This building brings to mind the economic concept of administrative monopoly.
Chunghwa Post Co., Ltd. is Taiwan’s only postal service provider, and its monopoly mainly stems from the Postal Act, which stipulates that no private companies may engage in the delivery of postcards, letters, or similar mail items. This legal restriction effectively grants Chunghwa Post an exclusive right to operate postal services, forming an administrative monopoly.

In addition, Chunghwa Post benefits from economies of scale. Its extensive nationwide network and dense service points allow it to lower average costs and build a postal system that is nearly impossible to replace. As a state-owned enterprise, Chunghwa Post is not driven by the pursuit of high profits, enabling it to offer affordable postal services to the public.

Although the idea of privatizing postal services has been discussed for many years, removing the government’s exclusive authorization could jeopardize communication rights for residents in remote areas. Since mail volumes are low and transportation costs are high in these regions, private companies are unlikely to take on such unprofitable operations. For these reasons, Taiwan’s postal system remains under the monopoly of Chunghwa Post today.

This situation illustrates concepts of opportunity cost and cost-benefit analysis. Opportunity cost represents the potential benefits you miss out on by choosing one option over another, and it includes both tangible costs (like money) and intangible costs (like time or pleasure). To absorb knowledge and earn attendance points, students have to pay the price of risking their umbrellas from being damaged by strong winds, the physical exhaustion of walking against the wind, and the joy of resting in the dormitory. If students think that the benefits of attending class outweigh the costs of braving the wind and rain, they will rationally choose to attend.

Furthermore, I also wonder whether students would still choose to attend if there were no roll call system.

This kind of strategy creates a price incentive that affects consumer behavior — by lowering the total cost of purchasing both items, the café encourages customers to buy more and enjoy greater utility. From an economic standpoint, this strategy represents a form of price discrimination and illustrates how discounts can shift a consumer’s choice from buying one product to a combination that maximizes satisfaction within their budget.

I set up a simple game-theory model to think of this question. There are two players in this game, me and another group member. Each of us can choose to either do or not to do the project. If we do the project, we won’t fail the course (0 points), but we lose some of our free time (-20points). If one person doesn’t do the project, that person will save time (40 points), while the person who do the project loses time (-40 points). In this case, neither of us fails the course (0 points). If both of us choose not to do the project, we both save time (40 points), but fail the course (-100 points).

The best outcome is when one person does the project and the other doesn’t. This is the game of chicken. However, it occurs when two players don’t know about other’s decisions. Therefore, I should choose not to do the project since I know my partner is doing it, which will maximize my payoff. However, I still chose to do it because of my sense of responsibility and consideration for my teammate, even though I really don’t want to. This shows that people are not rational at all, we may act against our own best interests due to moral or psychological factors.

Besides taking the bus, the only other option is walking, which takes about 10 to 15 minutes. However, Taiwan’s weather is extremely hot, and walking makes you sweat so much that your clothes get completely soaked. Since we’ve studied economics, we know that we should choose the option with the lower opportunity cost.

There are two options: taking the bus or walking. We should first analyze their costs and benefits. The advantage of taking the bus is that it’s faster; the downside is that it costs money and you might have to wait in line for a long time. The advantage of walking is that it’s free, but it’s slower and more tiring. The bus fare is 2 NTD (less than 0.1 USD), which can be ignored. Walking causes fatigue and sweating, but you also sweat easily while waiting in line, so let’s assume the physical cost is about the same.

Based on this analysis, the only factor that really matters is time. According to the information above, if you have to wait for two buses, taking the bus is slightly faster than walking. But if you have to wait for three buses, walking becomes faster. Therefore, to determine which option has the lower opportunity cost, you need to check whether there are more than 50 people in line. And I’ve already figured out a quick way to estimate that—but there’s no way I’m telling you what it is.

According to the Law of Demand, when doughnuts can be purchased at a lower price, consumers are more willing to buy more of them. This shows the inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded.

In addition, the lottery activity increased the fun of buying and actually changed consumers’ perceived utility of the product. Even though the doughnuts themselves did not change, the entertainment and psychological satisfaction from the event made consumers more willing to purchase, effectively shifting their utility curve to the right.

It also reflects the concept of Price Elasticity of Demand. Since doughnuts are not necessities, consumers are more sensitive to price changes. When the price decreases, the quantity demanded increases significantly. Combined with promotional activities, this helps boost total sales. For the business, it is a pricing and marketing strategy aimed at increasing total revenue.

However, while eating doughnuts, the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility can be observed. The first doughnut brings the greatest happiness and satisfaction, but as more are eaten, the additional satisfaction decreases — the second or third doughnut may even start to feel too sweet or less enjoyable.

On the other hand, SunnyHills prices its pineapple cakes at NT$50 each, classifying them as high-priced items. Because brand image and product quality enhance customers' willingness to pay, the company can sell it at a higher price, gaining more producer surplus.

Therefore, while free samples increase costs, they expand consumer surplus, increasing overall demand. Besides, higher unit prices allow companies to obtain higher producer surplus. The combination of these two factors creates a win-win situation.

However, some of the more sought-after versions can sell for NT$500–1000 even as secondhand items. Many people might think spending that much money on a small plush toy is wasteful, but for fans who truly love it, it feels totally worth it.

This illustrates the concept of utility — the satisfaction or happiness consumers derive from goods and services. Utility is highly subjective, while some people may find the price of these plushies unreasonable, others feel it’s a great deal because of the joy they bring.

It also demonstrates the idea of consumer surplus. If a fan’s willingness to pay — the value or utility they perceive from the plushies — is higher than the actual selling price, they will feel the purchase was worthwhile. The difference between willingness to pay and the actual price is the consumer surplus, representing the extra satisfaction gained from each unit of transaction.

Overall, utility is subjective, and consumers decide their willingness to pay based on personal preferences. As long as the satisfaction gained from a product exceeds the amount paid for it, a consumer surplus arises — along with the feeling that the purchase was “worth it.”

Personally, I went to see the movie as well. However, by the time I watched it, all the special posters had already been given out. Although I really wanted to get one, I had to consider my opportunity cost—spending more time watching the movie again would have meant less time to study for my midterms. From an economic perspective, my decision not to return to the cinema reflects a rational choice, balancing the marginal benefit of obtaining the poster against the marginal cost of lost study time.

When too many people enter the venue, it can lead to safety hazards such as stampedes, so the organizers have to limit the number of attendees to maintain safety and order.

This situation shows that free music festivals can be considered congested goods. They are competitive , because when more people attend, the experience or comfort level for others decreases. Yet, they are not exclusive, since everyone is allowed to join without paying or being restricted by membership or ownership.

In other words, while the event is open to the public, the limited capacity of the venue makes it susceptible to congestion once attendance exceeds a certain level.

For example, barbecuing during the Moon Festival was not originally a traditional custom; it became popular because sauce brands successfully created demand through advertising, turning it into a regular festive consumption behavior. This illustrates the power of advertising effects and induced demand.

During barbecues, the demand for complementary goods such as charcoal, meat, grills, and sauces rises simultaneously, forming a complete “barbecue economy chain.”

However, barbecuing also generates smoke and noise, which create negative externalities for nearby residents.

In addition, the money and time spent on barbecuing represent an opportunity cost — some people consider the opportunity cost of barbecuing at home too high and instead choose to eat grilled food at restaurants.

From the perspective of supply and demand, Shiba Inus and Corgis are like mainstream products in the market. Their large breeding numbers and stable supply channels form a complete industry chain. However, the high popularity of these breeds also drives up market prices, creating a typical case of demand-pull inflation.

In contrast, niche breeds like Bull Terriers, with limited supply and a specific target audience, maintain a relatively stable price range. This aligns with the market segmentation theory in economics. Every consumer unconsciously conducts a cost-benefit analysis. When people choose a Shiba Inu, they are not just buying a pet but also conforming to mainstream societal aesthetics. On the other hand, choosing a Bull Terrier comes with higher opportunity costs, including the communication effort required to explain the breed’s characteristics and the social disadvantage of having fewer like-minded owners.

From the perspective of utility theory, for specific groups, the marginal utility brought by a Bull Terrier far exceeds that of mainstream breeds. Their unconventional appearance and distinct personality satisfy their desire for uniqueness. This decision-making behavior itself is akin to avoiding oversaturated red ocean markets in the consumer market and instead exploring one’s own blue ocean strategy.

From another perspective, although popular breeds come with more comprehensive care information and medical resources, the surge in their ownership has led to diminishing marginal utility. When Shiba Inus can be seen on every street corner, they no longer feel special. In contrast, while Bull Terriers require more time and effort to research and care for, they provide higher psychological satisfaction. This choice fully aligns with the decision-making model of a rational economic agent—they clearly understand that they are not seeking to follow trends but rather the unique value derived from scarcity.

True value does not lie in following the choices of the majority but in finding what best suits oneself. Every consumer makes optimized decisions based on their preferences, resulting in a diverse and vibrant pet market.

Since it is a huge event, which attracts around 20 thousand to 30 thousand people, the externality will occur. First, the positive externality, for the hotels, restaurants, shops around there, they don’t have to pay the cost to promote the event, but they can gain a lot by increasing number of customers coming to join this event. However, there will also have negative externality, the noise, pollution, and heavy traffic will undoubtedly affect the neighbors, causing them a big trouble. Also, there will be demand and supply effect. The event will attract people, in the short run, causing the demand curve to move rightward, some supply remain the same (hotel), so the price will be higher. In the long run, the producers see the profits are rising, the supply will gradually increase, causing the quantity to increase. The market will occur a new equilibrium point.

For me, the benefits are far more than the costs. Since it’s a free and an excellent place to enjoy the natural beauty, a good chance to escape the hustle and bustle, and a quality time with my family, this event has become my favorite thing throughout the year and become our family’s tradition. Although it cost some time to get there, it always makes us feel relaxed and want to go back again and again. This event makes me understand more behind the economics. And I can feel that economics exists everywhere.

However, during holidays, many families spend time there together. The facilities often require waiting in line; for example, when someone is using the slide, others must wait until it is free.

The next economic concept is externalities. Parks create positive externalities, such as giving children opportunities to make friends, strengthening family relationships, and improving the overall appearance of the neighborhood.

However, when the park becomes overcrowded or noisy, negative externalities may arise. For instance, office workers who wants to sleep in on weekends might be disturbed by children’s loud voices.

Lastly, in terms of social welfare and equity, community parks promote equity by providing recreational opportunities for people of all income levels, enhancing social inclusion, and improving overall social welfare.

According to what we’ve learned in economics, the supply curve for pork shifts to the left, causing the equilibrium price of pork to rise and the equilibrium quantity to fall. From what the owner described, we can infer that chicken is a substitute for pork. Since the change in the quantity of chicken divided by the change in the price of pork is greater than zero, the demand curve for chicken shifts to the right, leading to an increase in both the equilibrium price and the equilibrium quantity of chicken.

The shops along Beipu Old Street often feature strong local characteristics and a retro style, with Hakka culture being its most distinctive element. These cultural traits serve as important forms of differentiation that attract tourists.

However, while the development of the old street stimulates local economic growth and commercial activity, it may also reduce the quality of life for local residents due to increased crowds, noise, and higher living costs. These effects represent the social costs of old street development. In addition, as tourism expands, land and rental prices rise, increasing business costs and leading to higher product prices—resulting in a phenomenon of local inflation.

First, the relationship between ticket prices and the number of seats demonstrates the concept of "perfectly inelastic supply." In this event, the "good" being sold is a seat at the Taipei Dome, and the "supply" is fixed at 40,000 seats. Critically, this supply cannot be changed in the short term. Regardless of whether the organizers set the price at $500 or $5,000, the number of available seats remains exactly 40,000; it will not increase just because the price is higher. Graphically, this is represented by a vertical supply curve. When supply is fixed, the sole determinant of price becomes "demand." The demand for this game was clearly immense, driven by the combination of the Taiwan Series championship, the popularity of the home team (CTBC Brothers), and the new, comfortable, and air-conditioned Taipei Dome. This powerful demand chasing a fixed supply resulted in high ticket prices and a sold-out event.

As for why the prices themselves varied so dramatically even in a sold-out market, this involves the concept of "price discrimination". It simply refers to a firm charging different prices to different consumers for essentially the same good—in this case, the experience of watching the game. The team management understands that even with a fixed supply, the "willingness to pay" differs significantly among fans. Some fans seek the best possible view and a premium experience, willing to pay $2,800. Others, like myself, may be more focused on simply getting in to enjoy the atmosphere, with a willingness to pay closer to $900. If the club had set a single price, such as $1,500, they would have lost the customers only willing to pay $900, while simultaneously losing out on the extra $1,300 those willing to pay $2,800 would have spent. Therefore, by segmenting the stadium into different price zones, the club can "capture" as much consumer surplus as possible from each group, thereby maximizing its profits.

From an economic point of view, this choice reflects the concept of budget constraint and utility maximization. Within my limited budget, I chose the option that gives me the highest satisfaction. The extra money I spend is the cost, but the benefit is a better study atmosphere and higher productivity.

It also involves opportunity cost. By choosing to study in a café, I give up the free but less efficient option of studying in the library. However, since the benefit of better focus outweighs the extra cost, studying in a café becomes the rational and most efficient decision for me.

When Jeremy Lin was active in the league, ticket prices and demand were much higher. Many fans wanted to see him in person, so games often sold out quickly, and the overall market for basketball became more competitive. This shows how a single player’s popularity can shift the entire demand curve for the sport. After his retirement, the overall demand for tickets dropped slightly, and teams had to rely more on promotions or community events to attract fans. It’s a perfect example of how consumer demand reacts to changes in the product — in this case, the “product” being the basketball experience.

The idea of externalities also plays a big role. During Lin’s career, his presence created positive externalities: nearby restaurants, shops, and transport services benefited from large crowds, and his fame attracted media coverage that helped promote Taiwanese basketball internationally. Even after retirement, the lingering influence of his career continues to inspire young players and keeps fan interest alive. Of course, popular games can also bring negative externalities, like traffic jams and noise, especially around stadiums.

In short, the difference between the “Jeremy Lin era” and the time after his retirement shows how economics is deeply connected to sports. Player influence, consumer behavior, and social impact all work together to shape real-world economic outcomes.

Interestingly, even when everyone said they couldn’t eat another bite, our chopsticks kept moving slowly. This behavior reflects the Sunk Cost Fallacy, where people act irrationally because they want to get their money’s worth after paying for the buffet. In reality, the money spent should not affect our future decisions, but many people still let it drive their actions.

If it were you, would you stop eating once you had reached maximum satisfaction and achieved the greatest utility within your budget? Or would you keep eating to feel that you had made the most of your payment, even if your total satisfaction eventually turned negative?

Dream Plaza illustrates the concept of monopolistic competition. Inside the mall, many stores sell similar types of products—restaurants, cafés, and fashion brands—but each adds its own twist to stand out. A café might compete through interior design, a clothing shop through style and image, while a restaurant might use menu creativity to attract customers. These differences reflect product differentiation, which gives each firm some control over price and customer loyalty, even though other alternatives are close by.

From the consumer’s perspective, this place also represents utility maximization. Every visitor decides how to spend limited time and money among many possible activities: eating, shopping, or just enjoying the environment. Each person weighs the satisfaction they expect to gain against their budget and preferences before making a choice.

All in all, I couldn’t help but wonder how much of what we call “choice” is shaped by marketing and atmosphere. Are we really maximizing our utility—or simply responding to how these firms design our decisions?

During each break, many students choose to leave the classroom due to boredom. This behavior can be explained by the concept of opportunity cost. For those opting for skipping class, staying in the classroom means giving up the chance to relax or engage in more enjoyable activities. Since the opportunity cost of staying is higher than that of leaving, rational students choose the option that offers greater personal satisfaction, which in this scenario means leaving is the better choice.
Moreover, leaving classrooms can also be interpreted through the lens of utility maximization. Each student seeks the option that provides the highest level of satisfaction given their individual constraints.

From a microeconomics perspective, the dolls and clothes are complementary goods. Once someone buys the doll, they usually end up buying outfits too, so the demand moves together. The official dolls basically come from one producer, so that market shows monopoly power — the company controls the price and branding, and fans still buy it because they get emotional value and high consumer utility, not just the physical item. In other words, the willingness to pay is high because the product represents their idol.

On the other hand, the doll clothing market feels more like perfect competition. There are many sellers offering similar styles, and fans compare designs, quality, and price before choosing. Sellers need to be creative to differentiate their products and attract buyers.

There’s also a network effect. When fans share cute doll photos and outfits online, more people get interested, and this increases demand on both sides — for dolls and for fan-made clothes.

Even though this is just a small hobby, it shows how real life reflects core microeconomics ideas — from market structure to how emotions influence consumer choices.

This reflects a negative externality: everyone enjoys the event, but each extra person increases crowding and inconvenience for others. Since entering public space is free, more people show up than the socially efficient level. It also shows herd behavior — once you see everyone going, it’s hard not to join.

In the end, it was chaotic but interesting. Just a reminder that sometimes we trade comfort for experience, and that’s part of city life.

First, there are grades of Pokemon cards, which range from c to UR, and the grades present their scarcity. For example, in one box that contains 100 cards, you may get 30 C cards, 5 HR cards, 1 secret rare card and if lucky, one hyper rare card. For those collectors and Pokemon lovers, they would definitely want as many rare cards as they can get, which creates trading markets. Just as normal market, people can’t usually predict what generation of packs or what cards that people like, so those who hold rare cards can have higher pricing power. Besides, the company often announces special events or tournaments that provide super limited cards instead of trophies and further stimulate the market to be more activate.

As the paragraph mentioned above, the Pokemon cards market is built due to the demand (collectors and lovers) and supply (card holders). In recent years, as the Pokemon games and anime becoming popular globally, the number of collectors are increasing rapidly, which shows that Pokemon cards can create high utilities, so that people keep buying more cards in their budget constrain, pushing the cards prices be higher.

This photo was taken on a Monday afternoon. Under normal circumstances, the street is usually so crowded that you cannot walk properly without bumping into someone. However, when the weather condition was terrible, there were only a few pedestrians, and shops were closed.

Invoking theories of microeconomics, bad weather conditions often shift the supply curve leftward (as shown in the photo, where many shops are closed). On the other hand, the demand curve also shifts leftward because students prefer to order UberEats. This results in a lower equilibrium quantity while the price level remains relatively stable.

Now, I shall have sufficient microeconomic evidence to lodge a complaint against this unpredictable weather in Taipei.

This scene illustrates the concept of "supply and demand." The remaining seats inside the classroom represent a "limited supply," while the students outside representing "high demand." Because the price (tuition) is fixed and cannot be freely adjusted, a "supply shortage" occurs—the number of students wanting to take the course far exceeds the number the professor can accept.

How can the university bring the market to equilibrium? Should professors offer more courses of the same type? Or should the maximum number of students allowed in a course be increased? Or should a "bidding system" be adopted to more efficiently allocate these scarce spots?

When we eat the first plate of sushi, we’re still very hungry, so that plate brings us a great amount of satisfaction — the marginal utility is at its highest. As we continue to eat more and more plates, our feeling of fullness increases, causing the marginal utility to gradually decrease. With each additional plate, the marginal utility (MU) declines.

By the time we’re competing to see who can eat the most plates, those last few plates go far beyond our original sense of satisfaction. We’re only eating them to “beat” our friends and earn the title of the “big eater.” At that point, our MU is close to zero — or even negative. In the end, this simple sushi-eating contest perfectly illustrates the law of diminishing marginal utility — the more we eat, the less satisfaction we gain, until eating becomes more about pride than pleasure.

Xiao-Xiong often walks around campus, and whenever she does, students stop to take pictures or pet her. Her presence creates a positive externality, since people experience happiness and stress relief just by seeing her—even though no one pays for it. The joy she generates is non-excludable and non-rivalrous, meaning everyone can enjoy it simultaneously without reducing others’ enjoyment.

However, her owner manages a social media account for Xiao-Xiong, sharing photos and videos that attract thousands of followers. In this process, the once public happiness becomes partly a private good. Attention, affection, and even sponsorship opportunities are turned into economic value. This transformation demonstrates how markets can internalize externalities—turning spontaneous public joy into a commercial asset.

Beyond economics, Xiao-Xiong also represents how emotions and social interaction can become part of the modern attention economy. Her cuteness not only spreads happiness but also creates digital engagement, which can be monetized. It makes me wonder: when positive externalities like joy become commodified, do we lose part of their shared essence, or does commercialization help sustain and expand them through market incentives?

A library is not only a place of learning but also a living example of economic principles in action. One of the basic ideas in economics is the concept of scarcity—resources such as books, study space, and time are limited. Students in the library must decide how to allocate their limited time among reading, research, and rest. This reflects the principle of opportunity cost: every hour spent studying here is an hour that could have been spent elsewhere.

The library also demonstrates the idea of public goods. It provides access to information and study areas that everyone can use without reducing others’ ability to benefit. This represents an efficient use of shared resources, funded by the institution for the common good.

Despite the fact that Ichiban Kuji has a negative expected value, it means that any rational consumer should avoid this type of product. Nevertheless, they still remain incredibly popular.

From an economic perspective, this phenomenon illustrates human complexity and irrationality. In many economic models, we assume the principle that "people are rational and utility-maximizing." However,  Ichiban Kuji shows that in reality, this is not always the case, and a portion of consumption is irrational, ironically.

In fact, we had originally planned to visit another exhibition, but there were too many people waiting in line. Therefore, we changed our plan and still had a wonderful experience.

From an economic perspective, making choices requires weighing opportunity costs. While the other exhibition was more renowned, it required a greater investment of time and money. This exhibition, though smaller in scale, offered a more comfortable viewing experience without long waits. Therefore, we chose to see the Dream of the Red Chamber exhibition, with the opportunity cost being the chance to view the more famous paintings.

One day, I was waiting on the ninth floor to go down, and I found something interesting. There were two elevators above the ninth floor, both going down. But only one of them stopped for me—the one that already had someone inside who pressed “9”. The other one, even though it was closer, didn’t stop. The system decided it was more efficient to let the elevator that was already stopping there to pick me up rather than making both of them move extra.

That’s when I realized this is actually economics in real life. The elevator system is trying to save energy and maximize efficiency, but at the same time, that choice can lead to longer waiting times for people like me. In other words, it sacrifices fairness for efficiency, or individual convenience for collective benefit.

The elevators, in a way, are like a small economic system. They allocate limited resources—like time and electricity—to achieve the greatest overall outcome. And that’s exactly what economics is about: making choices, balancing trade-offs, and finding the best possible use of what we have.

By economic concepts, when consumers except they will no longer be able to purchase the same product after the shop closes, the product become scarcity. Therefore, when other conditions are constant, the consumer demand for the shop's products increases.

On the other hand, because it decided to close, the shop does not change the prices in the short term in responding the demand increased. Also, it will not increase its supply due to its shutdown. During this period, supply is perfectly inelastic, represented by a vertical supply curve.

Overall, the price and supply are fixed, but demand incresed. The excess demand creates a shortage for the shop's products. As a result, the suddenly rapid increase in customers results in queuing. At the same time, it can be expected that some consumers won't get the product they wanted.

Furthermore, this situation represents a short term change at a single and small shop within a local area. Therefore, it will not affect the equilibrium of similar products, that is, the overall drink market.

(This article is translated by GPT, Mandarin version is written by myself. )

This photo was taken during a summer SROI workshop I joined while working at my university’s USR Project Office. Funny enough, the “students” you see here were actually professors (or research assistants) from different universities.

For years, many professors have been complaining about how college students seem indifferent in class—always on their phones, coming in late, disrupting lessons, or refusing to answer questions. But when these same professors became “students” for a day, most of them acted exactly like the ones they used to criticize—quiet, distant, and barely interacting with the lecturer.

From an economic point of view, classroom interaction often lacks incentives. There’s usually no real reward for speaking up, and if you give a wrong or imperfect answer, you might get an awkward laugh or a cold response from the professor—it’s just not worth the risk. On the other hand, when professors create bonus-point systems, encourage questions, and keep an open attitude, the number of interactions in class tends to rise noticeably.

這張上課照片是我在暑期因校內USR計劃辦公室工讀參與SROI工作坊所攝，照片中的「學生」是來自各大學的「教授（或研究助理）」。迄今為止，諸多大學與教授發表關於大學生冷漠的課堂互動：低頭滑手機、遲到或干擾課堂、不願回答問題等，然而當這些教授參與工作坊成為學生時，他們大多數如同研究中冷淡的學生，幾乎不與講師互動。

從經濟學角度來看：課堂與教授互動大多時候缺乏誘因（獎勵機制），甚至如果回答錯誤或不完善更可能被揶揄與被教授冷淡回應，成本過大；當然，如果教授在課堂制定加分機制和鼓勵同學提問及對學生持開放態度，同學互動數量亦有所提升。

Clearance Sale: Offer from 30%"

There’s a bookstore right across from our school that will close down on December 31st.

Why are the shops near our school shutting down? Is it because the demand isn’t enough to support the supply? Or businesses in this area never make enough profit to survive?

Take this bookstore as an example. These days, people have started to stop using paper notebooks. Most of them prefer taking notes on their phones, tablets, or laptops. The demand for physical writing materials has dropped significantly, makes suppliers can't sell enough products to cover their costs, and in a world like that, it becomes harder for sellers to stay in business. The only choice they can make is to close down their business, which is understandable, yet still a little heartbreaking.

A few days ago, I went to a Japan products fair in Xinyi District, looking for something to eat. I came across a famous tamagoyaki (Japanese omelet) stall that was selling a set of tamagoyaki (about four pieces) with toppings for 280 NT dollars. I thought that was a bit too expensive, so I didn’t buy it. Later, I noticed someone holding single pieces of tamagoyaki, so I went back to check and realized they were also selling single pieces for 70 NT dollars each. Even though I still felt that 70 dollars are a little bit expensive , it looked so tasty that I decided to buy one.

Actually, if you divide the price by the portion size, the set at 280 dollars is cheaper on average. However, I felt that buying one piece for 70 dollars was more “worth” . The reason is that my marginal utility for tamagoyaki decreases. When I eat the first piece, I feel very satisfied and gain a lot of utility. But when I eat the second or third piece, since I’ve already tried it and I start to feel full, the satisfaction I get is lower. As the quantity increases, the utility I gain decreases.

That’s why the whole set didn’t seem like a good deal to me.

Although the average price per piece is lower, my utility decreases more sharply, so I wasn’t willing to spend that money to satisfy myself further. Actually, after eating the first piece, I thought it was delicious and wanted another one, but the decrease in utility from the second piece was enough to make me unwilling to pay another 70 dollars.

This simple decision actually reflects some key ideas from microeconomics. First, it shows the Law of Demand: when the price of a good falls, people are more willing to buy it. When the price was high, it wasn’t within our budget, but the promotion lowered the cost, so the ice cream became something we could afford. It also relates to Utility Maximization — with the same amount of money, we were able to get more satisfaction (or utility) than before, since the deal gave us two ice creams for the price of one.

From the shop’s perspective, this is a price incentive strategy. By offering a temporary discount, the store attracts new customers to try their product. Even though the profit per sale is lower in the short term, it helps create awareness and might bring those customers back in the future at regular prices.

In the end, this photo isn’t just a memory of dessert after dinner — it’s also a real-life example of how changes in price and budget constraints affect consumer choices and behavior in everyday life.

From an economic perspective, the seats had a limited quantity (fixed supply), while the number of students who wanted to attend the class surged on the day of quiz. When demand exceeded supply, the number of seats became insufficient, forcing some students to sit on the floor. In addition, taking the quiz served as a strong incentive — students who were usually absent were more motivated by the pressure of missing the quiz, which rapidly increased the attendance rate in a short time.

Each morning, We face a decision between two options: waking up early to attend class or staying at home to rest or engage in more enjoyable activities. Attending class means giving up the comfort of sleep or relaxation, while skipping class means missing out on learning and participation. When the opportunity cost of staying home (missing important material and participation) outweighs the cost of attending, a rational student would attend. However, when the perceived benefit of rest and comfort provides greater personal satisfaction, skipping class becomes the rational choice.

This decision-making process also relates to utility maximization. Every student seeks to maximize their overall satisfaction given their individual constraints, such as energy, time, and motivation. For some, the utility gained from additional sleep or relaxation exceeds the utility of attending class, leading them to stay home. In this way, even skipping class can be understood as a rational economic decision guided by personal preferences and perceived benefits.

and sadly, my umbrella has been cruelly stolen by someone.

From this, I’ve observed some interesting points.

First, it raises the question of how people weigh the value of an umbrella against moral considerations. Taiwanese people are often known for their kindness and honesty. For example, when someone loses a wallet or phone, these valuable items are either turned in to the police or simply left in place. However, smaller items such as umbrellas or helmets are much more likely to be stolen.

I believe this reflects how people balance the value of an object with their moral standards. Because an umbrella is inexpensive and easy to obtain, those who take one feel less psychological burden—it’s seen as a low-cost wrongdoing. When the cost of obtaining an umbrella increases, for instance, assuming that it’s raining outside and one cannot go out without it, the benefit of acquiring a new umbrella seems smaller than the cost or inconvenience of doing so. This raises the incentive to steal an umbrella, leading to more such behavior.

I believe that this kind of externality problem which’s caused by people forgetting to bring their umbrellas, can be addressed through a public goods approach.

For example, we could establish an umbrellas sharing system or install umbrella dryers, allowing people to bring their umbrellas into library and keep umbrellas safely with them. At the same time, shared umbrellas would help those who don’t have one get through a rainy day, thereby reducing the incentive and frequency of umbrella stealing .

In addition, the limited-time and limited-quantity nature of discounted i-Food activates psychological effects such as scarcity and the fear of missing out, making consumers more willing to purchase even if they did not plan to buy originally. For example, during my recent visit to a convenience store, I bought all my food at 35% off simply because the discount made the purchase feel more worthwhile. Although I could have chosen other options, the price difference influenced my decision and increased the likelihood of buying more items.

Therefore, this strategy is not just about lowering prices; it is a business model that combines cost control, consumer incentives, and behavioral economics, producing benefits for both the store and its customers.

In addition, this particular stage was oriented toward the outside of the venue, and its volume was quite loud. Because of this, people who didn’t buy tickets could still clearly hear the performances from outside the festival grounds. I found this situation unfair — while paying attendees had their experience disrupted by sound interference, non-paying individuals could enjoy the music for free.

The interference between stages can be seen as a negative externality, since it imposes unwanted costs on other performers and audiences. Meanwhile, the fact that outsiders can enjoy the music without paying represents a free-rider problem. If such issues persist every year, they could lead to market failure, as the festival would not efficiently allocate enjoyment relative to payment.

To address these problems, the organizers should carefully evaluate the placement and orientation of the stages, as well as control the volume levels in future events. Doing so would minimize interference and free-riding, ensuring that those who pay for admission receive the greatest possible enjoyment from the festival.

In economics, price affects the quantity demanded. By lowering the cost of using public transportation, the government can encourage people to take public transit more often, which in turn reduces the frequency of driving and helps address external costs such as air pollution and traffic congestion.

However, the government also needs to carefully consider how to set the ticket price. If the price is too low, it may lead to overcrowding or resource waste.

Using economic knowledge, we can analyze how a commuter monthly pass may change consumer behavior and the potential positive and negative effects it could have on society.

Rains always come at someone’s surprise, it comes fast and also leaves fast. And there is always people forget to bring the umbrella  with them or being scammed by the sunshine in the morning. At this moment, people may choose to steal one from a bunch of umbrellas at the entrance.

These incidents are constantly happen in NCCU. It’s bad because it is at someone’s expense, and illegal with no doubt. Why do people choose to do such diabolical things?

To explain this from the view of economics, by the “opportunity cost”, for a person the opportunity cost of getting wet in the rain is so high or the prospect of getting caught is so low that the person makes the choice to steal the umbrella which is not belong to him. Of course, this is under the assumption that people are rational and their choice are being thoroughly calculated. In some cases maybe people just steal it due to impulse and without much calculation.

We can also explain the incident that it is due to “lack of information”. People don’t really aware of the outcome of stealing (which according to Article 320(general theft) of the Criminal Code: Punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, short-term detention, or a fine of up to NT$500,000.)

So they don’t include the real downside of stealing into their decision making process.

In conclusion, stealing is bad, and stealing someone’s umbrella when raining is worse, so don’t stealing.

By Joseph

I wonder how effective these regulations really are. Will increasing fines really reduce illegal parking?Would providing more parking spaces be a more effective method than this punishment?

I was one of the people in that line. It was still summer, and everyone was crammed into the stuffy, hot hallway, which was very uncomfortable. But in order to get into this gen-ed course, all of that discomfort seemed trivial.

From a microeconomics perspective, this course is like a "product." The university is the supplier, and the students are the consumers. In reality, the classroom can only hold fewer than forty people; it was impossible for so many people to be in there taking the class at the same time. This represented a severe shortage, where supply fell far short of demand.

The fact that everyone was willing to endure the hot, stuffy environment while waiting for the professor's signature means that the opportunity cost of waiting (the time spent and the discomfort endured) was lower than the opportunity cost of not being able to take the class for the entire semester. This explains why everyone chose to stay in the hallway and wait.

However, the final outcome was: the professor did not approve anyone's add-on request.

I think the free shuttle bus is nonexcludable because it is free to everyone who wants to take it—no one is prevented from boarding regardless of payment or identity.

However, it is rivalry because as more people use it, it diminishes others’ use. Rivalry means consumption by one person reduces the availability or quality for others. For example, each additional passenger takes up a seat, increases crowding, and may cause delays or force others to wait for the next bus, lowering the service quality for remaining users.

Just as I reached the bus stop, the headlights of my bus faded into the distance. The next one wouldn’t come for 57 minutes. I could take the MRT instead, but that would mean a long, drenched walk home through the narrow streets ,and the pouring rain.

So I stood there for a moment, my umbrella trembling under the rain, and found myself conducting a cost benefit analysis, a small act of rational choice. Should I spend time and energy trudging home, or spend some money to take shelter in a movie theater nearby? Going home would save me the price of a ticket, but a movie offered warmth, comfort, and a few hours of escape.

Comparing the opportunity cost of each decision, I realized that the marginal joy of resting in a dimly lit theater outweighed the savings I’d make by heading home. In that instant, the decision was clear: watching a film was the path to utility maximization.

It was a Monday night, and I guessed there would be few others in the cinema. For most people, the opportunity cost of staying out late was too high. They had early mornings, deadlines, and routines waiting. But for me, since I have no classes on Tuesday, the thought of having an entire theater to myself promised a higher marginal utility.

When I finally stepped into the dark theater, the empty seats confirmed my expectations. At that moment, I knew that within my limited budget and circumstances, I had chosen the option that truly maximized my utility.

As a frugal student, I would like to share how to purchase meals at a discounted price when you are on a tight budget. 7-Eleven offers several discount periods throughout the day, with different percentages off the original price. These time-based discounts reflect two key economic concepts. 

First, the idea of price elasticity of demand can be clearly observed in daily life. Since students have limited income, they tend to pay close attention to their daily expenditures. As a result, they are highly sensitive to price changes. This explains why discussions about discount periods and updated food prices are popular topics on Taiwanese social media. 

Second, the fact that the discount increases as the day goes on illustrates the concept of price discrimination. The later it gets, the lower the price becomes. By adjusting prices according to the time of day, 7-Eleven attracts different groups of consumers to purchase food at various times, effectively reducing leftover inventory and maximizing revenue. 

A consumer, or the organizer of this display, had to choose between various ways to allocate resources for the event. Imagine a consumer initially planned to purchase premium expensive decorations. The items in the photo represent a relatively cheaper alternative for achieving the same utility. The consumer substituted the higher-priced, premium decorations with this more cost-effective bundle. This shift in consumption toward the relatively cheaper good and away from the relatively more expensive good is the substitution effect, triggered by the change in the relative price of spooky decorations.

By opting for this less expensive decorative setup, the consumer effectively increased their real income, as the money saved can now be used elsewhere.

This walkway can be considered a public good, as it meets the criteria for one. A public good is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous, meaning that no individual can be prevented from using it, and one person’s use does not diminish the availability or benefit of the good to others. This walkway is a typical example. It’s impossible for my friends and me to stop others from walking on this path even if we wanted it all to ourselves; likewise, others cannot prevent us from enjoying it either. This illustrates the characteristic of non-excludability. As for non-rivalry, based on my experience, there are not so many people using it at the same time that it feels crowded or uncomfortable, so I would define it as a non-rivalrous good. However, it makes me wonder what would happen if this walkway became a tourist attraction and the local government wanted to maintain its beauty. How would the government raise funds, and from whom would it collect the money? If only nearby residents — those who use it most frequently — were required to pay, would that create a free-rider problem? On the other hand, if a user-pays system were adopted, people might be discouraged from visiting, leading to an inefficient use of resources. If the government directly allocated part of its budget to maintain the walkway, what potential problems might arise from that approach?

We can explain this using the idea of price elasticity of demand in economics.

When a price changes, whether revenue goes up or down depends on the elasticity of demand. If demand is close to unit elastic, lowering the price can increase total revenue. If the original price is in a situation where demand is elastic, then lowering the price will increase ridership enough to raise total revenue. But if demand is inelastic, lowering the price would make the revenue decrease even more.

So which type of elasticity did the MRT originally have? The answer is elastic demand.

Because the Taipei MRT is publicly operated, its prices are set by the government. The government tends to set prices a bit higher at first, which makes demand more elastic. This gives them room to lower prices later to increase revenue. So when the government lowered the ticket prices, demand moved closer to unit elasticity, and total revenue successfully increased.

By choosing to study, the opportunity cost I incurred was the $500 salary I forfeited. This also implies that, to me, the value of studying for Intermediate Accounting is greater than $500.

First, students love pizza, so the demand was definitely high. Everyone gets happiness (or utility) from eating it. However, the more slices you eat, the less extra happiness you get — this is called diminishing marginal utility. The first slice tastes amazing, but by the fourth slice, you’re probably already full.

Also, because we ordered so many pizzas at once, the average cost per person became lower. This is an example of economies of scale — buying in a big group is cheaper than each person buying their own meal separately.

So the camp leaders made a rational decision: a food choice that most people enjoy, and at a lower cost. In the end, the pizzas didn’t just fill stomachs — they also created a fun dinner time that increased everyone’s overall utility.

In this situation, more than a hundred students wanted to enroll in the course, showing a high demand for available spots. However, the professor was only willing to add twenty more students because of the scarcity of teaching resources. As a result, there was excess demand — the number of students who wanted to join was greater than the number of seats available.

This situation reflects several microeconomic concepts:

1. Market Equilibrium: Leading up to the last day of the promotional period, there was high demand for these donuts due to the 31% discount, resulting in frequent stockouts. The earlier shortage shows that, at the discounted price, quantity demanded exceeded quantity supplied, temporarily pushing the market away from equilibrium, causing shortages.

2. Consumer Behavior and Utility Maximization: Knowing the discount was ending and supply had been limited, the decision to buy four at once reflects rational consumer behavior—trying to maximize total utility given budget constraints. I bought four desserts instead of one or two because the discount increased my marginal utility per dollar spent. I was trying to maximize satisfaction (utility) within my budget.

3. Scarcity and Timing: Because the donuts were often out of stock during the promotion, the opportunity to buy them at a reduced price was scarce. I waited until the very last day of the promotion to take advantage of the deal, demonstrating how scarcity and deadlines influence consumption decisions.

4. Price Elasticity: The strong response to a discount (increased quantity demanded) suggests the donuts are relatively price elastic—consumers are sensitive to price changes for this product.

This experience makes me think of some questions below:

1. Could FamilyMart optimize inventory management further during promotional periods to avoid frequent shortages, thus increasing total sales and consumer satisfaction?

2. If discounts were applied more regularly, would the same demand surge occur, or would shoppers become less responsive over time?

Normally, before an idol’s comeback, fans will pre-order the new album to help boost sales. During this period, most fans spend their money on the new album, so they usually have less money to spare. As a result, many fans choose to sell some of their other merchandise—such as photo cards, dolls, or older albums—to get extra cash. This increases the supply of idol merch on the market, which leads to lower prices.

That’s when I usually take the opportunity to buy the items I’ve been keeping an eye on, so I can get them at a cheaper price.

The school uses an automatic license plate recognition system to manage both the car parking and the scooter parking.

Even though this is a public school, the parking here is not free.

Cars that park longer than 30 minutes need to pay a fee, and scooters also have designated paid parking spaces. Delivery vehicles also have time limits.

From an economics perspective, this is a real-life example of how the school uses pricing to manage resources. Parking lots are limited spaces, and if they were free, many people would come and take spots even if they are not students or just want to visit nearby places. That would create congestion and make it difficult for actual students or faculty to find space.

To make it feel more personal, I added a Nagano keychain. From an economic perspective, this purchase can be explained by the concept of marginal utility, the additional satisfaction gained from consuming one more unit of a good or service. Even though I already owned several keychains, adding this one increased my happiness because it made my bag feel more personal and unique. However, if I continued buying more similar plushies, my marginal utility from each new one would gradually decrease a phenomenon known as diminishing marginal utility. This shows how consumers make purchasing decisions not only based on price but also on how much extra satisfaction each additional good provides.

Tourists visiting this area have several options: they can explore the zoo to observe diverse and rare animals or take the gondola to enjoy the mountain scenery from an aerial perspective. The area consistently experiences high visitor volume on weekends, as these diverse options attract people seeking recreation.

The establishment of the MRT station provides a key resource: foot traffic, that is essentially a non-excludable benefit freely shared by the gondola operator and surrounding businesses. The transit connectivity afforded by the MRT station gives the gondola company access to a broader market base, effectively reducing the cost of customer acquisition it would otherwise incur. This constitutes a significant positive externality conferred by the MRT system on the gondola's operations.

The geographic proximity of the two facilities reinforces their complementarity as services. It efficiently integrates what were originally two independent services—urban transit (MRT) and tourism connectivity (Gondola)—allowing passengers to consume them as a single, cohesive composite good. The (actual) existence of tourists who choose this itinerary specifically for the ease of transfer demonstrates that they derive a higher level of total utility from the combined offering. Thus, the near-site location of the MRT and gondola stations not only expands the potential market but also serves to maximize the social welfare derived from this public infrastructure.

At the same time, there were opportunity costs and negative externalities. City government would use additional budget for security, cleanup, and public transportation management. While these expenditures stimulate local employment temporarily, they represent resources diverted from other public projects. The traffic and business disruption during the parade may also impose efficiency losses on every citizens.

This situation shows how pricing strategy can shape consumer behavior. The store used bundle pricing to make people feel they’re saving money, which increases sales. It also connects to the idea of marginal benefit — the extra satisfaction from the second drink felt worth it compared to the small additional cost.

It also reflects opportunity cost, since buying more of one product means giving up the chance to spend that money elsewhere. Still, the sense of getting a “good deal” influenced my decision.

It made me realize how easily our choices are affected by marketing and pricing strategies. Even a simple discount can make us feel smarter as consumers, while we might actually be spending more.

This situation shows how pricing strategy can shape consumer behavior. The store used bundle pricing to make people feel they’re saving money, which increases sales. It also connects to the idea of marginal benefit — the extra satisfaction from the second drink felt worth it compared to the small additional cost.

It also reflects opportunity cost, since buying more of one product means giving up the chance to spend that money elsewhere. Still, the sense of getting a “good deal” influenced my decision.

It made me realize how easily our choices are affected by marketing and pricing strategies. Even a simple discount can make us feel smarter as consumers, while we might actually be spending more.

When purchasing the park ticket, there was an optional meal voucher add-on for HK$120, which included a meal (lunch or dinner) and a “free” Disney popsicle. At first glance, the deal seemed attractive. However, I had no intention of eating a meal inside Disneyland. I was only interested in the popsicle itself.If I had chosen the meal voucher, I would have spent HK$120 but only gained utility from the popsicle, not from the meal. Therefore, I decided not to buy the voucher and instead purchased the popsicle alone for HK$45. This seemingly simple decision reflects some important principle of individual economics.

Rational choice theory suggests that consumers make decisions to maximize their total utility under a budget constraint.
In this case, I faced two options:pay HK$120 for the meal voucher (including a popsicle), or pay HK$45 for just the popsicle.Since I did not value the meal, the utility I would gain from the extra HK$75 (HK$120-HK$45) spent was nearly zero. Buying the voucher would have meant paying more for no additional satisfaction. Therefore, choosing to buy only the popsicle provided a higher utility-to-cost ratio — a rational decision that maximized my personal benefit.Consumers do not simply choose the cheapest or most inclusive deal; instead, they evaluate how much satisfaction each option brings relative to its cost. 

From the consumer side, the decision to skydive is primarily governed by willingness to pay (WTP) and subjective utility. Unlike standard commodities, the good here is an experience — its value arises from non-material benefits (memories, status, intense emotions). You explicitly paid about NT$13,000 for the jump; because you judged the first jump “worth it,” your consumer surplus is positive: the utility you gained exceeded the price paid. The report that you briefly felt unwell after the 60 seconds free fall also illustrates marginal utility and diminishing returns: the first jump yields very high marginal utility (novelty and intensity), while the second jump typically provides a smaller incremental gain—consistent with diminishing marginal utility for repeated experiential consumption.

Risk matters. Providers charge a risk premium above what similar-duration, lower-risk leisure activities command to compensate for liability, safety equipment, and skilled labor (tandem instructors). The market thus bundles a safety premium with the experience price. Closely related is information asymmetry and trust: consumers cannot fully verify a company’s safety practices prior to purchase, so reputable operators use signaling (licenses, instructor certifications, online reviews) to credibly differentiate themselves. That you needed to wait for weather checks and boarding conditions highlights stochastic supply—supply is contingent on exogenous conditions (weather), making capacity uncertain and complicating scheduling and pricing.

Scarcity and capacity constraints shape market structure. There are relatively few certified tandem instructors and limited aircraft time; these supply-side constraints create scarcity and justify higher prices during peak seasons. Firms may practice price discrimination (e.g., off-peak discounts, group rates, or seasonal pricing) to extract more surplus from heterogeneous consumers with different price sensitivities.

Behavioral economics also explains choices here. Prospect theory and the affect heuristic predict that anticipated emotions (fear, excitement) strongly influence WTP, and that losses (safety incidents) are weighted more heavily than equivalent gains. Social preferences and signaling contribute too — extreme experiences can function as status goods, increasing utility through social recognition.

Finally, if we frame the consumer’s problem under budget and time constraints, the chosen allocation (one expensive high-risk experience versus several lower-cost leisure activities) reflects utility maximization given budget and time constraints. Your willingness to potentially repeat the experience, despite some discomfort, suggests the net present value of the experiential utility, even accounting for short-term costs (nausea), remains positive for you.

Conclusion: Skydiving illustrates multiple microeconomic themes at once: consumer preference for memorable experiences, risk pricing and premiums, scarcity and capacity-driven pricing, information asymmetry and signaling, behavioral drivers of WTP, and welfare/regulatory implications. This tandem jump exemplifies how real-world markets for high-risk experiences allocate resources and extract surplus — and why such activities can command premium prices despite their non-pecuniary costs.

Initially, when a person begins exercising or increases their training intensity from a lower base (e.g., adding the first few plates of weight or performing the first few sets), the additional benefit (marginal utility) they gain in terms of muscle growth, strength, or satisfaction is significant.

However, as they continue to invest more effort, time, or weight (i.e., making additional "inputs"), the marginal utility from each subsequent additional input gradually decreases. For an experienced lifter, achieving even a small increment of progress (e.g., gaining 1 kg of muscle or increasing a lift by 5 kg) requires a disproportionately larger amount of effort and training volume compared to a beginner.

Eventually, the marginal benefit derived from further training (e.g., adding another set or increasing weight) can become so small that it no longer justifies the opportunity cost (the value of alternative activities they could be doing) or the potential for injury. At this point, a rational "economic agent" (the gym-goer) would consider altering their routine, resting, or stopping the exercise.

From an economic perspective, this decision reflects the concept of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost refers to the value of the best alternative that one gives up when making a choice. At that time, I faced two options: waiting for the bus, which cost more time but cost less money; or taking an Uber, which saved time but was more expensive. After weighting it, I thought that the time and convenience I would lose by waiting were still less costly than paying the higher Uber fare. This illustrates that we often make decisions based on comparing different costs, ultimately choosing the option with the lowest opportunity cost and the greatest overall benefit.

These ice cream bars are close substitutes for one another, so the demand for any single brand is highly price-elastic. Stores take advantage of this elasticity through sales promotions. When the price of one brand drops, its quantity demanded rises significantly because consumers switch from competing substitutes. The increase in units sold is often large enough to outweigh the lower price, causing total revenue for that item to rise.

Conversely, if the store raises the price of an item that has strong substitutes nearby, consumers can easily switch to a cheaper alternative displayed right next to it. The resulting decrease in demand causes total revenue to fall. Thus, these promotions aim to maximize total revenue by targeting products with elastic demand.

This photo shows people renting YouBikes on a busy street in Taipei. The bikes are part of a public bike-sharing system that allows everyone to rent and return bicycles easily.

Think:

This represents the concept of common resources and positive externalities. YouBike reduces traffic congestion and pollution, benefiting not only the riders but also society. However, when too many users compete for limited bikes or parking spots, it shows the problem of rivalry in shared resources.

Wonder:

I wonder how the government balances accessibility and maintenance costs, and whether small usage fees are enough to cover the external benefits of the system.

Public goods are resources that possess non-excludability and non-rivalry. Non-excludability means that anyone can use them, while non-rivalry means that one person’s use does not reduce the benefit available to others. The benches in parks perfectly illustrate these characteristics. When people are out for a walk and want to take a break, they can easily sit down, relax, or chat with friends. Anyone can use these benches without paying a fee, and after one person finishes using them, others can enjoy the same comfort as well.

However, because everyone is free to use them, problems sometimes occur—benches may be left with trash, or someone might occupy a seat for a long time, preventing others from using it. This reminds us that when we use public goods, we should do so responsibly and carefully, so that these shared resources can be enjoyed sustainably by everyone.

From an economic perspective, the rice field scenery in Taitung has the characteristics of non-excludability and non-rivalry—anyone can enjoy it for free, and one person’s enjoyment does not reduce another’s. Therefore, it can be seen as a quasi-public good. Yet, when too many visitors come and the area is overused, its quality declines. This reflects the idea of the “tragedy of the commons”—when a shared resource lacks proper management, individuals acting in self-interest can end up harming the collective welfare.

To solve these problems, the government and local communities could introduce economic measures, such as setting up designated sightseeing routes, charging parking or cleaning fees, or internalizing externalities by making users pay part of the maintenance costs. These policies would help preserve the landscape and promote sustainable local development.

This trip taught me that the beauty of Taitung’s rice fields is not just a gift from nature, but also a public good that requires everyone’s care. With proper management and shared responsibility, these golden fields can continue to shine in the sunlight for generations to come.

This moment reflects an imperfect information market. Each participant interprets limited signals to form a belief about value, risk, and return. Just like investors assessing a company, bettors face information asymmetry: insiders may read subtle physical cues or training data, while others rely on surface impressions. The result is a market that appears rational but runs on fragmented signals and behavioral biases.

If information transparency increased—say, through real-time biometric tracking or open-data sharing—would the betting market become more efficient, or merely shift the competition toward new, hidden asymmetries? In any market, from horse racing to finance, the question remains: does more data truly bring clarity, or just new layers of noise?

Yet while everyone wants to use the seats, no one clearly owns them, creating a tragedy of the commons.

Even if you finally have a seat, the initial happiness is high. But by the third or fourth hour of studying, you start feeling the chair getting harder and harder, and your attention increasingly scattered. This is diminishing marginal utility—as usage time increases, the satisfaction derived from this seat actually decreases.

I notice that the clothes they wore were normal goods. If their income gets higher, they will have better clothes. Also, due to “trick or treat”, I think the demand of candy might be higher in the few weeks before Halloween. Moreover, the demand for labors may also be higher on October 31 to handle the large quantities of people partying in Xingyi district.

I’m not anti-crowd (I’m literally in it). I just think small rules could make the same view feel calmer and fairer: timed entry at peak hours, shuttle-only access instead of private cars, a short stay limit right at the lakeshore, or off-peak discounts to spread visits. Even simpler fixes—clearer one-way flow on the boardwalk and better signs—might cut half the hassle without making the place feel exclusive.

This behavior can be explained through the concept of negative externalities. When individuals choose to dump their garbage for their own convenience, they create unpleasant consequences for others — such as attracting mosquitoes, ants, and cockroaches, or making the environment dirty and smelly. Although the individuals benefit from saving time and effort, the overall cost is borne by everyone living in the dormitory.

This also reflects the problem of the “tragedy of the commons,” where shared spaces are easily overused or neglected because no one takes direct responsibility.

I think the school should promote awareness or introduce penalties to make people internalize the external costs. It would remind students that keeping the dorm clean benefits everyone.

Alright, let’s set aside my tragic lunch experience for now and focus on what’s really going on here. At the posted price, demand is higher than the store’s short-run capacity, so a shortage appears. Customers “pay” not only money but also time, so the implicit price = money price + waiting time. Students compare marginal benefit (getting a quick, delicious meal) with the opportunity cost of waiting. Those with a low value of time (or fewer schedule conflicts) are more likely to stay in line; those with a high value of time leave and buy elsewhere, which reduces consumer surplus and creates some deadweight loss.

So, next time you see this line stretching out the door, just remember: you’re not just waiting for fries—you’re participating in a real-life supply and demand experiment. Welcome to Econ class 001: chicken nuggets and questionable life choices ! As for me? I’ll just be over here… eating cookies bought quickly from the convenience store next door in class and pretending it’s a “strategic consumption decision.”

From a consumer’s perspective, there are many cafeterias around the school, so the free banana becomes an appealing incentive that lowers my opportunity cost of choosing this restaurant — I not only get the meal but also an extra banana.

From a producer’s perspective, bananas are inexpensive, and giving one away can attract more customers and increase their likelihood of coming back. Moreover, offering just one banana reflects the idea of diminishing marginal utility — it’s a “just right” reward that avoids waste while still maximizing customer satisfaction.

Overall, I think this small marketing choice demonstrates how simple economic principles can create a win–win situation for both consumers and producers.

When too many vehicles occupy the road, congestion reduces everyone’s driving speed—this represents a negative externality, where an individual’s action unintentionally imposes a cost on others. If drivers consider only their own convenience and ignore the overall traffic flow, a gap emerges between the social optimum and the individual optimum, illustrating a case of market failure in economics.

Meanwhile, the highway lanes and traffic signals symbolize the government’s intervention mechanisms. Through regulations, tolls, or speed limits, authorities aim to guide the allocation of resources toward Pareto efficiency. For instance, charging higher tolls during peak hours—such as through differential ETC pricing—is a concrete method of internalizing external costs.

From the perspective of marginal benefit and marginal cost, selling soon-to-expire food at a lower price helps reduce potential losses. If the discounted revenue exceeds the disposal loss, the store benefits from selling rather than wasting the product.

At the same time, this practice also reflects concepts from behavioral economics. The discount label triggers consumers’ sense of “getting a good deal.” Even those who did not plan to buy may be influenced by loss aversion and the scarcity effect, motivating them to purchase before the offer or product expires.

The distribution of these items, specifically intended as an "All Pass" blessing for midterms, sets the price for the students at zero. This elimination of monetary cost means the quantity demanded is maximized, as the snack and card are accessible to all students regardless of their budget.

More significantly, the student union utilizes these items as a non-monetary incentive to generate utility (satisfaction) beyond the physical value of the snack itself. The snack provides direct utility (hunger relief), but the encouraging card—a psychological good—provides indirect utility by reducing stress and fostering a sense of belonging. The student union invests in these low-cost items to gain high-value returns in the form of increased student goodwill and positive perception, illustrating a cost-effective strategy to maximize community engagement.

By adjusting its menu based on the season, the shop quickly adapts to shifts in what consumers want and keep its business profitable all year round, maximizing revenue during peak demand periods and minimizing losses during off-peak seasons. It also demonstrates the idea of elastic demand that customers easily switch their choices depending on external conditions like temperature, reflecting how the slope of the demand curve varies with seasonal factors.

I think this dessert reflects how supply and demand interact in daily life, and it reminds me that even small food stalls apply economic thinking to make rational decisions and stay competitive in the market.

Every item on the table has a price that reflects both cost and consumer demand. The seller decides prices not only based on ingredients but also on how much people are willing to pay for the enjoyment of eating together. Popular items like beef or bacon rolls usually cost more, while simple tofu skewers are cheaper. Still, many customers are happy to pay extra for the taste and the atmosphere.

When the shop gets crowded at night, it reminds me of how demand increases with time and context. The same food during the day might not sell as well, but at night—when people are relaxed and hungry after work—the perceived value rises. In that sense, the price reflects not just the food itself, but the utility and satisfaction people get from it.

Even something as ordinary as a barbecue dinner shows how microeconomics is embedded in daily life. Prices, choices, and satisfaction all interact invisibly, turning a simple meal into a small but vivid example of how markets and human behavior connect.

People are shopping, carrying drinks, or holding shopping bags, which reflects how they make choices based on their personal preferences to maximize utility. The lighting, clean environment, and lively atmosphere of the shopping district create an experiential type of utility that encourages people to spend more time here. In the same space, some people are buying things, some are walking around, and others are simply passing through. This shows that everyone faces different prices and income levels, which form their own budget constraints and available choice sets. Each person is choosing the bundle of activities or purchases that maximizes their utility within their individual budget limit.

This 490-dollar plate of pasta may seem like just a meal, but it can also be explained using microeconomics. For a consumer, choosing whether to buy it involves opportunity cost. If you decide to buy it, you give up other things you could have done with 490 dollars—like buying cheaper food, getting something else, or saving the money.

Before deciding, consumers compare the costs and benefits. Benefits might include good taste, nice restaurant atmosphere, friendly service, or enjoying time with friends. Costs include paying 490 dollars and spending time waiting or eating. If the satisfaction from eating the pasta is greater than these costs, the consumer will choose to buy it.

But this also raises a question: if the service is average and there are no friends’ recommendations or online reviews, would people still pay 490 dollars? This shows how service, information, and personal preferences influence our decisions.