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.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 2, Question #2

Wheelan points out a sombering thought that incentives drive destruction. Being that I am looking to continue my career into the realm of engineering, my incentives will be centered around designing products that will out perform other's products, maybe to the extent of shutting down other's businesses (or vise versa). I recognize that competition drives creativity and technological growth (thus the total economy), I just always believed that competition was only destructive, when in reality, the costs of destruction are less than the benefits of the gains from the products produced by competition.

Anne Warnke, Chapter 7, Question 6

First all just say I'm baffled by why anyone would think grapefruit and ice cream would be a great diet plan. But I'm going to write about nueroeconomics, because the idea of analyzing the biology around us when making important business decisions is a very interesting field. I've always enjoyed learning about how the brain works in decision making, and the influence of nature, or lack of, I think aids very much into what we decide about how to spend our money. If I didn't know what I wanted to do with my future, I would perhaps look more into studying this field.

Beau Sjodahl Chapter 7

I read something in this chapter that ties in most recently with something else I have learned. The Ugandan woman that makes her living on that small loan. I found this the most interesting because I have most recently studied Barbara Corcoran in business class and she took a 1000 dollar loan and turned it into the biggest real estate empire in New York City. I like accounts like this Ugandan woman or Barbara because their success with so little I believe can make us all think that the American dream is possible and it does not just pertain to America.

Trenton McCarthy, chapter 7, question 6

in order to be existent or a prospering company or scheme, those schemes must follow the basic principles of economics. If not, it ultimately will fail. There really is no such thing as a get-rich-quick scheme unless we are talking about the power ball, black jack, or the stock market. Similar to a weight loss program in which it violates all types of nutrition values, the get-rich-quick scheme violates the basic principles of economics. Patience is a virtue. In the real world, there just is not such way that one can get rich fast in. They make work in the beginning but in the long run, it may not work out. Therefore, these schemes are definitely not surefire.

Betsy Elliott, chapter 7, question 6

 One thing that stick out to me in this chapter was about the woman in Uganda. Esther Gelabuzi, a widow with six children, used a tiny loan to set up a clinic becuase she was a professional midwife and since has dilivered fourteen hinder and babies. Because of this tiny loan she is able to make a living for her and her six children. Why are tiny loans not as popular in third world countries? We could help build their economy's.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 7, Question #7

I believe that this chapter has given me some perspective about what I can expect when it comes to the competitive world of stock and the opportunities that come with it. I can't expect to be an individual who can look up more information to get better "deals" than others.

Drew Hanson, chapter 7, question 2

The idea in this chapter is one of the most applicable ideas to "real world" living. The chapter makes it clear that real, working "get rich quick" schemes are next to nonexistent unless you're dealing with "morons". This affects pretty much everybody on a very general basis. It'd be sweet if I could just make a million bucks in the stock market tomorrow but if it was that easy, everyone would do it. It'd be awesome if I could flip a $250,000 house for double its profit, but it just can't happen that way. I'm not that special. I guess I'll just go to college then. :(

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 7, Question #4

People are often misinformed about the stock market. Many people think it is an opportunity to get rich quick, and while that is a possibility, it is highly unlikely. I loved Wheelan's analogy running commentary/comparison between people purchasing stocks and waiting in line at the grocery store. Just as any intelligent person would do some research before investing a large sum of money, people attempt to find the shortest line in a grocery store check out. It was interesting to me that he mentioned the fact that "everyone has access to the same information" this is true for both stocks and lines; If you see an obvious opportunity, most other people will too. One problem many people face in the stock market is failure to adapt a diverse, gradually increasing portfolio. People fail to maximize their utility. Often people buy because they believe they have some great knowledge that in reality, is not there. Just like the cheap selling house on Linkin Park, we are warned not to blindly trust brokers but to question everything. Some solutions proposed to the danger of investing is to take calculated risks, diversify stock options in different fields, and do not allow emotion to force you to act rashly. If American can save money frequently, invest it widely different fields with an understanding of risk/reward level than we should be financially better off. Following success, repetition would continue to grown investments and overall wealth.

Bre Kelley chapter 7

I thought it was interesting how financial markets want us to borrow money.  We borrow money for college tuition, buying homes, build plants and launch new ideas, and even using our credit cards we borrow money.  These transactions of borrowing remind me of debt.  I looked up the estimated amount the United States is in debt with $18 trillion... And it increases $2.4 billion on average each day.  The debt continues to increase...

Tyler Coughlan, Chapter 7, Question #6

A passage that I found interesting was hedging risk. I always wondered what insurance companies did during a hurricane that takes at many houses in a small area that the insurance company covers. They do it with catastrophe bonds and if the hurricane barely affects homes those bond holders will get a nice return. So both the insurance company and bond holders are dealing with risk and trying to have a safe guard on case bad things happen but still taking risks because they can turn out to be good. The World Cup Federation also bought a cancellation bond in case of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. Both companies are hedging their risk.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 7, Question #6

The part of chapter 7 that I found interesting was the part that Wheelan talks about the stock market being compared to the grocery store. He says "It's the things you can't predict that matter." I'm in intro to business this semester and so I understand that stocks move frequently and can be unpredictable, but with the analogy of the grocery store I now see a little bit more clearly just how unpredictable they can be. When the man he is using as an example sees the woman who was stuffing coupons into her purse go into one line, the man jumps into another one, but soon regrets his decision because the man into front of him needs to have the avocados he's buying price checked and his line is now moving slower than the line with the woman with all her coupons. Wheelan explains that there was no way for the man to predict that the man in front of him was going to take longer than the woman in the other line , and stocks work similarly. People predicted what was going to happen to the MicroStrategy business and their stock, but no one was able to see that the companies stock was going to take a 62% plunge and fall $140 in one day. So like I mentioned above, "It's the things you can't predict that matter."

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 7, Question #6

I thought it was very interesting how Wheelan described the the four simple needs of all financial instruments. It was interesting to read that especially in America we raise capital by spending a bunch of money that we don't have because we borrow so much. Even though America doesn't always borrow in order to raise capital but it was interesting to see that financial markets provide the capital necessary to individuals or the government but always at a price. Another thing I found interesting was the need to insure against the risk of investing. And the one thing that I found interesting and kind of funny is when Wheelan said, "Financial products are to speculation what sporting events are to gambling." I thought this was really funny because it's basically saying that investing can be a guessing game no matter how experienced you are. But overall I learned from this chapter that when it comes to investing and stocks and bonds you need to be diligent and be sure to be patient rather than waiting to get rich quick.

Shern,Carissa Chapter 7, Chapter #6

I found the passage about the $500,000 Lincoln Park Brownstone versus paying $250,000 for the same house very interesting.  Shoppers are always looking for a deal, a similar situation happened to my cousin. When he was 16 he bought the cheapest car he could find from a buddy of his for like $500 then he spent the rest of his savings on a sound system, a week later the car broke down.  My aunt would not pay for a tow truck right away, when she finally did the sound system had been stolen and my cousin was stuck, now after reading this passage about the Brownstone houses, this situation makes even more sense.  That cheap car was not worth the metal it was made from, because everyone wants to leave a business deal with as much money as possible.  If that car had been a truly good deal there would have been a line of people trying to get that car but there was not a crowd of people, there was only my naïve cousin.

Carissa Shern, Chapter 5, Question #3

I thought that the example of the Hope Scholarships and Clinton's lack of foresight was very interesting and I thought that the example of health insurance that followed is a parallel of what has happened to health insurance because Insurance companies have continued to try to make a profit making the cost of insurance higher and higher and farther from what the average American can afford.  Programs like MNsure and Obamacare are trying to bridge the gap between health insurance and average Americans but there is so much controversy on the subject that it's seems to be ineffective.

Trenton McCarthy, chapter 5, question 6

In chapter 5, wheelan revealed how insurance companies charge their policyholders. First, they average out the cost of its policyholders and then set a premium that allows them to still make profit. However, as some are extremely appreciative (those who are sick or are more likely to get sick), other are not (the healthiest). Therefore, the healthiest are more likely to opt out an the sick are more likely to opt in causing an increase in the premium price. This is just a continuous cycle until the insurance company is bankrupt. Fortunately, in today's society, this is not how it actually works. People are now insured through their employers. But even so, our health care is still a joke. It seems as though America is stagnant or even getting worse when it comes to health insurance. Obama's attempt to fix it with ObamaCare had detrimental affects and had a lot of similar traits with Clinton's Hope Scholarships which demonstrated an effect exactly the the example above except with banks and loans. When can we expect a positive change to our health insurance, because at this point, it seems like we have dug ourselves into a pretty deep hole.

Drew Hanson, chapter 5, question #6

The most interesting part of the chapter was the part about how employers would discriminate against black males because they are associated with being convicted of crimes when the employers didn't have enough information to determine which potential employees were convicted of crimes. In the example, employers hired less black males when they didn't have access to criminal history than when they did despite the dramatic difference in percentages of prison time between white males and black males. This means that, even though the likelyhood a black male has been convicted of a crime is much higher than a white male, the difference in people blindly guessing if someone has committed a crime or not is even more pronounced. The key is that more information helps all (deserving) parties. It helps the employers pick out employees who don't have a bad criminal history and it helps employees to not suffer for someone else's mistakes.

Andrew Johnson, Chapter 5, Question #4

Wheelan tries to offer a solution to the problems within the economics of information by justifying that profiling is a informational mechanism which may be used to appropriately make economical decisions when used correctly according to a cost-benefit logic or may become a destructive and hindering tool when used in a less cost-benefit logical way. Such solution would need to be implemented/corrected by as many people as possible in order to become effect, the first step being already true due to the fact that everyone has his/her own profiling system in his/her mind toward others and decision making. I believe, due to the vast amount of information available and easily accessibility to individuals in society, information will (hopefully) be implemented into each individual's profile thinking to help him/her in his/her decision making.

Emma Spreng, Chapter 5, Question #6

In chapter 6, Wheelan talks about information and how that affects us all. An example he used that stuck out to me was when he talked about two people, a man and a women, up for the same position for a job , and how the man was most likely going to get it. The company hiring thinks about where you are at in your life and many women just starting their careers are also at the age of starting a family. This would mean she would need to take paid maternity leave and the company would lose money as well as labor. So to avoid this they would hire the man. To me this is incredibly unfair, the women could have a better resume and be better for the job but just because she MIGHT want to have a baby some time in the future, the job is gone.

Victoria DuBois, Chapter 5, Question #6

The part of chapter five that was most interesting to me was closer to the end of the chapter when Wheelan started talking about racial profiling. What I found interesting about this was the fact that, like Betsy mentioned with the branding of markets, we don't really think about racially profiling someone, we just do it. Just as the woman on the bus in Chicago with Wheelan did when he explained that she questioned if he was going to the Bulls game just because of the fact that he was a white man, well dressed, and on a bus that was mostly used by black people. That seemed interesting to me, the fact that that woman didn't really think about all the other possibilities as to why he was riding that bus because he was a well dressed white man riding a Chicago bus late at night.

Bre Kelley, Chapter 5, Question

I thought it was interesting about how some young women are discriminated against during job interviews because of prior maternity leaves.  Some business owners won't hire young women because of the risk of them getting pregnant and getting unemployment money but than quitting the job after their leave is over.  I agree with the strategy of the Maternity Package which is paying the mother but getting the money back if she decides to quit.  I think that is smart economic planning made by owners of companies.

Betsy Elliott, Chapter 5, Question #6

Something that struck me as interesting was branding. I never realized that when we see a McDonald we know what their food taste like and that it is reliable. What is keeping us from going to the diner that is right across the street... Branding. As human we are comfortable with what we know. My father often questioned us in class "why we sat down in our chairs?". How did we know that they weren't going to break? Why didn't we test them and see if they were okay to sit in? Because we have sat in a chair like it or maybe even the same chair. The same thing with branding. The same thing came to mind when he referenced the Michelin Tires. "Because so much is riding on your tire" it says with babies inside the tire rims. What a great advertising! Moms with mini vans with babies in the back seat could see a billboard with that and realize they need new tires! It's all branding.

Tyler Coughlan, chapter 5, question #6

A memorable passage for me was about the insurance companies and knowing lots of information helps their economics. Like asking about your family history of diseases and certain risks that person takes like sky diving or smoking. So knowing more information about your clients is smart for an insurance company because they can know whether to accept people or charge them higher costs. Wheelan's other example of insurance companies cost of a 1,300$ premium for 50 year old men and that is smart for insurance companies because overall they come out on top. Because the 50 year old who smokes with family history of heart disease is getting a good deal but the perfectly healthily 50 year old is getting screwed. The more information for companies the better.

Anders Chelgren, Chapter 2, Question#2

Incentives effect every decision we make. For every choice we weigh the opportunity cost and the basis of those decisions stem from the incentives drawn by one option over the other. Incentives are apart of each choice in life and ultimately lead to a specific goal. I attend school five days a week not because I always enjoy it, but because the possibility of a better job, and better understanding of the world around me, is a strong incentive. Everyone acts in their self interest and, "Self interest makes the world go around" (Wheelen 34). Incentives are incredibly important because of their relevance and how often they must be correctly implemented in order to achieve a desired goal. Naked Economics did a good job illustrating some scenarios in which governments or companies desired a specific goal but had trouble achieving said goal due to improper incentives. These were examples of bad policy and thus they failed. "Good policy uses incentives to channel behavior towards some desired outcome, bad policy either ignores incentives, or fails to anticipate how rational individuals might change their behavior avoid being penalized" (Wheelen 39). My life decision's, wether I chose to embrace them or not, are driven by incentives.

Rachel Zellie, Chapter 5, Question #2

Chapter five had a lot of examples and evidence for the necessity of information in economics but Wheelan also brought to light the issue regarding profiling based on ethnicity or race. Wheelan makes the claim that profiling is simply an information problem, because if employers or just a regular person don't have a criminal background check at hand they try to make a judgement about someone based on the limited information they do have. Unfortunately the limited information they do have most often are limited to race and gender. This is not an issue that has directly affected my life but is very prevelant in the lives of many people of different ethnicities, races, and genders. Although I have not personally felt discriminated against due to my race, I do worry that in the future I may be discriminated against due to my gender. I believe that this issue, although a hot topic, could be addressed and possibly solved through more access to information. As Wheelan said in the beginning of the chapter, "What we don't know can hurt us."