Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter Three, Question One

I could go ahead and make the blanket statement that everything discussed in this chapter affects me both directly and indirectly, but I won't because that's sort of a cop- out. More specifically, I have chosen to examine the subject of "free riders" and its implications, as presented by Wheelan in the later half of the chapter. I have come to realize that I am not only affected by the acts of "free riders," but that I am, in fact, a free rider as well. On a basic level, I depend enormously on the research and findings of other people, not a day goes by where I don't research something for school or use an equation created by someone else to solve a problem. On perhaps a more direct and questionable level, I admittedly am a free rider of the Chipotle enterprise. I use the indifference of the workers and opaque water cups to get "free" carbonated soft beverages, a form of "free riding" or more arguably stealing. My question is, what separates not paying "the Current" to listen to the radio from actually physically stealing a t-shirt at a store? What is the primary factor that differentiates the two acts? Do we, as basic free riders, have an obligation to feel remorse, or is the corporation at fault for not making us pay for the service. I should feel remorse from my fairly self-deprecating Chipotle beverage acts, but should I feel remorse for listening to Beyoncé's recent album on Youtube instead of purchasing it? Free riding seems to be a hazy form of economic transportation.

Emma Tyler, Chapter 2, Question #6

In Chapter 2 of Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan covers the broad topic of incentives and how they effect the choices that consumers and producers make. The one example that was particularly illuminating for me regarding the broader topic was that of the "prisoner's dilemma" mentioned on pages 44 and 45. Wheelan illustrates with this example how incentives and greed are very closely linked. In the situation of the  prisoner's dilemma, both prisoners have been "arrested on suspicion of murder" and their options are to either 1) one prisoner rat the other out for the murder (either prisoner could do this) gaining the snitch a light 3 year sentence and the accomplice a life sentence, 2) both confess to the murder- gaining a 25 year murder sentence, or 3) neither give any information about the murderer and both get off with a 5 year sentence. What ends up happening is both confess to the other being the murderer, so bothe end up with the 25 year sentence, as opposed to the possible 5 year sentence they could have gotten if they had both shut up. Sometimes greed and working with only your own best choice in mind then both you and anyone else involved closely with your situation  with be worse off. It seems that Wheelan is saying that we should always act with our rational  personal self interest but also equally think about the effects that our actions can have on others around us. It seems difficult to act  in this way because sometimes one would  have to make some decisions which at first would  not be benefitical for him/her but would benefit others and thus them later in life, but it seems extremely difficult to think in this way.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 2, Question #6

The passages that I found interesting in this chapter were the passages about babies safety in planes, cashiers stealing from restaurants, and green taxes. People wanted to make planes safer for babies by requiring them to use carseats. However by doing this they require families to buy an extra plane ticket which is expensive. Due to this more people will drive than fly which is much more dangerous than flying. The second situation is the one in which restaurants put signs up that say if you don't get a receipt your food is free. At first thought you would think that this would cause restaurants to lose money but actually it saves them money. By making sure that all customers receive receipts the restaurant is able to stop cashiers from pocketing money by not printing a receipt. The third situation is green taxes. I believe that the green taxes are a great idea because they will provide revenue as well as decrease the harm done to the ecosystem.

Cat Potts, Chapter 2, Question 6

Incentives influence every decision we make. As we  discussed early on in class, people act based on rational self-interest. Not necessarily because humans are selfish in nature, but because we want to do what makes the most sense for ourselves. On pages 36 and 37, Wheelan mentions the airplane scenario that we talked about the first week of class. Now that we've learned about supply and demand and we've started to talk about marginal personal and social costs/benefits, everything is starting to come together. Incentives are by far the most fascinating aspect of economics, especially when interpreting what kind of outcome an incentive can produce. What was particularly striking to me was the London congestion fee, on pages 38 and 39. Despite all that it affected (traffic, average speed, number of bus passengers), the revenue was significantly lower than what the government would have preferred, because people were acting in rational self-interest. If driving in times of congestion means that you have to pay a fee, naturally fewer people would drive. It seems bizarre to me that those imposing the fee wouldn't consider that revenue would be lower if fewer people chose to just drive and pay the fee. This is why economic thinking requires looking at the situation from every possible outcome before making a decision. Perhaps they could have found a way to impose the driving fee while still making enough money, had they considered possible consequences of their actions.

Kyle Kispert Chapter 2 Question 6

I found the story about the FAA attempting to protect children very interesting and significant. Child safety is an issue that some people are passionate about yet one idea to help actually would have a negative impact. It makes you think what else is done to help the common people but actually hurts them. It's also a good example of how extensive economic thinking needs to be to ensure a positive outcome. Incentives can be deceiving and you can't be narrow minded in assuming outcomes. As this chapter referenced what economists think, it makes me wonder what an economists profession is like. Do they sit in a cubicle researching and publishing their ideas or do they produce their ideas from the field?

Griffin Malone, Chapter 2, Question 6

Chapter two of "Naked Economics" explained the incentives of the world economy. People have good intentions in the economy but they don't always play out the way they intended. The example that stood out to me the most was about Mexico City and the pollution they emit into the atmosphere. Mexican government officials realized that there was a terrible solution problem so they implimented a law with good intentions to reduce pollution. The residents of Mexico City were not allowed to drive the car they had once a week. The residents then started buying and getting cheap second cars to drive on the day they weren't supposed to drive their normal cars therefore making the law that was supposed to reduce pollution backfire and make it increase pollution. The incentives to this economic solution were good but they didn't realize the effects it would have after it was put into action.

Sam McDonald Chapter 2 Question #6

A consistent feeling I have had throughout my entirety of reading Naked Economics is the surprise of how little big corporations and politicians know the rules of economics and don't plan accordingly.  In chapter 2, an  example of this is how the Mexican government attempted to limit the amount of pollution emitted within the city. In their attempt to rid the amount of pollution, they made a law which required each car to stay off of the road one day per week. Instead of making fewer cars be driven, the policy made more people buy old cars to drive on their other car's day off, resulting in a increased amount of pollution. The Mexican government did not follow the advice of: "Good Policy uses incentives". London's government dealt with this same problem by making drivers pay to drive on certain roads. This is the simple concept that we just studied: raising price will reduce the demand. By using incentives, London was able to lower the traffic and the amount of pollution emitted.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 2, Question 5

In chapter two Charles Wheelan mainly discusses incentives and how there are positive and negative incentives that are either effective or ineffective. Some of these incentives can be viewed as controversial. One controversial issue that is discussed in the book is the car seat requirements for infants on airplanes and if it causes more or less deaths in infants. The FAA believes that the use of car seats for infants decreases the number of deaths on airplanes, but this then just makes the deaths in car accidents go up. This happens since parents have to buy an extra seat that costs just as much as their own ticket just for their kid to sit in a car seat.  Before the car seat rule infants could sit on the parents laps. To some families that is too much money and parents decide that it is cheaper to just drive to their final destination. To the FAA it causes less deaths in infants but to other people it causes more, but mainly in car related accidents instead. In my opinion the car seat requirement should be necessary because it does lower the deaths on planes but if it is for an infant it should be a lower price so that it is more affordable for families. 

 

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 2, Question #6

In chapter 6 of "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan, the author discusses the modern day situation known as incentives. Incentives are basically what drive human choices. Especially when we think of self-interest. In particular, I read the passages of good intentions with bad outcomes, and was amazed. Especially about how it was indirectly more unsafe to require children to fly with a car seat. A good economist would link this situation to the fact that customers with kids will start driving because of the raised prices, and that driving is more dangerous than flying. The incentives of not paying more money led to more unsafe decisions, which is a practice of rational self-interest which is why this passage is so significant.

Caroline Pellegrin Chapter Two, Question Five

Towards the end of the chapter, Wheelan discussed the topic of the net efficiency of taxes- illuminating the perpetual discussion of whether or not taxes do more harm than good to a population. He notes that economists "tend to favor taxes that are broad, simple and fair." Taxes can be highly valuable and effective at providing incentives that minimize the painful consequences of competition.  But often times this governmental aid through the form of taxes can have negative effects. For instance, if a tax is too high in the eyes of a corportation, they may choose to opt out of the tax entirely and or pursue "underground economy" activity. In this situation, the perceived "good" of the tax may actually be outweighed by the negative consequences. Furthermore, this concept is similarly applied to "MediCare," Social Security, or cash payments to unemployed single women, all of which could arguable discourage an increase in personal savings and encourage idleness. On the other hand governments do need to have a means of gaining income, the most popular option has always been taxation. Tax money, hopefully, will go to increase public benefit (i.e. better public education, law enforcement and road maintenence.) Taxes can also be used to "protect people," for instance a tax on cigarettes will ideally reduce the number of people with lung cancer. Typically, people who aspire to see stronger government involvement support the implementation of taxes, while those who do not oppose futher taxation. I, on the otherhand, don't think I have enough experience or knowledge to make an assertion about how I view taxes.

Chapter 7 question 2

Chapter 7, question 2

One issue that I could relate to was borrowing money. One example of the issue  is borrowing money to afford college. Since senior year has started I've been getting really nervous about being able to afford a school that I enjoy. This relates to me because I come from a family that is not super rich and I've gotten help paying for things my whole life. I don't know how long it will take me to pay it back. I am taking a risk by borrowing money. If I had to pay for college right away I would never be able to afford it and I wouldn't be able to go to college.

Emma Tyler, Chapter 7, Question 3

In the seventh chapter of Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan explains the intricate workings of financial markets and their role in the daily lives of most Americans. I found that while reading this chapter and, admittedly getting rather confused a bit every few pages, I now understand the long-lasting effects of investing in a smart way early on in life. In the future, if you invest wisely, you will have great benefits monetarily speaking. If you follow Wheelan's "sniff test" steps stemming from basic economics topics- save.invest.repeat, take risk, earn reward, diversify, and invest for the long run- you will truly benefit in the future, even if it takes a while, it will pay off. The example that Wheelan continuously uses throughout the chapter, to illuminate this is the "grapefruit and ice cream diet." Wheelan explains this as a scheme that is basically disregards the laws of science and basic health guidelines which is similar to "get rich quick" scams that some investment advisers try and pull on people. It never works to the benefit of the investor to try and take shortcuts; saving early, sticking with that saving pattern, taking some smart risks, diversifying your portfolio, and always keeping the future in mind are the only sure-fire way to be successful in your investments.

Griffin Malone, Chapter 7, Question 6

I learned that financial markets have a lot of moving parts and are very complex. The part that stood out to me the most was Save.Invest.Repeat. This section reminded me that capital is scarce. If you have spare capital you can sell it for profit because it is scarce. Before you make a profit you have gain capital to sell. Spending less then you earn is the key to obtaining capital. You can also spend more cash then you earn and you pay for the rent on capital. The key to a frugal economic life is to save early and save often.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 7, Question #7

After reading chapter seven I have learned that financial markets are not complex as they appear at first. The first time I saw all the numbers of the stock market I was perplexed by how people use all these seemingly random numbers to make money. The author explains the four needs for financial markets and the four basic rules that good investments follow. The four needs for financial markets are raising capital, storing, protecting, and making profitable use of extra capital, insuring against risk, and speculation. The speculation of price movements causes people to insure against the risk that they will lose their money, and raising capital will create extra capital which is used to make profit. The four basic rulles that good investments follow are saving and investing, taking risk in order to earn a reward, diversity of investments, and investing for the long run. People should save their money and invest it in order to make profit. However the profit always has a risk with it. People should also have long term investments in a variety of different investments instead of short term investments.

Sam McDonald Chapter 7 Question # 6

After reading this chapter, I found the passage discussing the buying and selling of a house in Chicago and finding the shortest line in a grocery store to be very intriguing and applicable to my life. Naked Economics gives an impossible example of finding a house worth $500,000, but only being sold for a mere $200,000. The example also states that the house has been clearly advertised to the public. The falsities in this example are: First, the seller should (and would) have checked the house's value compared to other houses in the proximity. Second, the real estate agent, acting with rational self interest, would have bought the house and flipped it herself instead of working for a buyer. And third: other buyers would have seen the deal and attempted outbid the offer. To be sum this example up, there are no "great deals" or ways to cut corners in the stock market, although many people make the mistake of believing otherwise. I thought this passage was intriguing, and also a bit entertaining. When seeing how many people attempt to find an easy way to cut corners to make money, I have realized that humans, for the most part, will always attempt to take the easy rout, no matter how implausible it may be.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 7, Question 2

One issue that affects my life is borrowing money from the financial market. One specific issue that mainly relates to me is borrowing money for college tuition. Since I am a senior this year and as I am coming closer to picking a college I have to start thinking about the cost of going to the school. This direct issue is of concern for me because I have to know that my education will get me a job that will allow me to earn enough money to pay back the loan. So, I am taking a risk by borrowing money. If we had to pay for college tuition up front I would never be able to go to college because of the cost. Another time I might need to borrowing money from the financial market could be when I am buying a house or a car.  

Caroline Pellegrin Chapter Seven, Question Seven

I have to say, this chapter was probably the most informative and useful section we have read thus far. Investment, the stock market, bonds, Wall Street, risk and speculation are all topics that are frequently discussed in newspaper articles, radio reports, conversations between individuals, movies and magazines- yet I never really fully grasped what they were actually referring to. For instance, I knew that Wall Street was the head of the stock market, but I wasn't exactly sure of what it means to invest in the stock market, or the risks that come with doing so. Overall, I learned that, as growing economically conscious individual, I need to invest broadly, take well calculated risks, prioritize saving and remain patient. First, in order to have capital that I can allow others to "rent," I must first have enough capital saved. The sooner I begin saving, the greater personal capital I will have access to. Investments that have high expected return rates are risky, not necessarily a blessing sent from the heavens. Investments should be made broadly, not concentrated to one company or type of investment. Lastly, there will be times with greater prosperity than others in the investment market, but if an investor remains patient and doesn't act drastically these tides should eventually even out. Surely, I don't feel ready to make any substantial economic decisions after reading this chapter (besides saving more often), but I do feel a bit more enlightened on the subject of investment.

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 7, Question #6

In chapter 7 of "Naked Economics", by Charles Wheelen, the author brings up many significant and striking topics. The one that stuck out most to me was the passage about Insuring Against Risk.  I dealt with a lot of insurance because of my house fire, which I didn't doubt that house insurance existed, but I never would've guessed a lot of the other things that are insured in which the author brought up. For example, I never would've guessed that marine insurance against pirates looting your boat was a real thing. Charles Wheelan also brought up the topic of cancellation bonds and catastrophe bonds. The chance of a large disaster or catastrophe dictates whether the bond holder to receive their principal back plus 12% or not. That seems like a good deal which is exactly why it is striking and surprising to me. I didn't know you could a large profit off of a bond like that.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 5, Question #5

The issues raised in this chapter are very controversial. Many people believe that the issue raised is just discrimination. However it is more of an information problem. If asked to make a judgement with a lack of information on a person one would most likely make a judgement based on the information of similar people. To some this is discrimination but in reality it is a lack of information. People who believe that this is discrimination are typically the ones who are being "discriminated" against and the ones who believe that this is just a judgement based on a lack of information are typically the ones who are "discriminating." As of right now I would fall in the place of those being "discriminated" against but later in the future I could switch sides to being the "discriminator" depending on my position on certain situations.

Cat Potts, Chapter 5, Question 5

Chapter Five addresses the elephant in the room when it comes to information- the more an employer or insurance company knows about a person, the greater the possibility to alter decisions based on new information. For example, Wheelan mentions the influence that medical issues have on an employer. If a man applying for a job has a history of a fatal disease in his family, he is less likely to be hired, as his health issues may get in the way of his career in the future. The employer, knowing that the man may die young, will hire a different candidate, even though he may be less qualified. This is also seen in employers hiring women; young women are less likely to be hired if up against a man the same age as she may want a family, and that would require her to take time off for maternity leave. This concept is something that we know happens, acknowledge is it wrong, yet do not try to fight it; mostly because we know that there's not a better way to approach the situation. There is a such thing as too much information for an employer (in the case of health issues), but also such a thing as too little (in the case of making assumptions about women wanting to start a family). Insurance companies and employers would rather find out more information, yet job applicants may prefer to keep some things under wraps, in case they have things about their pasts of which they are not proud, and have since changed their behaviors. Perhaps there is a balance between the two sides that we have yet to discover.

Griffin Malone, Chapter 5, Question 6

In Chapter five of naked economics Charles Wheelan discusses the information on economics. This information effects every decision that everyone makes in the real world. From the people you hire for your company to the place you stop and eat food at on a road trip. This chapter also showed me the amazing power of branding a product. A large majority of people would buy Coca-Cola if they had an opportunity to buy a soda. This is because the consumers have been persuaded that no other soda is like Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola has built up a good image and reputation of being a refreshing soda. Branding effects the clothes we buy to. Nike clothing isn't fabrics sewn together in a Vietnam sweatshop. Nike clothing is what Lebron James and Tiger Woods wear. If some of the greatest athletes in the world wear nike then it must be a good reliable product. Therefore every teenage athlete goes out and buys nike clothes because it's like no other product on the market.

Sam McDonald Chapter 5 #6

While reading chapter 5 of Naked Economics, I found out how important and powerful the strategy of branding is. One example of the importance of branding given in this chapter is the difference between McDonalds and "Chuck's Big Burger". Naked Economics states that when looking for a fast food restaurant, more people will choose McDonalds over Chucks Big Burger. This is not necessarily because of the quality of the food, for Chuck's Big Burger may "offer one of the best burgers west of the Mississippi, but rather a result of branding. No matter where one goes, he will know exactly what kind of service and food he will get from McDonald's, whereas he most likely will not know whether Chuck's Big Burger will be great, or give him food poisoning. Branding is extremely important for businesses because it can save companies from their prices being driven down to next to nothing. People are willing to pay more for a recognized label than one they are unfamiliar with, regardless of each's quality. Overall, I found this passage  about branding intriguing because companies use tho interesting, yet simple, psychology to maximizes their profits.

Caroline Pellegrin Chapter Five, Question Six

This chapter has made me both irrationally and rationally upset. When Wheelan states at the end of the chapter that "Economists study what we do with it [information], and, sometimes more important, what we do without it," I became increasily hopeless at the prospect of achieving any sort of upward mobility in the realm of human equality. I feel as if we are confined by the disadvantages of knowing information and not having information. For example, if an insurance company could predict that an  individual would have lung cancer in ten years than they would refuse to give him or her care, but since the insurance agency does not necessarily have access to this knowledge they are required to charge more people an increasing amount of money in order to gain profit. Perhaps I incredibly naive, my idealism never having been seasoned, but I believe that everyone, no matter age, financial situation, gender, or race should have to opportunity to receive excellent health care. Why has access to good health care become such a concocted plan for profit? I'm angered that something as basic as getting medication for brochitis or something as crucial as receiving a needed scan for cancer has become overidded by the desire for continuous profit and personal gain. I realize that my exasperation is irrational- everything is governed by the inescapable need for profit, everything can be commoditized. I shouldn't be upset by what's logical. But at what point should profit trumph meaning?

Emma Tyler, Chapter 5, Question #6

I found the passage about "rational discrimination" in the employment/hiring aspect of economics  to be quite interesting and a bit disturbing. First off, I thought the passage was interesting in that it brought up  a new viewpoint that I had never considered before. When there is statistical evidence, such as the evidence that 28 percent of black males are more likely to have served time in prison as opposed to 4 percent of white males, I can now see the viewpoint that the employer, who only cares about one thing-in this case if the applicant has served time or not, could come from. They may not hire the black male because he has a higher percentage possibility of having served time in prison. However, this does not give employers an easy way out. Just because "rational discrimination" exists doesn't mean it's okay. As Wheelan continues to dissect this circumstance, he writes "'employers who check criminal backgrounds are more likely to hire African-American workers, especially men.'" (108) To me, after this quote, I see this concept as something that is no longer plausible. In the case of deciding between two applicants, if the employer is given the chance to see the applicant's criminal record, the discrimination against African-American men will go down. This "rational discrimination" is really just playing more into broad statistics, that are not always true, and it can devastatingly effect an entire demographic. However, now that the situation of checking criminal records has been somewhat resolved (allow employers access to that information and African-American males will not be as discriminated against) we are then confronted with the issue of how to not discriminate against all men who have served time in prison. Discrimination seems to be a never ending cycle, with new people to discriminate against everywhere you turn.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 5, Question 2

In the beginning of this chapter Wheelan discusses discrimination of women in the job force. He mentions that some firms or work places won't hire women knowing that they might go on maternity leave and not come back to the work place. This is not legal but since firms are not asking women directly if they are going to go on maternity leave it is less obvious that it is happening. If a firm could choose between a male or female, they would rather hire the male because the male is not going to take a maternity leave and less likely to leave the work force if he has a family. This discrimination affects me directly in life because knowing that I might start a family could deter employers from hiring me for a specific job. Even though places have tried to work out this unfairness between men and women it still happens everyday. For me it would occur once I start looking for a job and especially when I start interviewing for one. 

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 5, Question #7

In chapter 5 of the book, "Naked Economics", the author,  Charles Wheelan, discusses the topic of information of economics. For example, economical information would include many different kinds of discrimination and branding. This chapter taught me about the price discrimination of healthcare between expected healthy people, and expected unhealthy people. It also talked about the racial discrimination caused by companies being unable to gather information about who a they are hiring, which leads the companies to going of data and information, usually leading to white men dominating black men in hiring competition. The last topic the author brings up is branding. People prefer McDonalds because they know what expect, where as they wouldn't at a normal restaurant. It has broadened my personal perspective on discrimination, and has given me the comfortability of discriminating. I always thought that discrimination in business was unethical, but what else would the company do if they didn't have access to all information of potential employees? You need to judge a book by its cover in that case. It ultimately broadened my perspective to thinking that it may be okay to discriminate under some circumstances.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 1, Question #2

The issues brought up in this chapter affect my life in many aspects. They affect me both directly and indirectly. The idea that everyone acts according to their own self interest is the very backbone of many aspects of my life. I am not going to make decisions that are going to harm me because that is not going to help me in the present or in the future. The issue of supply and demand affects me everyday because the use of my money is driven by the price of the good, which is affected by supply and demand, and the demand of my want of the good. The self interest of others also affects me indirectly. An example in the reading was the act of Coca Cola during the controversy of the Berlin Wall. They gave out free Coke through the wall which causes a lose in income in the short run, but in the long run caused a large increase in income as more people in the former East Germany bought more Coke after the Berlin Wall fell.

Cat Potts, Chapter 1, Question #6

The subtitle of this chapter, "Who Feeds Paris?" is perhaps the most interesting idea in this chapter, and the concept behind the question becomes more of a compelling idea with the story of the Soviet official at an American pharmacy. Even though this passage was very early on, it definitely stuck with me the most throughout the rest of the chapter. The concept of a market economy makes sense to us because we have never had to deal with an alternative, just as the Soviet official can't comprehend a market economy because all he has known is a market run by the government. Even though often our system seems flawed at times (for example, when we have to pay more for water and vegetables than we do for soda and burgers), I think it's interesting to consider what the possible alternative can be: could be better off with a different system? One could argue that proof of the superiority of a market systems lies in the failure of the Soviet economy, but perhaps the reason the Soviet economy failed was because they had the right idea, but the wrong execution. Is the idea of a government-mandated economy really such a terrible idea? Can a society properly function if the government is the one who controls what goes on the shelves in the stores and who gets those goods? Was the failure of the Soviet economy just bad timing and planning, or was it inevitable?

Sam McDonald, Chapter 1, #2

The results of the free market described in this chapter effects my life and the lives of all americans significantly. What comes foremost to my mind is the example of the airline companies and their use of "price discrimination". Airline companies sell tickets that will give customers the exact same experience, but the prices fluctuate for each ticket. The airlines know that some people are willing to pay in the tens of hundreds, while others will only pay a couple hundred for a ticket. In their act of rational self interest, the airline companies have developed a system where they can maximize their profits by selling tickets to each type of customer. This concept is, in fact, not repudiated by other companies, and is a prevalent strategy in free market firms. Price discrimination can directly affect my life, especially with the increase of technology. New types of technology specifically designed to gather information such as: where do you live, what are your interests, and what is your job, have been developed and are used by companies to target individuals with specific prices relating to how much each individual is able/willing to pay. As information gathering technology increases, the ability companies have to gather information about their customers and effectively charge them different prices will rise exponentially. As a customer to various businesses, price discrimination affects my life now through every product I buy, and will continue to have a greater effect in the future.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 1, Question 3

The book states that if you cut down the forest then the poor countries will become even poorer and also that cutting down the trees is bad for everybody because deforestation is a large contributor to rising carbon dioxide levels in the air. These two problems are long-term because once you cut down enough trees it is hard to gain the same amount back due to the long length of time required for growth. This is negative and frightening because with a smaller amount of trees there will be more carbon dioxide is in the air and less oxygen, which is what we need to survive. An environmental example that is happening at this time is the cutting down of the Amazon to create more pastures for raising cattle. This is occurring because beef is a major export of South America.  

Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter One, Question Two

I feel as if this first chapter highlighted concepts that I have always been aware of, but that I have never been able to fully explain or put into words. For example, the idea that a product will sell at the price that matches its demand is evident, but rarely do I think to put it into the frame of an actual concept. Like Wheelan states, economics can be boiled down to consumers trying to reap the best reward for themselves and firms trying to gain the most profit from this ambition. Each of the six bolded concepts that Wheelan laid forth are the effects of this basic defenition of Economics. Because I am a consumer (perhaps too avid of one) and will probably become a memeber of a firm in the future, these trends will and do affect me both directly and indirectly. For example, I take part in the self correcting market. This summer I relized that eating at restaurants, as nice as it can be, is outrageously expensive, so instead I began to buy more groceries for my family and began making more meals at home. I reacted directly to a price that I deemed not equal to its utility, and in turn the "restaurant market" had one less frequent customer. Now of course my decrease in spending at restaurants did not force the restaurant industry to re-adjust their prices, but if enough individuals began to the make the same choice restaurants would have to adjust their prices. On perhaps the most direct and daily basis, the market makes my life better. For example, the market provided me with the ability to access shampoo and body wash at my local Target; without this access my life would be less sanitary and in turn the quality of my life would decrease (one could argue that my lack of bad odor makes their life better as well). I would suggest that to some degree all of the "bolded concepts" that Wheelan illustrates affect everyone directly but at a varying degree depending on an invidual's economic position.

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter One, Question #6

From reading Chapter One of "Naked Economics", my eyes were opened to the vast world of the free market economy. A specific passage that struck me as significant is when the author, Charles Wheelan, discusses the issue of price discrimination. I love the allusion to Al Gore's reference to his mother and her dog using the same medications for arthritis, but paying separate prices. People are willing to put money down for their own sake, rather than someone else's. The pharmacy division will take advantage of selfishness, and self-interest thinkers, which is America in general. People would pay the extra 100$ (or whatever it is for arthritis medications) for themselves. If dog medications were the same price,  people would avoid buying the medication, and (unfortunately) let the dog suffer in order for their own sufficient needs to be met. This would not only hurt the dog, but it would hurt the dog medication  company, so therefore they lower the prices in the same medication, but put a label on it for "dog use only", and they lure in buyers. A sucker is born everyday. This passage was significant because it is frightening the way the business industry tricks people into buying different products for their own benefit.

Emma Tyler, Chapter 1, Question #2

In the middle of Chapter 1 in Naked Economics, Wheelan brings up the topic of price discrimination. According to Wheelan this is the practice of a firm selling "the same item to different people at different prices." (18) Based on people's tendencies when purchasing items such as Wheelan's example of air fare, companies can target customers and make them pay more than others for no real reason (in the airplane situation, business people are paying more simply because they can, not because it's fair to everyone). Price discrimination is very applicable to my life right now. I do travel quite a bit, both vacation and on my parent's business trips, and I will be doing quite a bit of travel in the next few months to fly around the country for college auditions, but the fact that my airline company will be tracking my travel patterns is alarming because I do not want to be subject to this price discrimination-acting in my own self-interest. I will be sure to do some investigating the next time I am on an airplane to see the price comparisons within my general vicinity. Although, price discrimination is not something I actively notice that I struggle with every day, I think it is an important concept that people need to learn about because it affects many people's lives on a general basis.

Griffin Malone, Introduction, Question 6

After reading the introduction to Naked Economics I now realize that as a student I never realized the role that economics plays in my life. I'm an unemployed teenager so money, financial stability, and the economy has never affected me. Now I realize economics has been apart of my life they entire time. Just by reading the introduction I see how economics affects problems I hear about all the time. Health care is mentioned in the passage and I see why we are struggling to provide a generous helpful health care system. People want the health care system to be easy and good but we don't want to spend the extra money to make it that way. Like in the case of the hospital pregnancy births and the amount of care given after is expensive. We want more good care to stay longer but we also don't want to make it to expensive so people can't afford it and get equal opportunity. I see this economics book and class as a gateway to understanding the world in a new smarter way.

Sam, McDonald, Introduction, Question #7

After reading the just the  Intro to Naked Economics, several important economic fallacies and key points have been brought to light. I learned that many ordinary people, myself included, and politicians both do not understand some easy and fundamental concepts of economics. This could be a problem as some of these politicians are running huge entities such as countries. As stated in Naked Economics, the French government attempted to fix an unemployment problem by shortening the maximum workweek from thirty-nine hours to thirty five hours a week. By shortening the amount of hours each individual worked, France hoped the extra hours would go to the unemployed. According to economists this would not work, and it didn't because France assumed that there was a fixed amount of jobs, which is completely false. Other politicians often claim that "outsourcing and globalization are 'stealing' American jobs", And before reading this introduction I assumed the same thing. But according to economists, although there are some losers, for the most part this is completely untrue. Although it is broad, after reading the introduction I have begun to start thinking in a more economic manner. For example, instead of thinking primarily about the direct and immediate results of an action, I now am attempting to look what the lasting results on the community look like.

Thomas Shogren, Introduction, Question #6

I never realized how many things are effected by economics and how things are driven by economic thinking. There were two examples that really stood out to me while reading the introduction. The first example was the situation of insurance companies and women in labor. The situation stated that people wanted insurance companies to pay for two nights at the hospital instead of one since it is a very stressful and painful time for the mother. Upon first thought it sounds like a great idea but there is always going to be a repercussion due to the decison. The insurance company would have to pay more for the extra night at the hospital so they would have to find ways to make the money back. Most likely the cost of life insurance would be raised, but with higher prices for life insurance there will be less people who can afford life insurance. I never noticed how economics can make people make certain decisions.  The second example was the business that hires minorities over nonminorities if they have the same qualifications. In the situation there were ten people applying for a job, nine of which were white and the other one black. The list was narrowed down to two people. One was white and the other was black. The company ends up hiring the black person because they are the minority. Although all nine of the white people were turned down, only one was effected by the policy to hire minorities over nonminorities. Some situations do not seem to have a right or wrong answer but looking at things economically can make an answer better than the other.

Emma Tyler, Introduction, Question #4

On pages 21 and 22, Wheelan mentions a huge problem at hand for America. The problem is the ignored cost of Americans driving automobiles so frequently. Wheelan writes "we don't have to pay for some of the other significant costs of our driving", and then he goes on to list some of the costs that Americans don't think about on a daily basis such as "the emissions we leave behind, the congestion we cause, the wear and tear on public roads, the danger we pose to drivers in smaller cars" etc.(21) Within a few sentences, this immense problem seems easily resolved. Wheelan proposes that putting higher taxes on gasoline and cars will "reflect the real social cost of that activity". His idea could be carried out on a federal level (as was attempted in June of this year by a few Senators, according to a Huffington Post article by Joan Lowy- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/senate-gas-tax_n_5507640.html) and then, maybe the higher physical cost of gas would make drivers of "hulking SUV"'s think twice before hopping in their car. Success seems highly probable with this solution because less people driving, because less people want to pay for expensive gas to fuel their car, will mean less exhaust in the environment, and less damage would be done to the public roads and less maintenance would have to go into fixing said roads; however, is there still an opportunity cost? even for an easy fix? 

Andre LaRenzie, Introduction, Question #6

As a student, my first opinion of an Economics class was boring, useless, and just another course I had to pass. I assumed that none of this would pertain to my life in any way, shape, or form. From reading the introduction to "Naked Economics", I realized I couldn't be further from the truth. The author, Charles Wheelan, informed us in the introduction of significant economic based problems such as the crisis of affirmative action when hiring minorities, all the way to the monetary cost of women staying multiple nights in the hospital after delivering a child. The thing that I found most memorable or useful about these events was that one day, these things will apply to me. When applying for a job, I may be placed under the policy of affirmative action if I am in competition of a man or women of another race. This would make me upset, and would socially make me less accepting of minorities, which is already a huge problem in America. As for the two night stay after birth, I may be looking at the opportunity cost of it. Would I prefer my wife to be comfortable in the hospital after birth, or would I want to save money that would come with the extra nights stay? Perhaps this question may fulfilled in Economics class, which I once viewed as useless, but now my eyes have opened to the truth. Economics applies to everyday life, believe it or not. When you hop in your car it is basic economics. Not necessarily the monetary price, but the cost of society life and pollution. The introduction truly did convince me that economics are important, and it is a class that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Amelia Vayda, Introduction, Question 6

One passage that I found very interesting was the one where there were 10 candidates for a job. If one was a minority and the other was a nonminority, but both had the same skill level they would pick the minority candidate. I found that this topic is very interesting because no matter who they pick the rest of the candidates leave angry. I didn't realize that choosing a person for a new job was part of economics. Reading this passage gives me a different view of economics. I also didn't realize that economists looked at the minority groups and how they are represented in the job market.
I always thought of it just being about money, the stock market, and profits and losses. Seeing that it also involves people and the job market opens my eyes to what economists do to raise the availability of jobs for the minority groups, which could then lessen the number of people in those groups who are unemployed.

Caroline Pellegrin,Introduction, Question Six

I had always assumed that the study of Economics could be used to solve important monetary issues or provide insight on government policies, but I was not aware that this discipline could shed such critical light on social injustice. I always presumed that one of the primary characteristics of Economics was that it does not take into account personal and emotional implications, but Charles Wheelan's illustration of the symphony orchestra injustice says otherwise. Within this illustration economic thought and investigation was used to prove that serious prejudice against women existed during the hiring process of many symphony orchestras. This concept was similarly applied to demonstrate people's reactions to a seemingly just affirmative action policy. So, Economics isn't a tedious and limited study, but rather one that can provide critical insight and explanation to social events and movements.