Supports:Microeconomics and Economics, Chapter 11, Section 11.5, and Essentials of Economics, Chapter 8, Section 8.5
Image generated by ChatGTP-4o showing the costs of inputs to a factory.
Mickey, the Econ Pup, sometimes struggles with drawing and interpreting cost curves. Examine the cost curves shown in images a. and b. and let Mickey know if you find any errors.
a.
b.
Solving the Problem Step 1: Review the chapter material. This problem is about drawing and interpreting cost curves, so you may want to review Chapter 11, Section 11.5, “Graphing Cost Curves.”
Step 2: Answer part a. by explaining whether there are any errors in the cost curves shown in the image in a. No wonder Mickey is confused! This figure has multiple errors:
It’s an error to have the ATC and AVC curves cross. The unlabeled curve at the bottom is supposed to be AFC. We know that if a firm has fixed costs, then the ATC and AVC curves will get closer and closer as the quantity increases and AFC becomes smaller and smaller. But because AFC will never decline to zero, ATC and AVC can’t be equal at any quantity.
The second error is related to the first error. We know that the MC and ATC curves should intersect at the quantity at which ATC is at a minimum. In this figure, the MC curve intersects the ATC curve at a quantity that is larger than the quantity at which ATC recaches a minimum.
The third error is related to the first two errors. The relationship between the three average cost curves should be ATC = AVC + AFC at every quantity. In this figure the relationship doesn’t hold at any quantity.
Finally, there is a dotted line from the point where the (unlabeled) AFC curve intersects with the MC curve down to the Q-axis. But that point has no economic significance.
Step 3: Answer part b. by explaining whether there are any errors in the cost curves shown in image b. Mickey can rest easy with these cost curve because, although the figure seems to be only partially finished, all of the cost curves are correctly drawn. The MC curve correctly intersects the AVC curve at the quantity at which the AVC curve is at a minimum. The instructor could finish the figure by labeling the bottom curve as AFC and by drawing an ATC curve above the AVC curve, with the ATC curve intersecting the MC curve at the quantity at which the ATC curve is at a minimum.
Congressman Willis Hawley of Oregon and Senator Reed Smoot of Utah (Photo from the U.S. Library of Congress via the Wall Street Journal)
Until last week, the most famous example of the United States dramatically increasing tariffs on foreign imports was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Herbet Hoover in June 1930. The website of the U.S. Senate describes the bill as “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.”
Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff cause the Great Depression? According to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s business cycle dates, the Great Depression began in August 1929, well before the passage of Smoot-Hawley. By June 1930, industrial production had already declined in the United States by more than 17 percent. So, even if the downturn had ended at that point it would still have been severe. The contraction phase of the Depression continued until March 1933, by which time industrial production had declined more than 51 percent. That was the largest decline in U.S. history
If Smoot-Hawley didn’t cause the Depression, did it contribute to the Depression’s length and severity? Most economists believe that it did by contributing to the collapse of the global trading system, thereby reducing U.S. exports, aggregate demand, and production and employment.
Some years ago, Tony wrote an overview of Smoot-Hawley that discusses its causes and effects in more detail. A key question in assessing the effects of Smoot-Hawley is the extent to which key trading partners of the United States raised their tariffs in retaliation. The clearest case is Canada, which in 1930 was the leading trading partner of the United States. Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and the Liberal Party significantly raised tariffs on U.S. imports in explicit retaliation for Smoot-Hawley. This journal article that Tony co-wrote with two Lehigh colleagues discusses the empirical evidence for this conclusion. (The link takes you to the Jstor site. You may be able to read or download the whole article by clicking on the link on that page and entering the name of your college or university.)
The Trump Administration seems to be attempting a major reordering of the global trading system. A Canadian prime minister in the 1930s tried something similar. Richard Bedford Bennett became prime minister after his Conservative Party defeated Mackenzie King’s Liberal Party in the 1935 Canadian election. Bennett hoped to replace the U.S. market with the markets in England and other countries in the British Commonwealth. He argued that, taken together, the Commonwealth countries had sufficient resources to be largely self-sufficient and need not rely on trade with non-Commonwealth countries. In the end, Bennett was unsuccessful for reasons that Tony and a Lehigh colleague explore in this journal article.
Image generated by ChatGTP-4o illustrating tariffs.
Douglas Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, may be the leading historian of international trade in the United States today. Irwin has posted at this link a useful overview of the economics of tariffs.
Irwin’s feed on X offers day-to-day commentary on current developments in the Trump Administration’s rapidly changing tariff policies. At the top of his X feed, you can find a free download of Clashing over Commerce, his 2019 history of U.S. foreign trade policy. At 862 pages, the book is the most thorough and comprehensive account available of the long-running political disputes in the United States over foreign trade.
Image generated by ChatGTP-4o of new cars on a dealer’s lot.
This afternoon (April 2), President Donald Trump announced a sweeping increase in tariff rates on imported goods. The increases were by far the largest since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. The United States will impose 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all imports, with higher tariffs being imposed on individual countries. Taking into account earlier tariffs, Chinese imports will be subject to a 54 percent tariff. Imports from Vietnam will be subject to a 46 percent tariff, and imports from the countries in the European Union will be subject to a 20 percent tariff.
President Trump’s objectives in imposing the tariffs aren’t entirely clear because he and his advisers have emphasized different goals at different times. The most common objectives the president and his advisers have offered for the tariff increases are these three:
To increase the size of the U.S. manufacturing sector by raising the prices of imported manufactured goods.
To retaliate against barriers that other countries have raised against U.S. exports.
To raise revenue for the federal government.
The effects of the tariffs on the U.S. economy depend in part on whether foreign countries retaliate by raising their tariffs on imports from the United States and on whether, in the future, the president reduces tariffs in exchange for other countries reducing barriers to U.S. imports. For a background discussion of tariffs, see this post. Glenn and Tony discuss tariffs in this podcast, which was recorded on Friday afternoon (March 28). A discussion of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff can be found here.
The following Solved Problem looks at one aspect of the effects of a tariff increase.
Supports:Microeconomics and Economics, Chapter 6, Section 6.3.
Nearly every automobile assembled in the United States contains at least some imported parts. An article on axis.com made the following statement about the effect on U.S. automobile manufacturers of an increase in the tariff on imported auto parts: “If car prices [in the United States] go up, Americans will buy fewer of them, meaning less revenue ….” What assumption is the author of this article making about the demand for new automobiles in the United States?
Solving the Problem
Step 1: Review the chapter material. This problem is about the effect of price increases on a firm’s revenue, so you may want to review the section “The Relationship between Price Elasticity of Demand and Total Revenue.”
Step 2: Answer the question by explaining what must be true of the demand for new automobiles in the United States if an increase in automobile prices results in a decline in the revenue received by automobile producers. This section of Chapter 6 explains how the price elasticity of demand affects the revenue a firm receives following a price increase. A price increase, holding everything else constant that affects the demand for a good, always causes a decline in the quantity demanded. If demand is price inelastic, an increase in price will result in an increase in revenue because the percentage decline in quantity demanded will be smaller than the percentage increase in the price. If demand is price elastic, an increase in price will result in a decrease in revenue because the percentage decline in the quantity demanded will be larger than the percentage increase in price. We can conclude that the author of the article must be assuming that the demand for new automobiles in the United States is price elastic.
Please listen to a podcast discussion recorded just this past Friday between Glenn Hubbard and Tony O’Brien as they discuss tariffs and it’s impact on monetary policy. Also, check out the regular blog posts while on the site! So much has been happening and these posts helps both instructors and students integrate this discussion into their classroom.
Join authors Glenn Hubbard and Tony O’Brien as they discuss the impact of new tariff policies on trade but also on the larger economy. They delve into the Fed, monetary policy, and the impact on inflation. They also discuss some of the history back to when tariffs used to be a high proportion of government revenue and analyze the mix of products that are imported & exported by the US. Should the Fed change its current behavior due to the tariff environment?
Even though Russia and Ukraine were engaged in cease-fire talks with American representatives in Saudi Arabia, apparently with some progress on Tuesday, President Vladimir Putin of Russia has shown little actual commitment to ending his war.
President Trump needs some better cards.
Several weeks ago, the president floated the idea of sanctions and tariffs over Russian imports. But the Kremlin has been dismissive — mainly because the United States imports very little from Russia. Extensive financial and trade sanctions have been in place, most of them for around three years, and they are plainly not enough to bring peace.
Fortunately, there is a simple way to improve the American hand. The administration should impose sanctions on any company or individual — in any country — involved in a Russian oil and gas sale. Russia could avoid these so-called secondary sanctions by paying a per shipment fee to the United States Treasury. The payment would be called a Russian universal tariff, and it would start low but increase every week that passes without a peace deal.
Ships carry most Russian oil and gas to world markets. The secondary sanctions — if Russia does not make the required payments — would fall on all parties to the transaction, including the oil tanker owner, the insurer and the purchaser. Recent evidence confirms that Indian and Chinese entities — whose nations import considerable oil from Russia and have not imposed their own penalties on the Russian economy over the war in Ukraine — do not want to be caught up in American sanctions, making this idea workable. Another factor in its favor: All such tanker traffic is tracked carefully by commercial parties and by U.S. authorities.
Secondary sanctions are powerful tools: Violators can be cut off from the U.S. financial system, and they apply even to transactions that don’t directly involve American companies. They have been used to limit Iranian oil exports and to require that payments for Iranian oil be held in restricted accounts until sanctions were lifted. Our proposal would take this approach to another level. Under our plan, a portion of each Russian oil and gas sale would be paid to the U.S. Treasury until Russia agrees to a peace deal. The goal is to keep Russian oil flowing to global markets but with less money going to the Kremlin. The plan would sap Russia’s ability to continue waging war, and it puts money into U.S. government coffers.
In Russia, fossil fuel revenues and military spending are intertwined, although the country can also draw on its sovereign wealth fund and other sources. Fossil fuel exports provide the main source of dollar revenue for the Kremlin, which depends on hard currency to buy arms and other military supplies from abroad and pay for North Korean soldiers. The country currently exports about $500 million worth of crude oil and petroleum products and $100 million worth of natural gas every day. The Kremlin budgeted a slightly lower amount, almost $400 million per day for military spending in 2025.
The Russia universal tariff would provide money for the United States immediately, unlike the proposed Ukrainian critical minerals fund, which would take years to generate any returns. A fee of $20 per barrel of oil could generate up to $120 million per day (more than $40 billion per year), with additional revenue available if a similar fee is imposed on natural gas. Every dollar the United States collects is a dollar that Russia can’t spend to fund its war.
Ideally, the policy would pressure Russia into negotiations, where its removal could be part of a deal. If not, the United States would still collect billions annually, which could help fund Mr. Trump’s proposed tax cuts. In that scenario, Russia would effectively be helping repaythe U.S. tax dollars used to provide aid to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia’s assault.
For the past three years, Western sanctions and public outcry, including some dockworkers’ refusal to unload Russian oil tankers, have forced Russia to search for new buyers and sell its oil at a discount compared with global prices. The oil discount averaged about $9 per barrel over the previous 12 months and was as high as $35 per barrel in April 2022. Despite receiving lower prices for its oil, Russia has maintained export volumes, ensuring a steady supply in the global oil market.
By imposing secondary sanctions unless the Russia universal tariff is paid, the United States would be taking a cut of the revenues, effectively increasing the discount on Russian oil. Russia’s continued exports, despite facing large discounts over the past three years, suggest it would continue exporting the same volume. That would keep global oil supply stable and help keep oil prices in check. Oil and gas in Russia are inexpensive to produce, and it relies heavily on the income they generate, so it has little option but to keep selling, even at lower prices.
While Mr. Trump can adopt this strategy, Congress can strengthen his negotiating position by passing a bill that puts the Russia universal tariff in place on its own. That would allow the president to protect his lines of communication with Mr. Putin by blaming the measure on Congress. He would also determine if and when he wants to sign the bill, giving him additional leverage over Russia. It’s possible the mere discussion of such a bill could help push the Kremlin toward a peace deal.
Combining secondary sanctions, a strong tool in the U.S. economic kit, with a tarifflike fee could pressure Mr. Putin by threatening his most valuable source of revenues. It would also make it easier for Mr. Trump to deliver on his promise of a lasting peace.
Catherine Wolfram, a former deputy assistant secretary for climate and energy in the Treasury Department, is a professor at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management.
A tariff is a tax a government imposes on imports. Since the end of World War II, high-income countries have only occasionally used tariffs as an important policy tool. The following figure shows how the average U.S. tariff rate, expressed as a percentage of the value of total imports, has changed in the years since 1790. The ups and downs in tariff rates reflect in part political disa-greements in Congress. Generally speaking, through the early twentieth century, members of Congress who represented areas in the Midwest and Northeast that were home to many manufacturing firms favored high tariffs to protect those industries from foreign competition. Members of Congress from rural areas opposed tariffs, because farmers were primarily exporters who feared that foreign governments would respond to U.S. tariffs by imposing tariffs on U.S. agricultural exports. From the pre-Civil War period until after World War II the Republicans Party generally favored high tariffs and the Democratic Party generally favored low tariffs, reflecting the economic interests of the areas the parties represented in Congress. (Note: Because the tariffs that the Trump Administration will end up imposing are still in flux, the value for 2025 in the figure is only a rough estimate.)
By the end of World War II in 1945, government officials in the United States and Europe were looking for a way to reduce tariffs and revive international trade. To help achieve this goal, they set up the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1948. Countries that joined the GATT agreed not to impose new tariffs or import quotas. In addition, a series of multilateral negotiations, called trade rounds, took place, in which countries agreed to reduce tariffs from the very high levels of the 1930s. The GATT primarily covered trade in goods. A new agreement to cover services and intellectual property, as well as goods, was eventually negotiated, and in January 1995, the GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In 2025, 166 countries are members of the WTO.
As a result of U.S. participation in the GATT and WTO, the average U.S. tariff rate declined from nearly 20% in the early 1930s to 1.8% in 2018. The first Trump Administration increased tariffs beginning in 2018, raising the average tariff rate to 2.5%. (The Biden Administration continued most of the increases.) In 2025, the second Trump Administration’s substantial increases in tariffs raised the average tariff rate to the highest level since the 1940s.
Until the enactment in 1913 of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed for a federal income tax, tariffs were an important source of revenue to the federal government. As the following figure shows, in the early years of the United States, more than 90% of federal government revenues came from the tariff. As tariff rates declined and federal income and payroll taxes increased, tariffs declined to only 2% of federal government revenue. It’s unclear yet how much tariff’s share of federal government revenue will rise as a result of the Trump Administration’s tariff increases.
The effect of tariff increases on the U.S. economy are complex and depend on the details of which tariffs are increased, by how much they are increased, and whether foreign governments raise their tariffs on U.S. exports in response to U.S. tariff increases. We can analyze some of the effects of tariffs using the basic aggregate demand and aggregate supply model that we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 13 (Economics, Chapter 23). We need to keep in mind in the following discussion that small increases in tariffs rates—such as those enacted in 2018—will likely have only small effects on the economy given that net exports are only about 3% or U.S. GDP.
An increase in tariffs intended to protect domestic industries can cause the aggregate demand curve to shift to the right if consumers switch spending from imports to domestically produced goods, thereby increasing net exports. But this effect can be partially or wholly offset if trading partners retaliate by increasing tariffs on U.S. exports. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, which raised tariff rates to historically high levels, retaliation by U.S. trading partners contributed to a sharp decline in U.S. exports during the early 1930s.
International trade can increase a country’s production and income by allowing a country to specialize in the goods and services in which it has a comparative advantage. Tariffs shift a country’s allocation of labor, capital, and other resources away from producing the goods and services it can produce most efficiently and toward producing goods and services that other countries can produce more efficiently. The result of this misallocation of resources is to reduce the productive capacity of the country, shifting the long-run aggregate supply curve (LRAS) to the left.
Tariffs raise the prices of U.S. imports. This effect can be partially offset because tariffs increase the demand for U.S. dollars relative to trading partners’ currencies, increasing the dollar exchange rate. Because a tariff effectively acts as a tax on imports, like other taxes its incidence—the division of the burden of the tax between sellers and buyers—depends partly on the price elasticity of demand and the price elasticity of supply, which vary across the goods and services on which tariffs are imposed. (We discuss the effects of demand and supply elasticity on the incidence of a tax in Microeconomics, Chapter 17, Section 17.3.)
About two-thirds of U.S. imports are raw materials, intermediate goods, or capital goods, all of which are used as inputs by U.S. firms. For example, many cars assembled in the United States contain imported parts. The popular Ford F-Series pickup trucks are assembled in the United States, but more than two-thirds of the parts are imported from other countries. That fact indicates that the automobile industry is one of many U.S. industries that depend on global supply chains that can be disrupted by tariffs. Because tariffs on imported raw materials, parts and other intermediate goods, and capital goods increase the production costs of U.S. firms, tariffs reduce the quantity of goods these firms will produce at any given price. In terms of the aggregate demand and aggregate supply model , a large unexpected increase in tariffs results in an aggregate supply shock to the economy, shifting the short-run aggregate supply curve (SRAS) to the left.
Our thanks to Fernando Quijano for preparing the two figures.
An image generated by GTP-4o illustrating research.
This opinion column by Glenn appeared in the Financial Times on March 10.
The Trump administration has wisely emphasised raising America’s rate of economic growth. But growth doesn’t just happen. It is the byproduct of innovation both radical (think of the emergence of generative artificial intelligence) and gradual (such as improvements in manufacturing processes or transport). Many economic factors influence innovation, but research and development is key. While this can be privately or publicly funded, the latter can support basic research with spillovers to many companies and applications.
Therein lies the rub: the new administration’s growth agenda is joined by a significant effort to reduce government spending, spearheaded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Some spending restraint can enhance growth by reducing interest rates or reallocating funds towards more investment-oriented activities. But cuts to R&D, as the administration is advocating at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DoE) and NASA, are counter-productive. They will limit innovation and growth.
The link between R&D and productivity growth has a long pedigree in economics and has generally been acknowledged by US policymakers. In the mid-1950s, economist Robert Solow made the Nobel Prize-winning conclusion that sustained output growth is not possible without technological progress. Decades later, former World Bank chief economist Paul Romer added another Nobel Prize-winning insight: growth reflected the intentional adoption of new ideas, so could be affected by research incentives.
It is well known that research is undervalued by private companies. Private funders of R&D don’t capture all its benefits. The social returns of R&D are two to four times higher than private returns. These high returns are enabled in the US by federal funding. For example, publicly funded research at the NIH has been found to significantly impact private development of new drugs.
In a comprehensive study, Andrew Fieldhouse and Karel Mertens classify major changes in non-defence R&D funding by the DoE, Nasa, NIH and NSF over the postwar period. They estimate implied returns of as much as 200 per cent — raising US economic output by $2 per dollar of funding. This is substantially higher than recent estimates of returns to private R&D. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the high returns to public funding are more than 10 times that on public investment in infrastructure. With the higher tax revenue generated from additional GDP, an increase in R&D funding more than pays for itself.
In aggregate, productivity gains from federal R&D funding are substantial. Indeed, Fieldhouse and Mertens estimate that government-funded R&D amounts to about one-fifth of productivity growth (measured as output growth less all input growth) in the US since the second world war.
Combined with the high social returns of government-funded R&D, it is essential that policymakers in the current administration acknowledge the risks of underfunding R&D. Spending cuts are clearly harmful to productivity and even budget outcomes.
A shift towards government-financed R&D does not imply that policy in these areas should be beyond review. Some economists have questioned whether current R&D projects take sufficiently high scientific risks, particularly on the ideas of younger scholars. And policymakers can certainly investigate whether indirect cost subsidies to universities and laboratories—in addition to the direct costs of research—are set at the appropriate levels. But, if growth is the objective, the presumption must be that additional public spending on R&D is worthwhile.
Federal support for growth-oriented R&D can extend beyond research grants. Publicly supported applied research centres around the country offer a mechanism to collaborate with local universities and business networks to disseminate ideas to practice. This builds upon the agricultural and manufacturing extension services instituted by 19th-century land-grant colleges that enhanced productivity.
The Trump administration is right to promote growth as a public objective. Spending restraint and fiscal discipline can be growth-enhancing. But all spending is equal. Government-funded R&D is vitally important for innovation and productivity growth. The case is clear.
Today (February 28), the BEA released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows PCE inflation (blue line) and core PCE inflation (green line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2016 with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. Measured this way, in January PCE inflation was 2.5 percent, down slightly from 2.6 in December. Core PCE inflation in January was 2.6 percent, down from 2.9 percent in December. Headline and core PCE inflation were both consistent with the forecasts of economists.
The following figure shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while this figure shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, PCE inflation rose in January to 4.0 percent from 3.6 percent in December. Core PCE inflation rose in January to 3.5 percent from to 2.5 percent in December. So, both 1-month core PCE inflation estimates are running well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. But the usual caution applies that 1-month inflation figures are volatile (as can be seen in the figure), so we shouldn’t attempt to draw wider conclusions from one month’s data.
In recent months, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has noted that inflation in non-market services has been high. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices rise, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also rise. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the green line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)
Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.2 percent in January, and core market-based PCE inflation was 2.3 percent. So, both market-based measures show less inflation in January than do the total measures. In the following figure, we look at 1-month inflation using these measures. Again, inflation is running somewhat lower when using these market-based measures of inflation. Note, though, that all four market-based measures are running above the Fed’s 2 percent target.
In summary, today’s data don’t change the general picture with respect to inflation: While inflation has substantially declined from its high in mid-2022, it still is running above the Fed’s target of 2 percent. As a result, it’s likely that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at its next meeting on March 18–19.
Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts expect that the FOMC will leave its federal funds rate target unchanged at its next meeting. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of 93.5 percent to the FOMC leaving its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50. Investors assign a probability of only 6.5 percent to the FOMC cutting its target by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points).
As shown the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of greater than 50 percent that the FOMC will cut its target range by at least 25 basis points at its meeting nearly four months from now on June 17–18. Investors may be concerned that the economy is showing some signs of weakening. Today’s BEA report indicates that real personal consumption expenditures declined at a very high 5.5 percent compound annual rate in January. (Although measured as the 12-month change, real consumption spending increased by 3.o percent in January.)
We’ll have a better understanding of the FOMC’s evaluation of recent macroeconomic data after Chair Powell’s news conference following the March 18–19 meeting.
What causes consumer demand for a product to decline? Why does demand for some products suddenly rise? As we discuss in Chapter 3, changes in the relative price of a substitute or a complement cause the demand for a good to shift. For instance, the following figure shows the recent rapid increase in the price of eggs, due in part from the spread of bird flu. We would expect that the increase in the price of eggs will shift to the right the demand curve for egg substitutes, such as the product shown below the figure.
Sometimes a shift in the demand for a product represents a change in consumer tastes. For instance, as we discuss in an Apply the Concept in Chapter 3, for decades most people wore a hat while outdoors. The first photo below shows people walking down a street in New York City in the 1920s. Beginning in the 1960s, hats started to fall out of fashion. As the second photo shows, today few people wear hats—unless they’re walking outside during the winter in the Northeast or the Midwest!
Photo from the New York Daily News
Photo from the New York Times
Technological change can also affect the demand for goods. For example, the development of network television, beginning in the late 1940s, reduced the demand for tickets to movie theaters. Similarly, the development of the internet reduced the demand for physical newspapers.
A recent example of technological change having a substantial effect on a number of consumer goods is the introduction of GLP–1 drugs, beginning in 2005. These drugs, such as Ozempic and Mounjaro, were first developed to treat type 2 diabetes. The drugs were found to significantly reduce appetite in most users, leading to users losing weight. Accordingly, doctors began to prescribe the drugs to treat obesity. By 2025, about half of the users of GLP–1 drugs were doing so to lose weight. A recent article in the Washington Post quoted Jan Hatzius, chief economist at Goldman Sachs, as predicting that by 2028, 60 million people in the United States will be taking a GLP–1 drug.
Many consumers who use these drugs decide to change the mix of foods they eat. Typically, users demand fewer ultra-processed foods, such as chips, cookies, and soft drinks. The percentage of people in the United States who are considered obese—having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or greater—had been increasing for decades before declining slightly in 2023, the most recent year with available data. It seems likely that the increasing use of GLP–1 drugs helps to explain the decline in obesity.
People taking these drugs have also typically increased the share of foods they eat with higher levels of protein and fiber. These changes in diet are likely to lead to improved health, reducing the demand for some medical services. The number of people experiencing significant weight loss has already begun to reduce demand for extra-large clothing sizes and increase the demand for medium clothing sizes.
How much has the use of Ozempic and similar drugs reduced the demand for snacks? A recent study by Sylvia Hristakeva and Jura Liaukonyt of Cornell University and Leo Feler of Numerator, a market research firm, presents numerical estimates of changes in demand for different foods by users of GLP–1 drugs. The authors assembled a representative sample of 150,000 U.S. households and the households’ grocery purchases from July 2022 through September 2024. They estimate that the share of the U.S. population using a GLP–1 drug increased from 5.5% in October 2023 to 8.8% in July 2024.
The study finds that households with at least one person using a GLP–1 drug reduced their total grocery shopping by 5.5 percent or $416. The study gathered data on changes in the categories of food that households were buying six months after at least one person in the household began using one of these drugs. The figure below is compiled from data in the study.
As expected, purchases of snacks declined. The category of “chips and other savor snacks” (bottom row in the figure) declined by more than 11 percent. Purchases of sweet bakery products, cheese, cookies, soft drinks, ice cream, and pasta all declined by more than 5 percent. Purchases of yogurt, fresh produce, meat snacks, and nutrition bars, all increased. An article in the Wall Street Journal noted that “food makers are starting to understand better and cater to, in some cases with products specifically designed for” users of this drug. The image below shows some of the new products that Nestle—a major candy producer—has introduced to appeal to users of GLP–1 drugs. Nestle’s Vital Pursuit line of frozen packaged foods contain high levels of protein and fiber.
It’s too early to gauge the full effects of GLP–1 drugs on consumer demand. But it’s already clear that GLP–1 drugs are a striking example of technological change affecting demand in a major industry
HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog 