2025-08-21
38 分钟The Economist.
I first became interested in economics in the mid 2000s,
after my parents, who are both economists, bought me a copy of The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford.
In the opening chapter,
Harford puzzles how somewhere like Starbucks could possibly charge as much as they do for a latte.
At the time, as coffee shops were becoming ubiquitous, so were grumbles that a cappuccino,
which cost so little to make at home, was being flogged for several dollars.
Everyone assumed Starbucks must be ripping people off.
Playing economic detective, Harford points out that the product Starbucks is selling is not just a latte,
but a latte on your walk to work, exactly where and when you need it.
It's not the coffee that matters, it's the location.
And Starbucks is willing to pay as much as is necessary to secure a lease.
How does it figure out the maximum it can pay for such a lease?
It figures out the maximum amount you are willing to pay for that latte.
You gain a little from buying your coffee.
You get your necessary caffeine, but it comes at a price.
Starbucks gains a little too.
It gets a nice price for its coffee, but much of its potential profits are eaten up by rent.
The excess economic rewards all go to the person with the scarcest resource: to the landlord.
As a teenager, this kind of logical reasoning opened my eyes to the world of economics,