Epilogue

The epilogue of naked economics raises some interesting questions about life in 2050. One of these questions asked if we would use markets in an effective manner to solve social problems. At first I thought yes because that is what it seems like we have been doing with the market thus far but the education system example states that good teachers aren't payed more than bad ones and there are no real rewards for the schools students that do well or punishment for under performance. Perhaps to improve education schools must be rewarded or punished based on their students performance in order to improve the quality of not only the educators but the students as well. Just as how the doctors that wouldn't work on curing quite a handful of diseases until it was rewarded if they did so. All I'm saying is that everyone has a price and we need to use the market in such a way to meet everyone's price to the best of our abilities.

Victoria DuBois, Epilogue, Question #6

I liked the part in the epilogue where Wheelan brings incentives back into the book. The question he is asking is "Will we use the market in imaginative ways to solve social problems?" He talked about rare diseases that companies ignored them because they had no funding to research them. So everyone just swept the diseases they didn't know how to fix under the rug. Because there was no funding for these diseases, there was no incentive to figure out solutions. Then in 1983 Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act and it gave researchers the incentive to look and create solutions. Because people think in personal self-interest and so in order to solve social problems, you have to give people the incentives to help.

ShernCarissa epilogue question 6

I thought it was interesting to think about life in 2050 and how much we will work harder for less or to work less for more. For example will we work for 60 hours a week to live comfortably or work 25 hours a week and do something we enjoy like listening to music in the park.

Trenton McCarthy, epilogue

It is all wrapped up in the Epilogue, giving us nice closure to a well informative, interesting book. The seven questions are only some of the questions we as economists should think about when talking about the future. It all points back to one of the most important rules to be and economist: think about the long run and not just the short term benefits. Every decision we make has an effect. Using this book as a vessel, Wheelen has simply provided us with a useful set of tools; nothing more, nothing less. But just like Wheelen writes towards the end of the epilogue, there is no silver bullet for economic theory just like there isn't one for cancer, however, there is only always a chance to improve it. All is takes is a smart economist who was provided with a foundation or a set of tools to make educated, rationally economical decisions.

I have learned that not everyone should have a piece of pie. In America we have to pay for hospital bills and health insurance. This means more people will go with out because these things cost a lot of money. The people under "wackier drive" can't afford it. But if we give out free heart care this will make the unemployment rate will get higher because they can get paid for doing nothing and they won't need money to pay for any hospital bills. Wheel an gives us the choice to choose either the European way or the American way. I would choose the American way because if we gave free health care the unemployment rate would increase and the government would lose money making it not possible for us to have free healthcare anymore and then we are broke. 

Emma Spreng, Epilogue, question #2

The many different issues talked about in the epilogue affect all of our lives in some way. One issue Wheelan wrote about was how to solve social problems. His answer was proper incentives. He used an example of how all teachers are paid the same, therefore that doesn't necessarily mean all teachers are going to try their best at being a great teacher, some will just settle to be mediocre. Wheelans point is that if teacher are given an incentive (more money) to do better, most will then strive to be great.

Anders Chelgren, epilogue, question 2

Long story short, my father grew up very poor. Through hard work and long hours he became financially successful. Now, he makes good money, and has the luxury of purchasing expensive toys. Work can be enjoyable for him, depending on circumstance, but work never truly stops. He is always working in the office, on the phone, checking email ect. Wheelan in naked economics ask questions like, "How rich is enough?" He asks at what time in life will work no longer be desirable. When do we, as people, claim our life back and live for experiences and not a paycheck. We could we break free from what is the most "economically sound" choice and instead focus on whats most benificial to our inner self, family, hobbies, ect. If America becomes more productive will we In fact work less? It current seems like that is not the case. One idea I find interesting is the concept of living for experiences and not a paycheck. Making a hobby more important than financial sucess, choosing to work 30 hours a week instead of 60 so that you may do what you love. If a person is only truly concerned with themselves then yes, I agree people should work less and enjoy more. Yet, if a person has the ability to work harder and as a result help provide better opportunity's for those they love, then I'm not sure. There is defiantly a trade off that must be made between providing the best for those you love and relaxing yourself. 

Rachel Zellie, Epilogue, Question #6

I love how Wheelan ended the epilogue stating he doesn't know how anyone could possibly not think economics is interesting because all of the big concepts of economics stretch into our everyday lives. Since beginning this class in January I have noticed basic ideas of economics being applied in my life everywhere from grocery shopping to interactions with friends. I also really enjoyed reading Wheelan's book especially the epilogue, because he tries to answer some of the larger questions surrounding the economic future but also raises so many more important questions. I thought the most interesting question Wheelan raised was "Will we use the market in imaginative ways to solve social problems?" I found this so interesting because of the constant irony surrounding what Americans do to solve social issues. For example with the education system we try to encourage the importance of education but simultaneously make it difficult for people to become teachers. Or how we never really reward teachers when their students do well or punish them when they do poorly. These are just a few examples of how Americans say they want to fix social issues but usually do the exact opposite. Furthermore, I enjoyed the entirety of the book and this last section has opened a Pandora's box of questions for me to look into.

Bre Kelley, Epilogue, Question 6

Economics is just a set of tools, we must learn how to use them to improve our world.  Americans are richer than most of the developed world, productivity growth may change that statement.  Income inequality is lower, leading to higher employement.  Making it to cheap to travel by car can raise revenue and "green" taxes.  The remarkable thing about economics is that once you have been introduced to the ideas, they begin to show up everywhere.

Andrew Johnson, Epilogue, Question #2

The main effect that Wheelan has highlighted in his epilogue is the idea that there are so many questions that appear when more and more economic policies and theories form. He also brings up a few questions and problems which will affect me directly as I approach age 53 in 2050 such as the role of Social Security and the implications of my tax money going toward the Baby Boomer generation. Wheelan also proposes questions regarding incentives which is a timeless problem which must be focused upon in order to minimize the augmentation of more unmotivated people in the future that lies ahead.

Anders Chelgren chapter 12 question 7

I found chapter seven interesting. Wheelan makes the claim that trade barriers are a tax. He states that by imposing government import taxes competition is lost thus farmers can charge more for their products. It is simple supply and demand, by adding tax on imports, the supply imported decreases thus the remaining product has higher demand. By protecting special interest groups politicians make friends and appear to be major advocates of the people despite the true economic effects of their decisions. This orange juice example is different but still similar to subsidizing the Moher farmers. As a general statement the less government involvement the better, including in trade. Free trade is true capitalism. The one exception I can immediately consider is for vital recorces. Hypothetically, If we as a country decide to import 95% of our food we would no longer need to have any farmer subsidies and could likely have food grown far cheaper due to the low labor costs in other places. Yet should we? Using this same annology again consider an issue, catastrophe or war breaks out. If importation is impossible due to a naval blacked like the civil war or even a trade embargo like Cuba could we survive? I don't know I am nearly weighting the options in my head and still thinking of a conclusion. 

Anne Warnke Chapter 12, Question 2

Yes of course, this whole chapter effects nearly everyone living in America, in most of the countries on the planet. This chapter really makes you wonder just how far the effects of globalization affect our lives. It's hard in most situations to be able to point to something and say without a doubt "that was not traded from a foreign country" and probably harder to point and say you own something without having traded it, and made it with your own hands. With the growth of both our countries and those we trade it, unless another world war happens, it is almost certain trade and globalization will continue dominate our everyday lives.

Carissa Shern Chapter 12 question 6

I found the passage about the Brazilian orange juice vs. Florida orange juice very interesting in the fact that the US government makes the Brazilian oranges more expensive by putting a hidden tax on the juice and sending the extra money to the Florida orange farmers.  All the while letting Brazilian land perfect for citrus go to waste because of the hidden tax.  I think the US government means well but it is not right to make Americans pay up to 63% more for orange juice just to subsidize these Florida farmers.

Drew Hanson, chapter 12, question 6

The most interesting example, to me, in this chapter was the example of how silly protectionist theory is that had to do with the Mississippi River. As far as trade is concerned, the Mississippi is just as arbitrary a border as any country border is. The example only appears obvious because we value both sides of our country the same and it's obvious that we are getting bad deals both ways by cutting ourselves off. People should think of the world, and people, more globally.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 12, Question 6

The part in chapter 12 that I found the most interesting was on page 284 as Wheelan explains in a small paragraph or so that there isn't an example in modern history of a country developing successfully without inter grating themselves into the global economy. In the paragraphs leading up to this fact, Wheelan talks a lot about India and China and how each of them would not have as strong of an economy if it were not for globalization. This is interesting to me because although I knew that globalization was important for many economies, I have never thought about how in order to have a truly successful economy, there has to be globalization.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 12, Question #6

The passage I found most interesting was in the section where he quoted Abraham Lincoln wanting to make railways here and keep the money here instead of buying it from England. Wheelan found a fallacy in that argument is that it would be a huge waste of time. England already has the railways perfected. We need trade because it would be difficult for us to leave if we had to make all our clothes food, house etc. We can use absolute advantage where countries do what they're best at and that improves everyone's quality of life. The oppurtunity cost of tiger woods doing auto repairs is a gigantic failure of skills available. "Productivity is what makes us rich. Specialization is what makes us productive. Trade allows us to specialize" (275). Trade makes people better off.

Emma Spreng, Chapter 12, Question #6

The main focus of this chapter are the benefits of globalizations. I found the passage about the girl who works in the factory for $2 a day interesting because her father says he really hopes she won't lose that job, when she is at times getting needles poked through her hands. This passage really highlights how globalization works. An american company put a factory in Bangkok, only paying their workers $2 a day, when here nobody would work for that little. But in Bangkok, because their economy isn't as good as ours, that $2 a day is great.

Bre Kelley, chapter 12, question 6

Trade, like technology, can destroy jobs, particularly low-skilled jobs.  If a worker in Maine earns $14 an hour but in Vietnam it can be done for $1 an hour, the firm will most likely chose Vietnam.  Poor countries lose jobs, too.  Industries that have been shielded from international competition for decades, and have therefore adopted all the bad habits that come from not having to compete, can be crushed by ruthless efficient competition.  Thumbs-Up Cola in India was overridden by Coca-Cola when it entered the market in 1994.  Therefore smaller companies across the world can be put out of business by major corporations internationally, by globalization and competition.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 12, Question #3

One of the topics Wheelan discussed has a major implication on our futures and the future of economies. Wheelan discussed that free trade creates losers which causes negative and positive effects to arise. Because of creative destruction many jobs are lost to those who can be paid cheaper to do it or to s robot that is far more productive and less expensive. In the short run the idea of creative destruction has a negative effect on those losing their jobs. This situation becomes more negative when you note that the economy created around 200,000 jobs (1990-97) but many of the 37,000 unemployed people remained unemployed because of their low skill level. The competition created by free trade only creates positive effects in the long run. In the long the positives consist of the growing economy absorbing displaced workers and exports raise making consumers richer through cheaper imports. Overall trade creating losers is a positive thing in terms of the long run but that doesn't minimize the human pain and disruption of the present workers becoming unemployed. I really thought the quote Wheelan inserted from Mark Twain summed up most people's opinion regarding free trade competition. "I'm all for progress; it's change I don't like." (277)

Andrew Johnson, Chapter #13, Question #3

Development of economies is based on the notion that competition drives growth. Being that less sophisticated economies usually are paired with underdeveloped countries due to the resources the region provides, the importance of human capital is stressed by Wheelan in order to improve the well-being of underdeveloped countries. Economies are also heavily dependant on the country's status of trade, which allows for the employment, investment, and inclusion of human capital, improving the quality of life as trade strengthens.

Anne Warnke Chapter 13 Question 7

Reading this chapter was helpful to me understanding my recent vacation as I traveled on a cruise to tropical locations far from perfect in terms of development. My parents were shocked to see this, though I knew it was coming, but there were tons of times we would be driving through a city, Rotan, or Belize city, and you could see how much the country was struggling to keep up with the modern world. While you can give due to these cities geography as part o the reason globalization has been harder for the country, I would also contest the tourism of richer countries is also a positive and negative to the globalization of third world countries. One part, the cruise lines and hotels bring in foreign economies into the mix, and bring a need to renovate and update the cities in order to bring in tourist. This can benefit the countries, but as more tourist come and the entire system becomes on serving tourist, money gets spent toward improving tourist hotspots rather than actually helping the country.

Chelgren, Anders, chapter 13, question 6

"Excessive regulation goes hand and hand with corruption" I found the passage interesting regarding the link between high government regulation and corruption rates. I think it's only natural that people in power, with little accountability, will abuse their power. It's no secret that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. By creating unclear laws and setting up many hoops to jump through, governments slow economic growth. Just like in the given example about a clothing stall, people cannot afford to waste their finances or their time following the proper legal channels forcing them to choose between bribing an official and not having a store. We are fortunate in America to have a accountable government. We need to protect this by limiting government regulation to only where it is totally necessary. Also, transparency and accountability between officials and the public is important for economic growth and personal freedoms alike. 

ShernCarissa Chapter 13 question 6

I found the part about how natural resources don't make a country prosperous very interesting, the example of Angola was especially interesting Angola makes 3.5 billion in oil profits yet, a third of their children die before their fifth birthday. 1 out of 133 people have been harmed by land mines.  The government spends it's money on weapons for their civil war, so much so that in some parts of the capitol do not have electricity, running water, sewers, or garbage pick up. There is not lack of funds in Angola but, a definite lack of priorities by a government who chooses their arsenals over their people.

Betsy Elliott, Chapter 13, question 4

in the beginning of this chapter Wheelan bring up the issue about how 2 billion people in the world live on $2 a day. Throughout this entire semester I have wanted someone to answer why this has happened and why we aren't doing anything about it. This chapter Wheelan gives us an answers. He says the reason so many people are poor is because their economies have failed them. The poor economies are not creating wealth by taking inputs, including human talent, and producing things of value. And example of this is Pakistan. They spend all this money creating weapons and building bombs but the don't even use any of that money to cure a curable disease in there nation like measles. I love what William easterly said, " wonderful people, terrible governments". Wheelan says there is not a way economists can make poor countries rich.

Trenton Mccarthy, chapter 13, question 6

Chapter 13's topic was on the wealth of nations. There are many factors that play in the development or downfall of a nations economy. One of the more interesting factors was "excess regulation." When things get bad, trying to fix things by taxes and laws ( like in Moscow with Article 575 and 615) could may as well be a detriment. Regulating is definitely not the answer. Another interesting factor was openness to trade. I couldn't help but thing of Ancient China. When the tried to close their nation off from the outside world, their economy fell. Falling behind industrial and agriculture advances set them back, causing a great city to go into the hole. With all these factors that Wheelen mentioned, I thought about the United States. The reason we have been so successful as an economy is because we generally do most of these factors well.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 13, Question #6

This chapters main focus was on the wealth of nations and how they were distinguished based on their economies and the different aspects of their economy and what areas a countries economy would thrive in or get destroyed in. The most interesting aspect for me that I never thought about before was geography. All the great economies are far away from the Tropic of Cancer line and Tropic of Capricorn like Europe and America. Ones that are near the line are central and South America and Africa. I always thought the tropical countries would be doing fine because of lots of tourism but in those areas the" high temperatures and heavy rainfall are bad for food production and conductive to the spread of disease. Those are huge problems for an economy that I didn't fully realize those countries suffered from until now.

Bre Kelley chapter 13

Large deficits require the government to borrow which leads to large deficits.  This leads to higher taxes, inflation or giving up on debt.  Debt is the money spend that a government has not paid back but deficits are the money they have borrowed that they have also not paid back.  Much of the world is poor because rich countries haven't tried to reverse it.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 13, Question #6

The passage in this chapter that stuck out to me was the subject of women power. Within the part of women power Wheelan starts by talking about Saudi Arabia and how when Bill Gates was talking technological progress with people there, most of the room was men while the rest were woman. The men and women were segregated and the women were wearing black cloaks and veils covering their faces. When asked if it was realistic for Saudi Arabia to say that they would be in the Top 10 countries in technology by 2010, he replied by saying "Well, if you're not fully utilizing half the talent in the country, you're not going to get close to the Top 10. Earlier in the passage Wheelan talks about two farmers having the same amount of land but the one farmer only uses half of it while the other farmer uses the land fully so obviously the second farmer is going to produce more. So I think it's interesting how Saudi Arabia wants to meet exstensive goals, but refuse to let the women help, and by doing that they're holding their country back.

Chapter 13 Question #6

In the reading of chapter 13 about development economics, it was interesting to learn about some of the economic policies and institutions that were put to work in other countries and the United States. A real world application that was almost scary to think about to me was that 2 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. When I thought about what it would be like if I had to live on $2 a day, there seemed to be no option but to starve myself simply because I do not have the budget in this scenario to eat every day. I guess I am just to used to society and city living that I often forget how good I have it in this world . Especially compared to those in developing countries. The real world application of having to live on $2 a day is just to much for me handle. I guess We should just keep living our city lives and remember how good Most of us have it!

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 13, Question #6

After reading chapter 13 there was one specific passage regarding government institutions that threw me for a loop. Wheelan was discussing different policies that make the difference between the wealth and poverty of nations one of which was effective government institutions. Wheelan mentions that settlements such as the United States gained institutions that had a positive long-lasting effect on economic growth because these colonies were easy to live in (longer lifespans). In contrast settlements in the Congo did not gain any long lasting institutions because of how difficult it was to live in that area. The settlers sole focus was to extract as much wealth from this colony as possible without spending too much time there. Comparing and contrasting these two different colonies put into perspective how important the actions of the past really are to our future. This example also portrayed how country's economies are affected by outside variables that are not strictly involving the economy. Overall this section produced an "ah-ha" moment for me because if the British had decided against developing in the United States we could have a vastly different or weaker economy.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 12, Question #7

What I have learned from this chapter is why trade is (and has been) emphasized when it comes to economic development of countries. The fact that humans are out to improve their way of life and look to one another for goods and services in order to maximize productivity is clearly demonstrated by Wheelan through many examples. The idea that protectionism has also come to light as being a hindering force of future growth for the perseverance of the few. Wheelan also points out the weight of environment on the importance of trade, such as sweat-shops in Asia have allowed those countries to grow and raise the standard of living and the environment.

Chelgren, Anders, chapter 11, question #6

The passage that I found most significant is the one about goods and services. I was amazed to realize that "in a modern economy more than three quarters of goods and services are non tradable." Wheel an uses haircuts as an example. Haircuts have a benifits to individuals however their purchasing power is relatively universal. A haircut is a haircut no matter what part of the world your in. Therefor, trading a haircut in America for something else in another country is not very beneficial to the world economy. This is why goods can be easily traded internationally, while most services must happen is a local enviornment. 

Anne Warnke Ch. 11 Question 7

I've always loved learning about the currencies of other countries, and understanding exchange rates ever since I went to Europe and actually experienced using other countries money. What this chapter brought to light, the thought I'd never actually considered, was that exchanging money and the exchange rate itself, is all just a business transaction. It makes perfect sense though, countries agree to exchange an amount of money for a good which, in this case, is money. I also see a danger to the process of exchange, for instance, if a country suddenly decided that the fixed rate isn't enough, that PPP doesn't accurately agree to their terms, the process can be all thrown out of whack. It also makes you question all the basic things in your life that can be viewed as business exchanges.

ShernCarissa, Chapter 11, Question 6

I have always wondered how the US was so strong but yet had such extreme debt, I found the example of the farmers: Farmer America and Farmer China.   The most interesting because it just shows how ridiculous and symbiotic the relationship between the two countries are.  Because China allows America to get keep on borrowing and borrowing fund and giving China IOUs.  That debt has now gone beyond a trillion dollars.  Why is China still giving the US so much money when the US has nothing to give them back because we use all of our own resources?  When will we end this unhealthy relationship?

Betsy Elliott, chapter 11, question 6

This chapter brought up some memories from my Sweden trip I went on with a Swedish girls choir. I used to be in a Swedish girls choir and every three years they would visit Sweden. One year we went and when we got to Sweden we need to change our currency so we went to a machine and it did it for us. In America I knew what a dollars value was and what I should be able to buy with it, but I didn't know with the Swedish currency. Since I was about ten years old I didn't really care, so I would spend my money on ice cream at every gas station not knowing buying it was equivalent to a five dollar purchase back home. I wasn't "stolen" from like Wheelan was when he went to China but I've always wondered why the entire world doesn't have the same currency to make everything some much easier.

Drew Hanson, question 7, chapter 11

Before reading this chapter, I had understood currency as being one general force throughout the world and each different kind of money was just another color of the same creature. After reading the chapter, I understand that each currency is very independant of the other forms of currency. 

Something else that gave me a new perspective was the subjectivity of the value of currencies against each other and how governments can "defend" their currency by buying a bunch of it with other currency, artificially raising the demand. Can't really be that easy? 

Trenton McCarthy, question 6, chapter 11

The weakening of the dollar and the strengthening of a dollar both have the possibility of drastics changes in a countries economy and the business of importers and exporters. Wheelen gave two examples, one for each side. When the dollar weakens a New Nork Times began stating that as the dollar declined so did the worlds wealthiest economy. On the other side, when the dollar strengthens people claim that it may be too strong. When the dollar was equivalent to 90 yen in 2001, Toyota earnings dropped by 450 million dollars just like that. The best place for the value of a dollar is right in the middle but that may never happen therefore stability is the goal. Now government officials might purposefully manipulate the currency to aid the economy or the opposite effect could happen to complicate things even more. Consumers would be taxed on every import they buy... Essentially having detrimental effects on the importer as well as the exporter.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 11, Question #3

Purchasing Power Parity is an fair concept of currency comparison and are very influential to the global economy. Being that currency is worth only how much people trust it to be worth and that currency's value is determined by the quantity of currency associated with goods, global currencies must have a system of comparison in order to maintain trust/value of goods and services. However, PPP isn't always able to assure fair exchange between currencies. Due to certain goods (such as nontradable goods) not being able to be compared appropriately by PPP, the value of currencies can be 'undervalued' or 'overvalued', causing a perception of depreciation to arise within the currency, resulting in a weakening of trust for a currency, which may induce a feeling of recession for such currency dependent country's if not adjusted accordingly.

emma spreng, Chapter 11, Question #6

I found the passage about the Big Mac interesting because before reading this I never really thought about the price differences in different places, such as China and the Unites States. But when Wheelan brought up this example it stuck out to me because McDonald's, an american company, is selling there food all over the world and I would have guessed that it's sold for the same amount no matter what the currency is. But because China's government "rely heavily on a "cheap" currency", the Big Mac is cheaper in China.

Bre Keley chapter 11 question 6

Major economies need to recover together.  Any sports game is a zero-sum game, in which a team gains from other teams becoming weaker.  International economics is the opposite.  Global GDP has grown for centuries, we are richer than we were in 1500.  No one got poorer, we collectively became richer.  The goal of economic policy should be to make it easier for nations to cooperate with one another. Netherlands better the US does, the richer and more secure we all become.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 11, Question #7

I learned a lot more about the exchange rate in this chapter. I already knew that it was the equivalent  amount of goods you can buy in two different places using monetary value. What I didn't know is that when a dollar is strong or weak it can affect companies that have branches in other countries and can affect their sales based on the exchange rate. If a country is going through inflation and it's dollar is worth more people from other countries can make profits on it.  I found the example in the book of the man in 1992 that made a bet against the British pound and became a billionaire in one day to be very interesting and informative that you could make money betting on a currency to lose value. It was interesting to learn in this chapter how a currency could lose value Nd it can affect so many aspects of the international trade and essentially economy.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 11, Question #6

I have never understood why there are so many different currencies in this world. I also have never understood how the dollar can be "strong" in comparison to the peso and vice versa. This chapter was overall interesting because it started to clarify why there isn't on set currency for the entire world. Chapter 11 also helped me to understand why when exchanging dollars for pounds one dollar may equal four pounds. I also very much enjoyed the section that discussed the gold standard because I remeber learning about it last year during APUSH, but after hearing it alluded to many times throughout this semester I relaized that what the gold standard was and did may have slipped my mind. Overall two of my biggest questions regarding money, how one currency could be stronger than the other and what exactly the gold standard was, were answered through Wheelan's writing.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter #10, Question #6

What stuck out to me about this chapter was the complexity of the inflation and deflation and the methods of controlling them. Wheelan provides examples where inflation can come about the government printing off to much money, the government encouraging certain consumption practices, or the populous just reacting to an event somewhere in the world. Being that inflation and deflation are such complex in nature  and are major influencing factors of trust/reliability for all people, Wheelan effectively communicated the importance of the fortification of equilibrium between the two.

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 10, #6

The passage that was most interesting to me, and most significant to my future, would be the one on the true value of cash. Dollar bills are no longer backed by the gold standard and thus the value of a piece of paper lies only in the belief of the whole that it holds value. The dollars value is entirely dependent on the fact that buyers and sellers know they can exchange the paper for product, "Purchasing power." While cash is important to possess for simplicity of trading I was glad to have read Wheelan's commentary on the fact that cash itself can't be drank, or eaten,  ect. If the faith in the dollars purchasing power failed, the cash people spend their entire lives working for would be worthless and would do nothing to keep them alive. This is why I find major importance in using cash to purchase items with what I am calling "practical value." Things that can be used to survive, thrive, and grow despite the conditions of the generals public faith in the dollar. Some items will always be necessary and if currency fails of becomes overly inflated people will still be willing to trade real items for practical goods.

trenton Mccarthy, chapter 10, question 6

Belief and trust are the backbone to what currency is worth in every country in this world. Whether it's food, paper money, or other miscellaneous items, belief in the system is what determines the value. Wheelen uses an example that stood out to me having to do with India's faith in its rupees. Even though torn or crumpled bills are legal, in other words banks will accept them, business owners don't accpet them out of fear that others won't either. This then starts a downward spiral eventually leaking into the mindsets of tourists. Another example is US money. We ditched the gold standard many years ago, so basically we are dealing with paper, just paper that is green with a face on it. With that being said, it is now a true statement that value relies on this confidence that people have in their currency. Relying on a belief system just seems extremely vulnerable to economic crashes and other catastrophes which means that the fed is always faced with a difficult task: maintaining the status quo because people can get scared fast. If people get scared about the economy, then people lose that confidence which is ever so essential to what we live our life on, paper money etc. this is why the fed doesn't want to promote economic growth to fast or too slow. Either one could very well have a detrimental effect if our minds, our confidence, and our lack of trust and belief let it

Shern, Carissa Chapter 10 question 6

I found the different examples of hyper inflation very interesting in German marks, Latin America, and Belarussian bunnys.  The German mark hyper inflated to the point where it was more valuable to burn it then to buy wood to burn, a simple newspaper went from 1/3 mark to 70,000,000 marks.  Latin American money was their largest import and the "bunny" not only has a rabbit on the bill but it also "reproduces" like a rabbit.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 10, Question #6

A point that grabbed my attention was how the federal reserve has to help the rate of economic growth that doesn't go to fast or too slow. It is a hard job to attain that balance especially with other factors in play. One point was that the economy has a lag and the fed can't see what it's Putin place move into action immediately. That can be trouble because someone might want to increase economic growth more because they don't see economic growth immediately but that could hurt in the long run. Also monetary and fiscal policy create an affect on the economy solely by themselves. In the book Wheelan uses the analogy of the accelerator and the brake in how congress can be applying the accelerator and the fed is applying the brake and vice versa. That causes problems if they aren't in cooperation. I saw this as a interesting point because it makes the job of the people at the federal reserve even harder.

Drew Hanson, chapter 10, question 6

The most interesting part of this chapter, to me, was how important the fed and monetary policy are highlighted by the claim made by Robert Mundell that "Had the price of gold been raised in the late 1920s, or, alternately, had the major central banks pursued policies of price stability instead of adhering to the gold standard, there would have been no Great Depression, no nazi revolution, and no World War II". This seems crazy to me. How can an institution that few people understand just a few people run, be the cause of some of the most dramatic events in history, as identified by a Nobel prize winner? How can policies that have such a huge influence on world politics be so disputed? 

Bre Kelley chapter 10 question 6

The Federal Open Market Committee consists of the Fed chairman and presidents from the Reserve Banks.  If the FOMC wants to stimulate the economy of borrowing, it has two tools.  Discount rate is the interest rate at which commercial banks can borrow funds directly from the Federal Reserve.  That relationship between discount rate and borrowing includes if the rate falls than they can borrow more cheaply but than customers fear the bank was not able to raise the funds on their own.  The second tool is the Federal Funds rate.  If the supply of funds goes up, than banks have to lower their interest rates.  This than brings us to the debate of the Federal Reserve creating new money.

Beau Sjodahl Chapter 10

Chapter 10 touches on inflation in the economy and the "speed limit" that an economy can grow at. An interesting point is that if demand is more than supply than eventually a company starts finding it hard to keep up with their product demands. I found the example of the Chrysler motor company to be interesting. Chrysler produces the pt cruiser and it starts to sell well. People start demanding more than Chrysler can supply and it becomes increasingly difficult to find qualified auto workers for the company. Everything from the labor to the capital starts increasing in price and thus inflation takes over so the Chrysler has to pay more money in wages and materials. It's nice to get an inside look on why the economy works the way it does and to have a better understanding of economics in general

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 9, Question #7

I learned all about GDP in this chapter. That it is our only way to measure the economy because it is all about what us consumers buying new things. It can show lots of great things that we are producing lots and people are becoming better off and we are being productive but GDP is not perfect representation of a good society. If we try to resort solely in increasing GDP each year as a society we will become a very self- centered and materialistic society. GDP doesn't measure our happiness, like pure happiness not just the happy you get when you buy something new, it doesn't measure morals, and it doesn't measure side effects at all. Which is the biggest problem. The environment has suffered greatly and will continue to suffer if we only look at GDP. Also GDP only deals with new things it doesn't deal with used car dealerships and other used items. So it is a misrepresentation of our society.   So GDP can be good but it shouldn't be the only thing we rely on.

Carissa Shern Chapter 9 question 6

I found the passage about Social Security and Medicare and how the "seesaw in which payments are made by workers are on one side and benefits collected by retirees are on the other."(216) This seesaw effect is unequal because people are having less children but, the "baby boomers" are retiring.  The possible solutions to this problem are fairly easy but unfavorable.  These solutions include having more children, making social security payments smaller and raising the age of retirement.  The passage help me put into perspective what my mom always complains about when the subject of retirement comes up.  She says that social security is unable to keep up and that the government has to make coverage payments stricter.

Drew Hanson, chapt. 9, question 6

I found two concepts in the chapter very interesting.

The first interesting concept was how a recession can be beneficial in the long run by weeding out weak businesses like a "harsh winter" would for animals in the wild. This is a different way to think about hard economic times. I (along with many other people, I'm sure) previously looked on economic downturn as a purely negative thing that is always to be avoided. However, looking at recession like an economist, it makes sense that weeding out weak businesses would not be negative because if even poorly run businesses can be successful, there will be a ton of wasted resources and we won't be able to progress. 

The second concept I found interesting was how much public perception influences the reality of the economy. Ever since I was little, my parents tried to explain the concept of a recession to me and how people don't spend their money because they don't think the economy is good which makes the economy worse. I always thought that all the media outlets should just report that the economy was up and running well again all at the same time and it would be a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. I still think that kinda. I'm gonna start a non-profit recession-busting rumor mill news station. I'll spread noble lies for the good of many.

Carissa Shern Chapter 6 Question 6

The part of the chapter that peaked my interest the most was the example of Bill Gates used through out the chapter.  This example puts in perspective the wealth gap in a way I hadn't thought of before.   "Families who live in public housing...are not poor because Bill Gates lives in a big house"(145).  These families are poor because they lack the educational tools they need to be successful.  Bill Gates didn't just wake up in a mansion and decide to build a multi billion dollar company for fun, he went to school and learned enough about software and computers to make himself the best in the business and thus provide his luxurious lifestyle.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 9, Question 6

The section in this chapter that I found most interesting was on page 202 as Wheelan talked about recessions. What was interesting to me was that he enlightened me on a paradox of recessions that I have never really thought about before. Wheelan explained this paradox by saying "our natural (or rational) reaction to precarious economic times is to become more cautious with our spending, which makes our collective situation worse." It's also interesting to me how he shows that our behavior plays a role in recessions. He says in simple terms, "if we all believe the economy is likely to get worse, then it will get worse. And if we all believe it will get better, then it will get better."

Bre Kelley, Chapter 9, Question 6

I thought the entry about recessions was interesting because recessions can spread easily across borders to different countries.  For example, if the US Economy weakens, than we buy fewer goods.  This can affect countries like Mexico, who send us more than 80 percent of its exports.  Even during the financial crisis of Wall Street spread to other countries.  America's GDP dropped to an annual rate of 5.4 percent in 2008 which lead to Singapore's economy dropping to 16 percent and Japan's dropping to 12 percent.  This idea is different than business or sports, in which your opponents misfortune is your gain.

Emma Spreng, Chapter 9, Question #7

This chapter talks about how difficult it really is to come to an accurate measure of economic progress and health of different countries. By reading this, I have all learned all the different aspects of figuring out a countries GDP, and I also found it interesting that per capita GDP can conceal the issues and struggles of low earners because the high earner basically cancel the low earners out. From learning this new information, I realized that there are probably tons of countries that are ignored and the population of people aren't aware that these countries might need help because they are only looking at their GDP, and once they see that a countries GDP is Ok, they will forget about it and move on, when in reality everything isn't ok.

Betsy elliott, Chapter 9, question 6

The section in chapter 9 that I found most interesting was when Wheelan spoke about american now are five times rich now than in 1940. Yes, I understand how chicken is $3.86 and back then it was $1.23 but it is still cheaper because the average imcome has increased still then but what I don't understand is how so many people still go with out food. I'm not talking about people who don't have a job but the people who have a functioning running how and the mother and father both have jobs. How come they eat rice for dinner and have been for a week? I know other expenses need to factor in here but with the things we have in this decade. In the Great Depression families lost there jobs and/or farms while already being poor and they ate better food than rice and butter. If to buy a phone is only nine hours of work and to get chicken only thirteen minutes then why is this a problem?

Trenton McCarthy chapter 9 question 6

GDP is a very complex concept that has multiple different aspects to grasp in order to understand it fully. Wheelen does a good job of laying it all out in simpler terms. I found a couple things very interesting when reading. 1) even if GDP rises, that does not mean the economy is growing in a healthy way. We must take into account inflation. If GDP increases by 10% and inflation also increases by 10%, then we are stagnant in terms of economic growth. People may be making more money, by the prices of goods is also rising. With that being said, you're not any richer than before and this situation is equivalent to exchanging a ten dollar bill with ten one dollar bills. 2) India is an example of what it means for a country to be poor by global standards. India may have a high GDP, but they also have 1 billion people. In the case of leprosy, the cure for a mild case is $3 and a cure for a more secure case is $20. But in India, quality medical services are not provided and doctors and nurses are not able to identify all afflicted. In the end, 100,000 people are horribly disfigured by the disease even though the cure only costs $3-$20, which is relatively cheap. That's what it means to have a per capita GDP of $2,900 that is India.

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 9, Question # 6

I found the passage talking about productivity very interesting. It is true that we can not make the day any longer and often we cant work any harder, we must instead work harder and more efficiently. People, especially from the older generation, often complain about inflation and raising prices. I was quite intrigued by the financial breakdown on the cost of pantyhose in the past vs now. While it is true that the price as rose dramatically, the percentage of effort in term of hours worked has dropped significantly. The concept that "time is money" is one I had know before, however, it's application as a way to measure economic productivity was an entirely new tangent. The time of work comparison based on an average hourly income put things into perspective in a new light.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 9, Question #6

As Wheelan described what the GDP is and what it measures I found it surprising that there are a few things the GDP doesn't take into account resulting in falsities. For example the GDP does not account for anything that one does not pay for meaning it does not take into account evironmentsl degradation. Wheelan used the example of a company plowing down a forest to make paper. Although an entire forest was just demolished the GDP reflects this demolition as a positive growth in GDP and doesn't show the negative effect of the loss of the trees. Wheelan also offers China as an example. China has recently had a rapidly growing GDP but this was all at the cost of significant evironmental degradation. When calculating the real GDP one must actually subtract the overall cost of the environmental damage thus resulting in a less positive GDP. Overall I thought the fact that a country could be seemingly well off based on their GDP but in all actuality are writhing under major pollution problems, such as China, as a very interesting topic. I found this most interesting and surprising because it shows that the systems we have set up now are flawed and could use fresh minds to further the accuracy in measuring the overall worth of a country.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 9, Question #3

By  analysing the effects of recession on America, Whelean states that "recessions may actually  be good for long-term growth because they purge the economy of less productive ventures, just as a harsh winter may be good for a species (206). On the otherhand, recession is very detrimental to the present day on a macroeconomic level, such that "our natural (and rational) reaction to precarious economic times is to become more cautious with our spending, which makes our collective situation worse"(Whelan 202). Then, instead of being a gradual augmentation of economic burden, recession continues to gains strength with time. That is why recession is an issue for the present day and the future.

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 6, Question 7

Chapter six continuously drives home one point, the value of human capitol. Successful people are worth more than the culmination of their physical assets and property. I liked the example given describing a hypothetical scenario in which people were dropped on a street corner void of all but the shirt on their back. Those people rich in intellectual promise, with a unique or valuable skill set would adapt and soon again be successful, while those with few or useless talents would be unemployed. This example shows how desirable human capitol can truly be. Reading this chapter caused me to make a connection to a previously discussed platform for giving kids more opportunity to succeed. This presidential program realized the value of human capitol yet failed to succeed because its structure drew in students in low paying careers and not high paying ones. I have a similar yet privatized idea: children as investments. Its no secret that wealthy parents invest in the futures of their children, however what about those students that are motivated to excel yet don't have the luxury of wealthy parents? Or what of the wealthy adult who is looking for a investment but has no children? Why not create a system in which students can post profiles seeking financial backing from a private party. As a result the student could attend school and the investor could receive a return on investment following graduation. This type of program would allow greater opportunity for students who know they want to be successful and will offer a good return for those people who invest in human capitol. This program would not waste public funds but would be entirely private.

Anne Warnke, Chapter 6, Question 7

I found the example of 100,000 dropouts vs. graduates to be most interesting because it really isolates the difference an education makes in preparing humans for the future, enabling them with that 'entrepreneurial flair' to succeed, and it makes sense that this comes from education. At the same time, I think it also brings to light one of the biggest struggles America faces in producing high quality human capital. If students, especially of lower classes aren't motivated to learn and succeed, we lose our human capital. I think this passage also shows how the development of large cities came about which is fascinating to me, because it explains that with a large sum of high quality human capital, people flock towards cities. It explains why New York city and L.A. are so huge, because the human capital, entertainers' are so numerous there, and that in part is a mixing of the people being there because the companies are there, and the companies being there because the people are there.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 6, Question 6

The part of this chapter that stuck to me was on page 134 when Wheelan was explaining the total stock of human capital. Wheelan refers to economist Gary Becker and his idea that 75% of a modern economy is the stuff we carry in our heads rather than diamonds or buildings or oil. This section stuck to me because I think that when people think about our economy they immediately think of money and material wealth, which is part of it, but in order to have a wealthy economy there needs to be well educated, skillful, and even healthy people. Physical capital and financial capital are both important for a wealthy economy, but human capital is by far the most important thing for a wealthy economy.

Betsy elliott, chapter 6, question 7

This chapter is about productive activity. Wheelan said, "Remember, new workers must spend their earnings elsewhere in the economy, creating a new demand for other products. This economic pie get bigger, not merely resliced"(132). Going to school get you an education and that education can get you a job, which get you money that you spend on other things and that creates more jobs for other people. Everybody will win in the end. This ultimately means get an education it will give someone else a job. Wheelan uses two scenarios, a town full of farms but each farm only make food enough for each family living on that farm and there is no room for any new job workers. The other scenario is a man creates a new kind of plow and he sells it for a share in the other guys harvest. The second scenario creates a world where everybody wins.

Drew Hanson, chapter 6, question 7

This chapter made me think about Ford Schroeder. Ford doesn't really have anything to do with Econ or human capital but he really likes the movie Good Will Hunting and that's a lot like this chapter. In the beginning of this film, Will Hunting (represented in an outstanding performance by a young, dashing Matt Damon) is just a mild mannered janitor who drinks beer and hits balls in the batting cage with his friends. Will seems like all the other high school dropouts and delinquents from his rough and tumble neighborhood in the south of boston referred to by natives as "southie". However, Will has a something that neither his crew nor any other resident of southie nor anyone else in the world has: a massive stockpile of human capital in the form of genius. Because all this human capital is so scarce, basically the whole movie is people getting pissed at him about not using any of it and trying to help him fix his emotional detachment. It works and he falls in love with this really hot girl that he derives a lot of utility from and embraces his human capital. The end of the movie is him driving away from a job he was set up with in just a beat up old car heading across the country to meet up with his girl. The point is that he could afford to leave everything and do a lot of other special things others weren't able to throuought the movie because even if he doesn't have anything but an old junker and a sweet haircut, "Human capital is the sum total of skills embodied within an individual" and he had a lot of skills. Overall great movie. I give it 4.5 stars out of 5. 

Stay in school kids, you'll get to do stuff other people can't.

Drew Hanson, chapter 6, question 7

This chapter made me think about Ford Schroeder. Ford doesn't really have anything to do with Econ or human capital but he really likes the movie Good Will Hunting and that's a lot like this chapter. In the beginning of this film, Will Hunting (represented in an outstanding performance by a young, dashing Matt Damon) is just a mild mannered janitor who drinks beer and hits balls in the batting cage with his friends. Will seems like all the other high school dropouts and delinquents from his rough and tumble neighborhood in the south of boston referred to by natives as "southie". However, Will has a something that neither his crew nor any other resident of southie nor anyone else in the world has: a massive stockpile of human capital in the form of genius. Because all this human capital is so scarce, basically the whole movie is people getting pissed at him about not using any of it and trying to help him fix his emotional detachment. It works and he falls in love with this really hot girl that he derives a lot of utility from and embraces his human capital. The end of the movie is him driving away from a job he was set up with in just a beat up old car heading across the country to meet up with his girl. The point is that he could afford to leave everything and do a lot of other special things others weren't able to throuought the movie because even if he doesn't have anything but an old junker and a sweet haircut, "Human capital is the sum total of skills embodied within an individual" and he had a lot of skills. Overall great movie. I give it 4.5 stars out of 5. 

Stay in school kids, you'll get to do stuff other people can't.

Emma Spreng, Chapter 6, Question 7

In this chapter Wheelan talks about the importance of human capital and how it effects the economy. It says people with a higher human capital are able to find work basically anywhere without a problem while people because there will always be a need for doctors while a person with lower human capital have a harder time to find work and are limited to low wage jobs that require little skill. Reading this chapter made me look at the issue of getting rid of poverty in a different way because Wheelan argues that if everyone had a higher paying job, the lowest paying would have to increase therefore getting rid of poverty.

Trenton McCarthy, chapter 6, question 7

As Wheelen states, human capital is the most important when it come to wealth and growth. No human capital means no job (wealth). Accordingly, no job (wealth) means poverty. Whether it's education or natural ability, the fact of the matter is that less human capital leads to less income or growth compared to a man like Lebron or Bill Gates who have tons of potential in terms of human capital. This concept reminds me of a article I read about a college I might attend. This college has a high end education, ranked 50th in the nation. Why? It's because due to the quality human capital provided, graduates make roughly $18,000 more than other graduates from other schools. 1 in 8 students become CEOs after graduation. I realize now that people who complain about wealthy people taking all the money instead of spreading the wealth for the poor are in a way ignorant. Those rich business owners are creating jobs for you, essentially spreading wealth and helping the economy. Therefore if you are not making a lot of money, there are five excuses that you could use: 1) you have a criminal record, 2) you are crippled in some way, 3) you are just lazy and aren't mazimizing your full potential, 4) you simply don't desire a job that pays a lot of money, or 5) you just suck because you don't have any quality human capital.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 6, Question #7

Wheelan's begins by addressing income inequality and the intensity of it here and the extreme intensity of it in other corrupt places in the world like Brazil. Wheelan sees human capital as the reason for people who are rich or poor. Bill gates has greater human capital than almost everybody and is extremely wealthy because of it. I learned that human capital is the most likely best odds you'll ever have in an investment. Such as investing in a college education, it has 10% return. Proof that human capital makes people better off. I also learned in this chapter that human capital is the underlining problem of poverty. "The poverty rate for high school dropouts in America is 12 times the poverty rate for college graduates"(129). Proof that dealing with human capital is the best way to deal with poverty. Making it possible for many people to receive job training and education. This idea is much better then people just bickering about the wealth gap. People should instead go invest in their own human capital instead like the wealthiest people did. Our economy rewards human capital and productive efficency and it's up for grabs for the person with the most human capital and productiveness. Human capital doesn't just make people richer it makes them healthier and better parents and just being educated helps other people and creates a richer society not just in wealth.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 6, Question #7

I hear adults, soecifically my dad, discuss the wealth gap present in America very often, and it seems within the last ten years or so the gap has grown significantly. In chapter six, Wheelan mentioned how Brazil has the wealthiest and poorest people in the world hinting that the wealth gap present in Brazil is very large. Although a large wealth gap my be daunting to those either in the middle or in the poor spectrum, I learned in this chapter that the main concern regarding a large wealth gap is rooted in relative wealth. Wheelan used what, Nobel Prize winner, Robert Fogel said to explain that the wealth gap may not be that negative of a thing present in America. Fogel pointed out that America's poorest citizens have many things unknown to royalty a hundred years ago, meaning although they are poor they could be worse off. The only reason that the wealth gap seems so negative is the relative income aspect which entirely has to do with a human's nature to be envious of others and what they have in comparison to yourself. Another thing I found really interesting was the philosophical question Wheelan proposed when he finished discussing the pros and cons of America's wealth gap. Wheelan asked, "If the pie is growing, how much should we care about the size of the pieces." That is a tricky question which would be very difficult to come up with a short answer but I bleieve that he is trying to say that America needs to pay attention to the overall big picture of a growing economy rather than the individual negatives of a large wealth gap.

Bre Kelley, chapter 6 question 6

Economics believe that we should not care about how big the gap is between the rich and the poor, instead we should care about how much the poor are getting.  I thought it was interesting how H. L. Mencken once said that "a wealthy man is a man who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sisters husband."  Two men looked into why some women decide to work outside of their home while others do not.  Evidence to support Mencken's theory are unemployment in the local labor market, a woman's education and her work experience.  "A woman in their sample was significantly more likely to seek paid employement if her sister's husband earned more than her own."

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 6, Question #2

This chapter definitely draws the most attention when compared to the other chapters by being the most personal. Wheelan makes it clear that being a productive individual (relative to society) will translate to being better off and congregations of such productive capital will flourish. Such is a common fact. However, what this chapter hints at that effects me most is the topics of natural traits and learned traits. Being that one's worth in society is heavily based on his productivity, natural ability and learn ability are the main determinants. However a murky dynamic forms in my mind when I consider the value of each ability and its role in one's productivity. Can one really learn all that there needed in order to make himself productive? What is the threshold of learned ability when natural ability is absent? Can the poor really learn the ropes out of their impoverishment? I have come to a point where I think that there will always be a ceiling to one's ability (both learned and inherited).

Anne Warnke, Chapter 8, Question #7

For the past few years, I can't remember a time I didn't hear that ethanol was "the" economic alternative to gasoline, and I heard it so much I started to believe it with actually hearing the facts. Heck, I even walk to a movie theater near my house and there's an add about why ethanol is the right alternative. So I find it so interesting that it has gone so long in the media without any mention of the long term harmful qualities it brings, both environmentally and what subsidies would do to the economy. I also question then if the political candidates who support the ethanol subsidies even know this.  Having an economic understanding of the world I'm starting to realize can actually be so beneficial and important.

Drew Hanson, chapter 8, question 6

The most interesting part about the chapter was how Wheelan described our political system making decisions as "not just about how many people care one way or another; it's how much they care." We tend to think of things in a democracy as being pretty much just being decided by the majority vote. However, it makes sense to me that with lobbying and other aggressive strategies small interest groups can take, a groups willingness and ability to wield force can be way more impact flu than just their number.

Shern,Carissa Chapter 8 Question #6

I've learned something about myself from this book, and that is I find the simplest example the most interesting.  I found the example about if all the left handed people had to pay a tax for the right handed people, helpful. The example helped me to understand taxes and how unfairly treated the minority feels (I can feel empathy because I am a lefty too).   I now see how difficult it is to create a tax, and then the fear involved with getting backlash from the people paying the specific tax. After, the hassle of trying to pay for as many improvements with that tax revenue as possible to make the tax worthwhile.

Trenton McCarthy chapter 8 question 6

An interesting concept in this chapter was that certification doesn't matter. This is magnified in publish schooling. Private school teachers for some odd reason after to go through many obstacles to become public school teachers. Does this make sense? No, it does not. Certification doesn't even make a difference when it comes to student performance. An example would be when Los Angeles decided to reduce class sizes and consequently had to to hire a ton of new teachers that weren't certified. The study proves that obviously being a good teacher is beneficial but it also proves that certification doesn't matter because uncertified teachers were able to get just as good performance out of their students. Literally, the only benefit that comes out of regulating the process of become a teacher is that of the teachers already on the inside. It doesn't benefit teachers trying to get in or more importantly, the students. Therefore, the barrier should be eliminated but to every sane thinker's confusion, including mine, states are doing the exact opposite.

Anders Chelgren, chapter 8, Question # 3

Chapter eight was quite interesting. While the concepts Wheelan discusses were thought provoking, they were not previously unbeknown to me. Specifically the dangerous role the government plays in politics worries me for the future. This has happened, and will continue to happen; politicians are more focused on getting elected than make a difference. People in power seek to be made more powerful, and in a democracy that mean more liked. Politicians appealing to specific groups for support is not wrong, however, when they must disregard their own beliefs and/or what's best for the nation, there is a serious problem. If we continue to have a system in which a candidate must so heavily compromise on his or her beliefs as well as conform to the wishes of a small minority than we are truly stuck in a hopeless system. Politicians should be held accountable for their promises and should be forced to act on a level playing ground. For example it is not productive and confusing if politicians are anti earmarks accept when it's popular like with the hospital example.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 8, Question #6

A part I found interesting in this chapter was the ethanol debate that was very popular in the 2008 election. When you look at the basics of ethanol (corn-based gasoline) it is good because it is taxed 5.4 cents less per gallon than pure gasoline. It burns easier then pure gasoline helping the environment, lowers our dependence on foreign oil, and gives corn farmers more work and money. But to be a good economists you must think of the long run not just the short run. This ethanol gas is even worse for our enviorment because it causes more air pollution specifically in the ozone layer and we lose 7.1 billion dollars in tax revenue. So in economics there are always positive and negative consequences for your actions and you have to remember to think the long run not just the short run.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 8, Question #7

I found it interesting to learn that, "When it comes to interest group politics, it pays to be small." In America it is assumed that majority rules, the bigger you or what you are fighting for is the more recognition you will gain from politicians. Learning that the smaller you are the better you are I thought was kind of crazy to think about. Then when Wheelan explained Gary Becker's theory this idea made more sense regarding why small groups are so successful. Small groups are the most successful because the cost of pleasing them is spread across so many differnet people it isn't very noticeable, so it is easier to pay a subsidy without any disputes because many are unaware of it. I also learned that no matter who you are you belong to a small group and I just find that really cool because that means despite being within a small group your voice can still be heard in politics and the free market.

Bre Kelley, chapter 8, question 6

The state requires barbers and manicurists to have a license but not electricians.  A bad electrical job could burn down an entire neighborhood but a bad haircut won't effect others around the person with the bad haircut.  The electrician is part of an interest group, a small business.  The size and budget reflects the political organization, because the barber and manicurist are regulated by the government.    Therefore, small businesses fly under the radar upon legislative functions of the government.  Therefore, the democratic process will always favor small organized businesses rather than large groups.

Trenton McCarthy, chapter 4, question 6

The most interesting concept in this chapter was the amount of control the private sector and government have on allocating resources. The fact that private sectors are using a scarce resource like top engineering minds to build things like a Magarita Space Pak is just retarded. Therefore, I would have to agree with Wheelen on this one, but we don't run the world. Also, the examples Wheelen gave about the government controlling resources were just insane. The USSR were idiots for spending resources on the space program rather than helping with the abortion rate. And also, our government is kinda stupid for placing the particle accelerator in Texas rather than in Illinois. Nothing I can do about it though.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 8, Question #6

What I found interesting from reading Chapter 8 is the influence of organized interests on the majority of society. Being that common-working Americans are more likely to have less interest in political functions, the government has learned how to take from the public (through taxation) and funnel such funds to individual's with political interest. Such is seen through Wheelan's example of the mohair farmer and present day cotton farmers.

Shern,Carissa chapter 4 question 6

I thought the passage about how to government in the economy is like a surgeon's scalpel very interesting.  How it can help the economy my promoting useful things like cia spy equipment instead of a Margarita machine/ backpack or the government can harm the economy like in Reagan's soviet joke about a two year waiting period for cars.

Betsy elliott, chapter 4, question #6

While reading this chapter it talked about DDT and air pollution. Something I read that was very surpassing was in 2000 in New Delhi, India there was a protest  about the terrible air pollution. But they weren't protesting for a cleaner enviroment they were protesting because the supreme court in India closed Ninty thousand small factories that polluted the air. And those factories employed roughly some million or so people. The people of Mew Delhi did not care for the pollution, they wanted their jobs. I was wondering, what should the role of the government be when it involes air pollution? Should they be allowed to close any factories that is polluting the enviroment even if that means taking away millions of jobs? Well first I think they should try to make the factories cleaner before they full close. There is more benefit of cleaner factories then just closing thousand of factories that create goods.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 4, Question #3

The future of government controlled services is a topic that Wheelan provides to the reader in order to portray its effects. Being that the government, when directly influencing a certain market of a public/private sector, is more likely than not to encounter difficulties with the private sector of society (especially when it comes to quality and effectiveness, a.k.a. USPS). Even though government services may seem "socially desirable", government services and activities (except for those regarding homeland security and identification) sometimes "shrinks the size of the pie".

Drew Hanson, chapter 4. Question 4

"The private sector allocates where they will earn the highest return. In contrast, the government allocates resources wherever the political process sends them." "The less the economy is left to politics, the better"

In this chapter, Wheelan makes it very obvious that the incentives for politicians and those in the government (public sector) and civilians who own businesses (private sector). Wheelan shows that in a case where private goods are concerned, the government is not an ideal facilitator. However, we have no choice but to leave capital goods to the government to manage.

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 4, Question #2

The topic of tax is important to learn about and understand because we as Americans, must pay them. Taxes, to some degree, are necessary to maintain any form of government. Wheelan covers many different examples of increasing vs decreasing taxes and his estimation of each option's economic benefit. I found it interesting when he covered the negatives of taxation, making the claim, "Taxation discourages both work and investment." I would agree, especially in regards to taxes such as the income tax. Following this claim, he cover the opposite outlook. It was fascinating that by lowering taxes, greater economic output resulted, even though it was to a degree arguable lesser than the total revenue the government itself would have made. This is viewed as a bad thing because the government loses some of its income, I would argue that shifting any amount of income from the government back to the people is beneficial. While taxes are a necessary evil, the federal government as a whole spends far to much money and often with far to little accountability. I think more economic freedom resulting in a increase in private finances due to lesser taxes is only complimented by the decrease in total government revenue. Through more government transparency, better economic policy, Government spending should be far less frivolous, resulting in a better standard of living as a result of less and more effective financed taxes.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 4, Question #5

One of the big problems Wheelan brings up in the chapter is how much the government should be involved in the economy and what things would they do better at then the private sectors and what they would do worse. An area they do bad in is the post office which is run unefficently and has bad customer service because the workers have no incentive since it is run by the government and the private sector could do this better. They could create competition and therefore giving us people better deals and private sectors thrive on customer satisfaction. An area the government needs to be in control is the DMV, yes this is still slow and has often frustrated customers. It is needed to be run by the government because if you create competition for getting a drivers license, people that shouldn't be driving will be driving because a private sector will sell because they are trying to make money. Wheelans solution was too have certain things run by private sectors and others by government government regulation. Another solution for government involvement is to keep it to regulation. The books example is that entrepreneurs are better in the private sector but its good for the government to have road blocking that stop the entrepreneur from bringing cocaine into the united states.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 4, Question #7

Something I learned through reading this chapter was Wheelan's answer to the question regarding how large of a role the government should be in the economy. The answer Wheelan offers is relatively simple but isn't really difinitive because he says the answer will vary depending on who you ask. This definitely is a new way of approaching this topic which often turns into a debate. I always assumed there had to be a right and wrong amount of government involvment in the economy but after reading this section I realized that the answer will really vary depending on your opinion. I really like how Wheelan says that there are smart and thoughtful economists on both sides of the spectrum and I think that is the best way to answer the question currently because it is really difficult to decipher if a large or small role is definitively right or wrong.

Emma SprengBREAK, Chapter 4, Question 2

The issues that Wheelan brings up in this chapter revolve around the problem of public and private sectors. The example he talked about was how the US post office is run by the government therefore a public sector and how no matter how horrible their customer service is, it won't be changed, and how private sectors do everything on their power to make the customer happy. Private and Public sectors definitely affect our life on a daily basis because all goods owned by the government we typically benefit from, despite the way it's presented.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 4, Question 6

The part of Chapter 4 that I found most interesting was on page 86 as Wheelan talked about the U.S. building a high speed particle accelerator. What I found most interesting was the fact that the government had the choice between landing the project at a major federal laboratory in Illinos or to build a lab in Texas. Instead of making the less exspensive decision by locating the project where a lab was already available, the government decided to spend money on building a new lab so that the project could be located in Texas mainly because Bush was president at the time and that was his home state. So the government wasted about a billion dollars on building a new lab for a project that they later just abandoned.

Bre Kelley chpt 4 question 6

In November of 2008, the European Union acted boldly to legalize ugly fruits and vegetables.  Prior to this, Europe was forbidden from selling "overly curved or oddly shaped" vegetables and fruits.  I found this interesting... Is there a negative externality to weirdly shaped vegetables?  This passage fits into the chapter because the government can hand out permits and licenses to sell things and to the illegalization of things.  This is sort of like the legalization of marijuana.  Yes, it is legal in Colorado but not legal under the federal government.  Did Europeans secretly sell squash?

Beau sjodahl chapter 3

Chapter 3 delves into positive and negative externalities and some of the results that occur due to such externalities. The most intresting thing in the chapter was the Czech republics smoking population and how much money they saved due to the negative externality of the smokers dying early. I would have guessed that they saved thousands of dollars but to think they saved 28 million is unreal. It seems dark that the government basically wants their smokers to die. I wonder if smokers are given less treatment in medical facilities because the government wants them to die quicker to make more money.

Betsy Elliott, Chapter 3, Question #2

Wheelan proposes negative externalities as a problem. There are many negative externalities and my derive  from positive externalities like in the case for the baby. A baby is good it creates another person for the working force but when you put that baby in a plane for 12 hours it is a negative externality for people on the plane. The same thing with smoking people who smoke die sooner. They make money and die before they collect the benefits. Wheelan's solution for negative externalities is  a tax. Taxing how much money each each mile cost to drive will create fewer drivers and less CO2 in the air. The probability of succed is far from what is need to stop global warming. There will alway be peopl who are willing to pay for expensive driving o there will always be something else keeping us from stoping global warming.   

Trenton McCarthy, chapter 3, question 6

The most interesting part about this chapter was the externality of smoking. I was astounded by the amount of money the Czech Republic saved because people were addicted to nicotine and died early. $28 million is a lot of money so raiding the tax would not be economically beneficial. It is kinda weird but it's like we are basically saying "let people die so we can have more money!" I still feel bad though for those people with weird voices and horrific deformities on those "don't smoke" commercials.

Drew Hanson, chapter 3, question 6

The firmest example that rose up in chapter 3 about how government protects a free market, was the example about Viagra and pfizer's patent on it. The cost of production on a Viagra pill is extremely cheap, but Pfizer has pumped up its price to way more than the cost of production because the government protects its patent on the product for 20 years so they don't have any competition. Some wet blankets have a bone to pick with the government about this situation. They complain that it isn't fair for Pfizer to have this monopoly and that the government should let the free market go to work on Viagra. But wheelan says going to work on Viagra too soon would be a very bad and awkward situation. In order to incentivize a massive investment from companies in new products, patents have to be made to guarantee they won't have any stiff competition for a while. If companies were subjected to hard competition right after putting a lot into creating a new product, it would be just way too hard to turn a profit and nobody would even try to innovate. 

Carissa Shern Chapter 3 Question 6

Chapter three is about societal/individual costs and benefits, one example I thought was very interesting was the doggie duty situation and how the individual costs to some lazy pet owners are less then the societal benefits of 650 people not being hospitalized for slipping on dog feces and breaking a leg, arm, hip etc. and the pet owner just buying a scooper.  I never understood before why there are fines in place for neglected doggie duty offenses, now I do!

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 3, Question #4

Chapter three covers externalitys, both positive and negative. The chapter explores how we can most efficiently move forward as a society. Wheelen argues that externalitys are of innumerable importance, and that nothing can be done without some positive or negative benefit to someone or something. I liked his comment about smoking and how it can be both a negative and a positive. While some people suffer second hand smoke- negative, others receive more social security due to their premature death- positive. The difficulty with intervention on the governments behalf is the fact that the externalitys so often go both ways, with wide spread roots on each side. The idea of forcing someone to pay a fee based on the negative impact on others around them seems logical enough. However, it becomes difficult to see where a line may be drawn. If taxes are proposed for all kinds of externalitys soon everything we do will be limited or taxed in some way. If people with unappealing houses, and unnecessarily large vehicles, should we also tax those unappealing or overweight people for being ugly and fat? While a government on some scale is important to facilitate necessity's, is it really its job to evaluate every tiny detail of your life, preferences, genetics, and hobbies? On another note, I applaud the idea of switching the tax burden away from the middle class by reducing the income tax or payroll tax. I am glad he recognized that high taxes for workers incentive them to work less. While externalitys could in theory encourage people to turn away from societal undesirable activity's, I fear the frequent wide spread taxes would lead to a loss of freedom. I am unconvinced that the government is efficiently spending the money it currently collects from taxes and have a hard time believing that the profits made from externalitys would always end up in the publics best interest.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 3, Question #6

This chapter was mainly about the government trying to help public externality costs and how they have positive and negative results and affect us all. The one passage I found most interesting was how the government is good in the way that it lowers the price of doing business in the private sector. The government sets rules, tracks down fraud, make public transportation allowing people to move easily. So the government is a positive externality in the economy.

Emma Spreng, Chapter 3, Question #6

Wheelan talks about externalities in this chapter and a passage I found interesting was the passage about how people who smoke are actually good for the economy because they die younger resulting in less people. When you think of smoking typically all that comes to mind are negatives things, but after reading this is it was interesting to view it in a somewhat different light.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 3, Question #7

I have gained perceptive to the prevalence of externalities because Wheelan does a good job of portraying the paradoxical truth associated with externalities.The interactions individuals have with one another is the most common ground for externalities to form, such as Wheelan's love for quiet and his neighbor Stuart's love for bongo playing. The externality is the bongo playing, which Stuart loves while Wheelan hates, prompting Wheelan to pay Stuart to not play during certain times. Thus, externalities among individuals are easier maintained than with individuals and the government. The government has a larger scope of influence than does the single individual, thus suggesting that government mandates will only go so far without adding more negative externalities as a result of such mandates. Therefore, I can confidently say that there is greater possibility of resolution to negative externalities when settled by the individual/small community with other individuals/small communities than with individuals/small communities and their governments.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 3, Question 2

Question two asks about if the issues presented in the chapter affect your life. Directly or indirectly? On a daily basis or more generally? Now or in the future? Externalities affects our lives in all these ways. Some can directly affect your life such as dog owners not picking up after their dogs in the park. That can directly affect your life because you have the chance of stepping in it as you walk by. And this example can also affect you daily or more generally. Maybe that dog owner in your neighborhood doesn't pick up after their dog everyday in which you have to keep your eyes open all the time to make sure that you don't step in it. Or it can affect your life more generally if every once in a while theiy don't pick up after their dog and you have a chance of stepping in it every now and then. Externalities can affect your life now and in the future with things such as air pollution. Wheelan describes the steel plant in Pennsylvania that causes causes air pollution that could one day cause a flood in Bangladesh. That could affect Bangladesh now, or it could affect them in the future.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 3, Question #6

I thought the passage towards the end of the chapter regarding taxing people in order to save them from themselves was a very significant part of chapter 3. This topic cannot be answered through just economic thought. Wheelan brings up the fact that the answer to whether the government is allowed to do this is purely  philosophical. Wheelan also highlights the fact that economics brackets each side of the specturm of this debate. Personally when we began talking about externalities I began to wonder where the government draws the line in getting involved with them. I also wondered if at any point while trying to tax and regulate externalities any of our rights as Americans are compromised. An example of this is taxing pop. Yes America has an obesity and dibetes problem that is highly prevalent, but when does the government begin to make the decision for Americans regarding pop consumption-through taxing pop. This is a really interesting and controversial topic that I believe would take longer than one blog post to dissect and analyze, but I found this very thought provoking.

Bre Kelley, chapter 3, question 6

Most decisions within economics have either positive or negative externalities.  However, some have both positive and negative externalities.  Cigarettes is an example.  Cigarettes kill the people who smoke them.  Secondhand smoke harms people around the smoker.  Smokers generate extra healthcare costs while non-smokers get their health care taxes increased to remove part of a smoker's lung.  These are all negative externalities.  On average, smokers die seven years earlier than non-smokers and don't live long enough to receive their retiring benefits.  Therefore non-smokers receive part of them, getting more benefits than they initially paid for.  These externalities only effect long-time smokers, but cigarettes have been shown to be very addictive.  There are positive and negative externalities in everything we do that effects the economy.

Shern,Carissa Chapter 2, Question 6

I found the passages about saving the black rhinos very interesting because I have always been interested in helping endangered wildlife but, I never realized that because the people are so desperate for funds that they can't care about the wildlife because they need to take care of their families.  I found the economical way of fixing the problem really interesting and wondered why I had not heard of anyone that had ever tried it before.  Why couldn't people who care about the endangered wildlife incentivize the native people to care for endangered animals or create a way of making the animals more profitable in the people alive threw tourism or photoagraphy, instead of throwing rescue funds at the problem.

Betsy Elliott, Chapter 2, Question #6

As everyone on this blog has written about how this chapter is about incentives. It even says it in the title. I'll just talk about a section that stuck out to me:
Wheelan spoke about Mexico city. They have "grayish- yellow pudding of pollutants". They tried to cut back on air pollution by cutting  down the number of cars that are on the road on a certain day by only allowing  car with certain license plate to drive that day. But people ended up buying two car if they could afford. The people thought this would make fewer cars being driven but it made more cars but also older cars with worse air pollution than regular. They get props for trying to help the earth but also for making it worse.

Drew Hanson, chapter 2, #7

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

This quote is what this chapter really boils down to. People feed other, for the vast majority of the time, because they want to feed themselves. If a person isn't incentivized to brew, bake, or... Butch then it won't get done. So the best way to get everyone fed is to make sure that the incentives on feeding serve those who feed so they'll keep feeding people. When there are discontinuities in the incentives and the best service of society (free rider markets, communist governments, crying kids looking for Oreos), systems don't work. The point of economics is lining up the incentives of individuals with what will best serve society. 

Trenton McCarthy, chapter 2, question 6

The most interesting thing in this chapter was the "free rider" concept. In the example of the black rhinos, people derive utility for conserving these endangered species. However this could possibly be part of the problem. As those organizations spend tons of money, time, and effort protecting these animals, we just sit around doing nothing, letting those people do all the work. Same goes for safari companies. These companies depend on the money of wealthy tourists who desire to see rare wildlife. However if one of those tourist companies spends a lot of money on conservation to increase the value of their product (safari), other companies of the same area and category will simply "free ride" on that one comapny's dedication. This only causes disadvantage for the companies trying their best to fix the problem. Poachers are the only one's now with clear incentive to kill and wipe out the entire species. Incentives do matter; they play a enormous role in a person's basic economical thinking.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 2, Question 6

Chapter 2 was all about incentives and one of the most intresting passages from this chapter was when Wheelan explained that greed is not always good, although Gordon Gekko lead people to believe that it is in the movie Wall Street. In this part of the chapter, Wheelan talks about the example of two men getting arrested for murder. Both get interrogated by the police and the way that police swing it is by giving each if them an option to confess and their time will be shortened. If they both talk, they'll be charged with illegal possession of a weapon and if they both confess they'll go away for 25 years. But if only one of them snitches on the other, then that man will be put away for 3 years while the other man does the full time. In the end, both of them will most likely choose to confess because neither wants the whole murder pinned on themselves. So both of them confess and they both end up getting 25 years. So because both men were greedy, they ended up with the same amount of time, but their thought process was completely logical for human beings.

Emma Spreng, Chapter 2, Question 6

Wheelan talks in this chapter about incentives and how critical they are to economics. A passage that I found interesting was the one about the real estate agent and how they would rather sell your house and get less of a commission just so they wouldn't have to do so much work. The agent wants to sell your house at a higher price but that would result in more time waiting for someone to be willing to buy at that price which would also result in less business for the agent because they are so preoccupied with trying to the house at a high price.

Bre Kelley, Chapter 2, Question 6

I was most interested in the passage about real estate agents and the selling of a house.  Your agent could list it for $280,000 and sell it extremely quick.  Or they could sell it for $320,000 and wait a while for a buyer who falls in love with it.  That is a $40,000 difference which is a lot of money.  But with waiting and selling at the larger price there is a 3% commission, and other expenses for keeping the house that could add up.  BUT your agent doesn't care if the price is favorable to you or not.  The incentive is to get the deal done.  Therefore, individuals act in their best interests that involve economic situations.

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 2, Question #6

Wheelan's main point in this chapter is that incentives matter. They can lead to economically good or bad outcomes depending on how that incentive is set up. The example that I found interesting was the teachers union were teachers all receive a uniform pay and through this process all the most talented teachers who are most likely just as good at another profession will choose the other profession because they will be payed more. They will do this because "Human beings are complex creatures who are going to do whatever it takes to make themselves as well off as possible." Then also this makes the least talented teachers to have an incentive to continue to teach instead of not. So this set up system gives economically bad incentives.

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 5, Question # 5

Chapter five discusses the importance of information. Throughout the chapter we learn of the logical yet often misunderstood conclusions made by rational people as a result of limited information. Starting with the Hope scholarship example, we are soon taught that "what we don't know can hurt us." Because life is a string of decisions, information that influences those decisions is very important. With the example of "discriminating" against women in careers, we see that employers are often working logically. Without the information relating to her maternity plans, they profile due to statistically evidence that woman will likely at some point become a mother thus requiring leave and risk not returning. The same thing is true, and just as controversial, with young black males, statistically speaking theses men are seven times more likely to have convicted of a crime. On the hiring persons perspective, there is no racism being implement only logic and deductive reasoning used by the limited information that is accessible. People fall on all sides of the arguments outlines above, some claim profiling is wrong, while others claim it is instinctual and often necessary. I appreciated the example given at the conclusion on the chapter about being approached from the rear in a parking garage. It is in ones best interest and in many cases instinctual to profile the person approaching. By calculating observations such as gender, clothing, race, physical appearance it can more accurately be concluded the persons intentions. While some argue profiling can be morally wrong, it is implemented constantly, often subconsciously, as we make decisions. Because information will always be limited, we must sometimes act according to judgements rooted in statistically fact.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 2, Question #5

While reading the topic capitalism and competition came up. I think that to many Americans this is a controversial topic, because we are so proud of the freedoms our country has. One of our freedoms is the freedom to have a free market which in turn produces competition. Whenever there is competition there has to be winners and losers. Americans often accept the competition but because there always has to be a loser when we are thrown into this market many begin to fight against it. The real controversy arises specifically to in regards to small businesses. It seems lately that the amount of small businesses in cities has decreased due to larger corporations such as Walmart. Many Americans get passionate about this topic because they don't like seeing others put out of business and losing their jobs because of the big companies even though they once praised the competition of the market. Personally I don't know where I stand regarding this issue. Yes it sucks that many small businesses are put out of business every year but not everything in life can be made fair for everyone.