In the Mar. 14 issue of The Amherst Student, the staff editorial argued that the current lunch and dinner meal plan, while not ideal, is an appropriate compromise. I disagree with their seemingly fatalistic view toward Bonus Bucks reform. I see a clear and economically viable solution to the meal plan issue.

My analysis relies on three assumptions; the first based on a simple economic concept of indifference curves and the second and third come directly from the original editorial. First, the student body would have a greater incentive to join the lunch and dinner meal plan if they received more Bonus Bucks in recompense. This means that if they are given greater than x amount of Bonus Bucks, (the amount that lies on their current indifference curve) they will rationally choose the lunch and dinner meal plan.

Second, only 200 students are currently on the lunch and dinner meal plan, and this amount is currently too small for Valentine to lower the number of meals it prepares for breakfast. Nonetheless, there exists an amount at which the number of meals produced can be reduced­­-lowering food and staffing costs for breakfast in the process. Third, only 45 percent of those on the lunch and dinner meal plan fully use their Bonus Bucks.

With these assumptions, the solution seems self-apparent: If dining services raises the amount of Bonus Bucks given on the lunch and dinner plan by x number of dollars, more students will select the lunch and dinner plan, and Valentine will be able to decrease the number of breakfasts it serves-generating more savings for Valentine and more choice for the student body.

A little math is necessary to explain this way to generate increased producer savings and greater consumer happiness. Since most students are not using their Bonus Bucks completely, Valentine will be able to reduce the number of breakfasts produced per student on the lunch and dinner plan by 100 percent. That's around 200 breakfasts per student, per semester. And in return, it will only need to supply $100+ worth of food for 45 percent of those students. That's significant savings, even ignoring Dining Services' significant mark-up of items at Schwemm's. Also, since we can assume that the current students on the lunch and dinner plan value Schwemm's greater than the average student (since they are already on the plan), additional students who join the lunch and dinner option should spend a smaller percentage of their Bonus Bucks, increasing the savings for Valentine.

The problem is that Valentine cannot calculate its production to a precise student number. It prepares meals by the hundreds. Therefore, the number of students that select the lunch and dinner plan must increase significantly for this idea to work. But by how much must the number of Bonus Bucks increase to get students to select this option? What is this x amount I referred to earlier? Valentine can easily conduct a survey-they do enough already-to find this amount. But whatever dollar amount it is, be it $10 or $100, it would be a win-win situation. I, for one, would gladly permit Valentine to generate some (additional) producer surplus so long as it gives me still some additional freedom to eat how and where I want.

Joshua Stein '08