Murdoch! In this sense what has he got too loose, Murdoch was never going to be his ally so why not hit him while he can.

Its not only an economic and political move though, if Vince Cable splits up News Corps holding in the UK he will answer the cry's of many saying that Murdoch influence is dangerously strong. One man controlling a huge proportion of the media means one man and voice his opinions loudest, which history tells us is very dangerous.

Primary Source:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/11/05/business-secretary-vince-cable-blocks-rupert-murdoch-s-bid-to-buy-sky-115875-22693408/#ixzz14PPzz28g

Microsoft VS Opensource

There is a fascinating economic war going on, that mainly people don't know about it!


In the beginning
In simple terms: Back in the early days of the personal computer several giants rose up to fight for the throne, mainly Apple and Microsoft. Both created operating systems to run on PCs (or Macs in Apples case) but these systems needed applications and programs to run on them. So many other firms set up to provide programs, for example: Netscape sold an internet browser for windows. However Microsoft (and Apple) did not want this, they wanted monopoly power! So they played a number of anti-competitive tricks to remove the competition, these included the infamous buy outs. Also a trick played by Microsoft was to offer equivalent software for free, thus totally wiping out the competition. So when Microsoft released its next operating system, it released it with Internet Explorer, for free included! Netscape was wiped out.. Over time the giants gained more and more control over every aspect of the market but then something happened there was rebellion!

Die Simpsons - Bill Gates bei den Simpsons von Clipfish

The open revolt:
Around the early 2000s something appeared to nibble at Microsoft's and the other computer giants power it was called open source. Not a new concept open source is a philosophy, the idea is that computer code is left open, visible and editable for anyone to improve. How does it effect Microsoft? Well, open source programers began building programs and together over the internet improving them until with such a range of skills and backing they launched them to compete with Microsoft. How to compete? well they beat Microsoft at their own game! They offered it for free. They created Firefox that cut apart internet explorers market share and more importantly they created and give away for free Open Office. When Microsoft's latest version of office costs around £90, open office is near enough identical for £0 and it has rattled the USA computer giant.

The Empire Strikes back
Times seemed good, as an economist and fan of good free ideas, open source was fascinating and some what of a blessing. However one should never under estimate Microsoft! For they have now begun a damning campain to whipe out opensource!

The video above is a brutal assault on open office, while the points raised have some weight it is again an example of advertising power damaging an attempt to revive the free market. If open source is so bad then no one would buy it, the free market would take its course and people would pay Microsoft the full price. Clearly consumers value Microsoft's products cheaper than they are selling them or they would still chose to buy the official Microsoft office which is better, but its monopoly power keeping the price up not good value. 
The video makes my stomach churn! Oh yes it is genius but dark. It portrays open source as evil, the feel of the advert looks more like an anti drug campaign or worse! All I can say is Microsoft has sunk to a new low, and after my opinions of them was improving.

Try open office for yourself: OpenOffice
Looking to get your own free open source software try: sourceforce

Thanks to: http://www.zath.co.uk/author/john-thompson/ - check him out for great tech news/reviews

Why Rooney makes £200,000 a week and a nurse is on £27,000 a year

Wayne Rooney makes up to £200,000 a week on his new contract which is staggering considering a nurse makes on average £27,000 a year. Wayne is on around 380 times more than a nurse yet nurses help save lives and Wayne probably can't spell patient (not that i can talk), what is going on?
Some would question "what is going on! Its an outrage" maybe even doubt how economist works, but economics and example this quite easily: DEMAND AND SUPPLY.

The theory
Footballs have always been in short supply, there are very few players with the skill to play at the top in Football. To show this we draw an inelastic supply curve, as shown bellow in the graph
This first graph shows the demand for football players forty years ago, when plotted across this translates to £2300 a week. The second demand lines shows demand in 2010, demand has increased dramatically and because the supply of football players is inelastic this is multiplied and the salary sores.

At the bottom we can see that Q was the supply of skill football players and this now have increased to Q1, this is because the high wages incentivise more people to try and be football players, but if you don't have the skill you can't become one so Q is not effects much at all. This is what inelastic supply is all about.

Where is the high demand?
Why has demand increased? Whats the evidence? Well increasing viewing figures is the main reason, increasing merchandise e is another reason and the size of the top football as increased.
Football clubs are now seem all over the world and sell shirts and other merchandise in millions, for this reason an iconic football player is in very high demand: by the owners wanting to sell shirts and make money and by the fans that want to win.
The table bellow shows the value of rights to the premier league overseas, this is doubling every three years, which means the demand for players is being forced up as well.





Why do nurses get so little?

What about the nurses? well its simple, there is larger supply of nurses than skilled football players which drives down the 'price per nurse'.

Want to lower pay for football players?
If you still think its outrageous what football players get  paid then you can start by stop buying any merchandise from any team, so the value of a team or a players name falls and its not profitable for the owners of a club to pay so much for them.
Then you can stop watching all football games on TV so viewing figures falls and Sky, BBC and others don't bother paying for the rights to football and the value of it falls (low demand). Also advertisers will be put off football as a method of selling their products.
The question is would you really want to do that? and get everyone else to do that..? Or would you rather do the British thing and just moan and enjoy some fantastic goals? I'd rather do the latter.

The COCA COLA championship...

So next time your staggered by the amount Wayne Rooney gets pays consider how much people talk about football, all the matches you've watched and how much you care (or know someone who cares) about your team. Thats translates globally into HUGE demand which is why he gets a huge salary.

Primary sources:
Fags to Wags- The Times
Premier League world's favouriate league -Telegraph

The BBBC

The cuts to the BBC caught me a bit off guard I must say, although everyone must pay the price of recession.

The BBC will have to have its license fee frozen at £145.50 for the next six years. This means that the BBC can't increase its 'prices' inline with inflation and other external factors. So in real terms the BBC is getting a pay cut.

The opportunity cost from the view of the Government is that the BBC now won't have to pay for licenses of over 75s (which was the next best alternative for gone). This would have cost the BBC 25% in cuts (in real terms) opposed to this policy, which costs 16% in real terms but over six years.

Reason why the Government are doing this are difficult to pin point it could be for political gain: to be seen as the restorer of justice to a company with outrageous cost, after the scandal of Jonathan Ross and management pay perhaps to mask their own cuts and expesnive scandel.

Of course an even more cynical view be to say that is to return the favor to the right wing newspapers that supported the Tories in taking power. Maybe there is economic basis behind the discision; at least with all the cuts consumers will have some extra cash to spend (hopefully raising AD). Again this could be twisted; they Con-Dem Government is doing this to say they gave people money as well as cut: 'the balanced budget"

Either way the cuts are likely to reduce the quality of services and hit moral. Its good news for ITV their main rival that has been through rough times recently. 

Perhaps the BBC should add an extra B and become Budget Britain’s Broadcasting Corporation. 

Is the Government addressing an out of hand monopoly or damaging a public service?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11572171

Zoo-opoly

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.

McDonald's:
£3.59 - larger, better quality ingredient, better packaging, better taste,
Zoo Restaurant:
£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...........?