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.