From reading this chapter i learned alot mostly on GDP comparing ours to other contires. This is to see how much we are growing compaired to japan or any other contire. In the begining of the chapter there was a joke made back in the 70's about how japan would one day rule the world, but ass there poplutation became older ther growing GDP levled out. This made me think, at the end of the chapter it said our demographic was geting older, just like japan was. bringing up the question, is our econemy going to plato like japans did as our age contrie's age incresses?
The change in what contry is growing the fastes switches constantly froum the US to Japan, and now china, i curious to know what contry will be next in growth.

Kyle Kispert. Chapter 9. Question 7

At the end of this chapter Wheelan brings up the issue of people's happiness, after listing all the economic factors of Americsn society. Although total national happiness doesn't have a numeral scale, I believe factors like unemployment, poverty, income equality, and size of governments could possibly play I part in it. Although personally, happiness isn't limited to being successful economically. Economics undoubtably plays a part in everyone's life but people define their happiness differently and can therefore become happy different ways.

Cat Potts, Chapter 9, Question 6

The passage that grabbed me the most in this chapter was the perception with which many people approach prices in the market. Wheelan mentions grandmothers complaining about expensive chicken, when in reality the proportion of the dollar value of a chicken and the amount of time it takes an average American to pay for a chicken has decreased exponentially over the last century. This is so fascinating, as we as a culture are so used to griping about the prices of things and the bad economy and basically anything else we can think of that might be going "poorly". But, in retrospect, things are so much more affordable (monetary cost-wise) than they have been in the past. So, why do we spend so much  time complaining if we are actually better off than we used to be? And why is it that so many people are unaware of this change that we've seen over the past century?

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 9, Question 6

In chapter nine of Naked Economics Wheelan brings up examples of how much money we earn today in the twentieth century compared to the nineteenth century. One example he uses is how many hours people would have to work in order to buy a cell phone in the 1900's. It would have been around 456 hours, but now people only have to work nine hours in order to buy a cell phone. This quote and some of the other examples interested me because in today's time we don't necessarily think of how we are going to pay for some of these items like cell phones because we are making more money in less time so everything seems more affordable. Another example that Wheelan brings up is our ability to earn lunch. In the 19th century people had to work most of the morning just to earn lunch, but in today's society we just go and buy lunch without even thinking about cost because we know it is affordable. To me I think society takes advantage of the amount of money earned for granted. In today's world less people are counting their money and determining if they can buy lunch or a cell phone whereas now people without thinking sometimes just go out and buy what they want. 

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 9, Question #7

During this chapter I was reacquainted with the term GDP and learned some of the analytical uses of GDP, some of the vital signs of the economy, how the most recent recession came into effect, and how the economy can be stimulated during a recession. I found it very interesting that GDP can be used to quantify how an economy is either growing or shrinking. Some of the vital signs of the economy that are listed in this chapter are unemployment, poverty, income inequality, size of government, budget deficit/surplus, current account surplus/deficit, national savings, demographics, and total nation happiness. One of the big factors in the most recent recession was the crash in the housing market. I found it very surprising that spending will help stimulate the economy while saving can cause the economy to fall further into recession. I believe that this chapter has broadened my perspective on the most recent recession.

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 9, Question #7

In the chapter entitled Keeping Score in the book "Naked Economics", the author, Charles Wheelan, brings up the topic of calculating growth and the size of economies of countries. He first states that the GDP is an easy way to measure economic growth and size, but there are plenty of "knocks" against it. A tremendous sized knock against GDP is that it doesn't measure happiness. Many scientists performed studies, and concluded that money does not result in happiness. This has broadened my view of a personal issue on money. Growing up I always thought that it was essential to make a lot of cash, so I could sustain a healthy and comfortable lifestyle. This is now dismissed because scientists recommend "experiences over commodities". Overall, the GDP of your country does matter, but is that all you look for to determine who has an economic power? Many things aren't measured in GDP, such as happiness, which should be measured because it does add to economic wealth if you are Keeping Score. 

Sam McDonald Chapter 9 Question 6

An interesting passage that I came across while reading chapter nine was the section about how GDP is measured. Normally I would equate the wealth and the growth of a country due to its GDP. But in reality, GDP per capita only accounts for how much goods and services are produced (divided by the country's population.) This means it doesn't take into account several important economic factors. A more holistic and realistic view of a nations wealth would take into account economic activity that isn't paid for, such as work that is done at home. Also is would take into account the degradation in the environment. An excellent example that Naked Economics cited was China; China has experienced a extremely fast growth in GDP in the past decade. But what its GDP doesn't take into account is how much of the environment China has destroyed, or the extent which it has polluted its cities (a majority of the top polluted cities are in China). Overall, I found that this passage was interesting because it made me realize that GDP sometimes shouldn't be the only way one measures the wealth of a country.

Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter 9, Question 7

Not only did Chapter Nine define the GDP and the financial market of the United States, but I think it also addressed many common "economic misconceptions" that I had. The primary misconception being that the United States' economy was in a horrible place. Yes, in 2007-2008 we did experienced significant economic downturn relating to the housing market, but its not as if it was (is) unmanageable. The Obama Administrations' response to the situation, while not entirely flawless, did do a lot to improve the nation's economic disparity. Obama instituted several fiscal policies to prevent  further job loss, assure the American populace and bolster the economy. Obama's best choice? Not instituting a ton of monetary policy, which would lessen the nation's economic growth and make people and banks shy away from making anymore loans. Finally, although we experienced a major economic depression, we are still doing pretty well in terms of overall GDP growth. If we can employ policies and decisions to make the "ups and downs" of the curves more smaller- our economy will be even more manageable.

Kyle Kispert. Chapter 7. Question 2

The entire concept of financial markets affects our lives daily – both directly and indirectly.  Every time we buy something, its price is impacted by finical markets.  Every time we invest or put money in savings, our lives are affected now and in the future by the financial markets.  Nearly every decision we make, there is an underlying affect and influence of the financial markets on its final outcome.  There seems to be so many, that all of the affects of the financial markets on our decisions is immeasurable.

Kyle Kispert. Chapeter 7. Question 6

The discussion and concepts of "the market lemons" was very intriguing and memorable. As a potential car buyer in the not so distant future, I am now keeping in mind how price and age of a car can determine its value. There are three ways of thinking when deciding what age and price to buy a car at. The first would be buying a new car with a higher cost thinking that it hasn't gone through the abuse that would cause repairs. Secondly, buying a young used car thinking to save money on the initial cost and that it hasn't had time for abuse that would need repair. Lastly, buying an old used car for a low price thinking that the saved money will be used for repairs. In the end there is no way of predicting how short or long a car with run for before needing a repair. There are many factors that play into this, such as how rough you are on the brakes or transmitting. It's an interesting topic that many are pationate about but has no clear answer.

Kyle Kispert. Chapter 5. Question 6

I found the study of the students from Ivey league school future salaries versus non- selective schools very fascinating and important. Contrary to popular belief, this study concluded that it wasn't the quality of the school that made as much of a difference than the quality of the student. Wth all these letters and college fairs trying to convince the public that their college is unique and the best in the country, this chapter was very relatable with a high school seniors life right now. It reassured me that my focus should be on doing my best in school and fitting into a college, rather than finding the most prestigious college and putting all my money into going there. In the end it's up to each individual how successful they will become.

Kyle Kispert. Chapter 1. Question 5

In this chapter, Charles Wheelan makes the claim that we shouldn't impose preferences on people whose lives are different than our own. He gives the example about South Americans cutting down trees to sell and provide for their family and buy malaria nets. Since in this case it's more of an American preference to save the environment, that we shouldn't pay these South American families to stop cutting down these trees. I'm my opinion this is a poor example for explaining where we should impose our preferences on others. Rather I think people all over the earth have a few preferences I'm common, such as health. In this example trees are healthy for the whole planet and if South Americans can provide for their families with some money from the U.S I believe this would be beneficial, if the U.S. is willing to pay.

Kyle Kispert. Introduction. Question 7

In the introduction, Charles Wheelan gives an example of a government policy that backfired. The program set in place by the French government in 2000, was described as faulty simply because the officials didn't have a solid grasp of fundamental economics. More specifically they didn't account for the jobs that were created when attempting to boost employment. This story made me realize the importance of economics and that economics should be considered before any decision is made. It doesn't matter the scale of the decision, economics will play a large role

Emma Tyler, Chapter 9, Question #4

Chapter 9 of Naked Economics had a focus on measuring the success/failure of country's economies. Wheelan explains that the usual tool for measuring an economy is the GDP or gross domestic product; however, Wheelan also goes on to explain that this is not the most helpful thing to measure. GDP "represents the total value of all goods and services produced in an economy" (193). If an economy's GDP goes up it means that the country is producing a larger percentage of goods and services than it had before, which is a good thing for the prosperity of an economy and an important figure to analyze yearly. But it is not all rainbows and butterflies with GDP. GDP does not truly measure "how well off [people] consider [themselves] to be" (198). The happiest people are not necessarily the most wealthy. GDP measures the amount the economy is growing, but not the actual quantity of happiness/success the citizens of that economy feel. Wheelan recognizes that GDP is flawed and questions why the world can't find a better way of measuring economic progress. Within the next sentence of this question, he comes up with an answer that Marc Miringhoff suggests- a "social report card." A social report card would measure 16 social aspects of the economy (child poverty, crime, affordable housing etc) and give the country an overall grade of how they are doing based on their smaller grades in those categories. Sounds good right? Well some conservative commentators disagree with what should be measured; some economists would rather measure out-of wedlock births, participation in church groups, divorce rates etc. So the social report card, which would probably be implemented by the governmental economic specialists, seems like the perfect solution to solving the economic progress measurement debacle, but officials need to agree upon what must be measured first.

Megan Thurow, chapter 6, question 2

In this chapter of Naked Economics, I began to relate to the issue of people in poverty compared to those like Bill Gates, who have more money than I could even imagine. Don't get me wrong, my family is not in poverty. The reason I feel like I can relate to this is because of a project I'm currently working on in Capstone. The project has to do with suffering and my topic is poverty in the United States mainly among veterans. What really hit me was when Charles Wheelan talked about Alex Rodriguez and how he earns about 275 million dollars in ten years for playing baseball, which requires no college degree. I also found it interesting that when Wheelan asked the Nobel Prize winning economist how he felt about making less money than Rodger Clemens, he said it didn't bother him. Personally I would think that if I won the Nobel Prize I should be making more than a man that I don't even think went to college and if he did, probably didn't pay for it. I found this part of the chapter to be the most interesting because I relate well to baseball and also now to the problem of poverty. (And how crazy is it that 13 percent of Americans are poor?) This is one of the biggest things I've taken out of the book as a whole. 

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 6, Question #6

Chapter six talks about human capital and its role in the economy. An example that is used in this chapter is stripping people of all of their assets and leaving them on the side of the road. For example if Bill Gates was left on the side of the road along with a drug addict, who would turn out the best? In almost every case Bill Gates will turn out better because of his human capital. Bill Gates has the skills to help others and will most likely become employed. The drug addict will probably not get hired and if he does Bill Gates will still have the better job. Another example in this chapter is a society in which all the people are farmers and a guy with a Ph.D. in agronomy comes into town. The agronomist can help create a better plow making himself better off along with the farmers. This leads to a growth in the size of the pie of the economy, not an increase in the size of the slices. As human capital rises the society will tend to evolve.

Cat Potts, Chapter 6, Question 3

The concept of human capital in and of itself is not necessarily a controversial one. However, it is the means by which human capital cycles with little room for growth and expansion to others that is problematic. The economic gap between the rich and the poor grows larger everyday. The divide will only continue to swell, due to the vicious cycle that Wheelan discusses:  Those with better educational opportunities can pay for their children to be educated, and their children will (generally) earn the degrees and  skills need to make enough money to pay for the education of their children, and so on; meanwhile the poor cannot afford to send their children to school, so they receive fewer opportunities to refine their skills and stay in the same economic situation as their parents, and so on. The cycle spirals, heading in opposite directions for either party and leaving little room for an opportunity for change. This is both unfair and counter-productive. The wealthy spend their excess funds on goods they don't necessarily need, while the poor can't promise their children any education after high school. Granted, that doesn't mean it's impossible for a person to get out of the vicious cycle, but the chances are not in their favor. Meanwhile, the money that the rich are spending on yachts and summer homes could be used to fund the education of those who can otherwise not afford it. The education of the poor then leads to the creation of more jobs, as the skills they obtain become worth more money, which they can then save so that future generations can have greater opportunities. As Wheelan mentioned in the metaphor of the farming community, the "pie" grows, rather than being resliced. As long as people are willing to spread the wealth around, there's no reason why we cannot begin to close the gap. However, is it likely that the wealthy man with the yacht will sell it so that some kid he's never met will just maybe have better opportunities? Probably not.

Sam McDonald Chapter 6. Question 6

A specific passage that stuck out to me in chapter six of Naked Economics was the passage about the labor fallacy. In a previous blog post I wrote about how the French government failed to understand this fallacy, but that passage did not explain the specifics. So when I came across this passage I my interest was sparked. The analogy used was a community of farmers who produced just enough to sustain their livelihood, but nothing more. If someone came into the community looking to farm, they would send the person away because that individual has no human capitol with which he could benefit the community. In this same community, if a man with a PHD in agriculture came in he would be accepted and would in turn create new jobs due to the capitol he could provide. (i.e. plows). This analogy can be applied to the real economic world. Since there is not a fixed amount of jobs, immigrants to the U.S. are  not actually "taking our jobs". Rather if they bring human capitol (education, entrepreneurship, etc.), then they have the potential to increase the jobs with in our country and create an ascent in our economic standing.

Griffin Malone, Chapter 6, Question 6

In chapter 6 of "Naked Economics" Charles Wheelan teaches us about the productivity and human capital. He shows us there us a strong correlation between a country's level of human capital and economic well being. While there is a weak correlation between natural resources and a good standard of living. Countries like Japan and Switzerland have little amounts of natural resources yet they have a higher per capita income due to higher amounts of human capital that result in large amounts of productivity and wealth. Other countries like Nigeria and Saudia Arabia sit on billion dollar oil fields but the populations standard of living is very low there. The natural resources often corrupt government control and can fuel civil wars. This shows us why human capital and education is so important to succeed as a person and a country.

Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter Six, Question Four

In Chapter Six, Wheelan attributes the increasing wealth gap to the enlarged gap between those who have a tremendous amount of "human capital" and those who do not. Human Capital is defined as "the total sum of skills embodied by an individual." Think of human capital as what you are left with if your entire house was destroyed in a natural disaster. You are not left with your Mercedes or you expensive TV, but rather your character, skills and knowledge (relative to secondary education). Having human capital is what separates the so called "burger flippers" from the Bill Gates' of the world. Wheelan believes that the best way to solve this problem is to invest and support education; I am of the same mind. As noted in the chapter, when Taiwan doubled their female high school graduation gap the country's feritility rates dropped to almost a half. Those girls will move on to get jobs, start companies and expand the economy. Hopefully, they will not be burdened by a life of total poverty as they try to raise children at such a young age. This solution will work because there aren't a set amount of jobs in the economy, meaning if more people get higher education they won't be "stealing jobs." Infact their education will lead to further economic growth, more creation of jobs and the expansion of new technologies. Education expands the pie- it is not a detrimental reslicing of the pie. I love pie. Thus, the further education of many individuals is an investment for us all. Now lets go educate young women and men equally, social AND economic justice!

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 6, Question 6

In Naked Economics Wheelan discusses an experiment that involved dropping off 100,000 high school dropouts on a corner in Chicago and how businesses dealt with the extra amount of laborers who are less skilled. Then they dropped off 100,000 graduates on the same corner and looked at how the businesses reacted. When the high school dropouts were on the corner everyone wanted them to leave or be supported by the government because the skill level was not high enough for the  businesses to employ them. When the graduates came they would get jobs instantly because their skill level was useful. If they didn't get a job they would just start their own company or move to a different place. This part of the chapter was very interesting because all that businesses really care about is your skill level, but for people who come from poor families they might not be able to go to college to become more skilled. This experiment showed me how jobs require specific skills when hiring new employees, and it comes down to if the person dropped out in high school or if they got a degree from a college.  

Kyle Kispert. Chapter 6. Question 2.

The point Charles Wheelan brings up in ch. 6 about how the economy is evolving is very relevant to us as seniors. As we pick a college and ultimately a career, the skills we decide to learn and use will  affect our lives greatly. These days low skilled jobs get taken by most commonly robots and computers. The thought of having my job taken from me will stay in the back of my mind in these next years as I will be pursuing a profession. The economy gives more of an incentive for pursuing a computer science or robotic profession. However, the author concludes that even low skilled jobs have a place in this economy too. At this point we have the option to pursue a low skilled job and have competition or a ghosh skilled job and creat opportunity.

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 6, Question #7

Chapter 6 of "Naked Economics" by Charles Wheelan was all about Productivity and Human Capital. I learned from this chapter the importance of investing in human capital, or the skill that one brings to the table. This has broadened my view as a society, because I now understand that a nation must work together with each other's skill to improve life. Charles Wheelan spoke of two options at a farm, a man with no skill will not be offered any work at the farm, but when a man arrives with skill that may benefit the farmer, he will be cut a share of the land, plus what he has to offer to benefit the farmer. This leaves room for surplus for the farmer,which can be spent to hire more jobs, and bring more human capital to the farm. This made me ultimately realize how important skills are, and more importantly, how useful it is to get a degree, so someone may invest in your capital. When someone invests in your capital, it improves life for others, and yourself, as you can now make a profit from your certain skill.

Emma Tyler, Chapter 6, Question #6

Chapter 6 of Naked Economics had a focus on the importance of investing in human capital, and with this topic came the question of the whether or not economic development is a "zero-sum game". The answer is no. There is no need to have poor people in order to have rich people. Economic development is all about increasing the size of the pie rather than just re-slicing it (the pie metaphor was used quite often in this chapter). One of the most interesting sections I found in this chapter was regarding the slicing of the pie. I found the excerpt about the survey that was done by Robert Frank (Cornell economist) to be especially intriguing. In the survey, respondents had to choose between two worlds. World A where you make "$110,000 and everyone else earns $200,00;" or world B "where you earn $100,000 and everyone else earns $85,000." (144) I was out to dinner with my parents tonight, for their 18th wedding anniversary, and while we were on the topic of my classes, we began to have some discussions about economics. I presented them with both of the options the survey just mentioned gave and they both chose World B. The book later goes on to explain that either the respondent wants a world where they are all together richer (in one world they make $110,000 and in the other they earn $10,000 less) or where they are richer than the majority of the others in the community; however when I asked my parents why they chose World B, they both said because it was more equal than World A where there was a $90,000 difference between employees whereas in World B there was only a $15,000 difference. Now, it may be because my dad was an economics major in college, and my mom was a politician (who, of course, had to deal with economic issues quite often, and understand them), but I think the majority of people are really just worried about having a more equal slice of pie than everyone else. At the end of the chapter, Wheelan mentions that if a country were to find a way to better "mobilize and apply" their human capital, they would "be the big winners of our age." (147) In that situation, less people would be impoverished (more equal pie slices) and a richer economy in general would be the outcome.

Griffin Malone, Chapter 8, Question 6

In chapter 8 Charles Wheelan discusses the power of organized interests. The situation Charles pointed out about the barbers and electricians really stood out to me. He raises a very interesting point about state licenses in job professions. The state of Illinois requires barbers and manicurists to have a state license to work while electricians don't need to be licensed. Mr. Hoffner brought this topic up in class because it is ridiculous that you need a license to paint nails while a guy wiring a house doesn't need a license. This is because working profession groups seek organized interests and are then unified as a group with licenses. Electricians prefer to slip by the government to make themselves better off without government interference and regulations. This is a minor flaw because a bad electrician could do a bad wiring job and burn houses down. While barbers an manicurists are held to a standard under the government licenses because they prefer having organized interests.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 8, Question #2

The issue brought up in this chapter is the question of why our increasing knowledge of public policy doesn't always turn into a perfect government. The issue is that while running for president the  canidates don't neccesarily make the right decision that will help the economy, but instead make the decision that will help them receive more votes and increase their chance of winning the election. The issues affect my life both now and in the future because the decisions that the canidates make can help me but also harm me. The repercussions of their decisions affect me everyday even if I don't notice it. An example of this would be the Iowa caucuses. The canidate subsidizes corn so that he/she can receive the votes from farmers in Iowa. In a way this helps me since ethanol (made from corn) has cleaner emissions but it also costs me money since my taxes go to pay for the subsidy and the government will lose revenue since the tax on ethanol is cheaper than the tax on gasoline. Although this typically affects me indirectly it is still a cost to me and many others for the benefit of fewer people.

Sam McDonald Chapter 8 #6

An area that surprised me while I was reading this chapter was the section on ethanol. Normally I would argue that using ethanol as a substitute to oil is substantially beneficial to our economy and the environment. Apparently ethanol is potentially even worse for the environment, even not including run off from pesticides, and has cost the treasury $7.1 Billion. With this knowledge, the most presidents and presidential candidites still allows for ethanol subsidies. Why? because Iowa is extremely important to the presidential race, and corn is important for Iowa. Therefore, a great majority of presidential candidates support ethanol substitutes and keep them in place. This is surprising, yet understandable at the same time.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 8, Question 6

In chapter 8 of Naked Economics Wheelan discusses government policies, one example that he brings up is farmers and how they are given federal government subsidies. They were given subsidies because in the times of the wars the yarn from mohairs were used to make military uniforms. Farmers are still gaining Federal Government money. Later on in the chapter he brings up how agriculturists in other counties like China and India do not get subsidies they are forced to sell their crops below the market price because the government wants the "urban dwellers" to get food at a cheap or low price. These passages about policy for farmers were interesting to see because in a large population the farmers have to sell their goods but with no help from the government, but in the other countries who have a smaller populations the farmers are getting help from the government. To me this is partly fair and unfair. Countries with large populations should have subsidies because the government can gain more money through taxes. Since the farmers in these larger countries are forced to sell their crops at lower prices they are making less money which in turn can hurt the farmers financially. As for the smaller counties I believe that it is still fair to give subsidies to the farmers because everyone gains from it. Since they are getting subsidies then they can still ask for less money for the crops which means that more people can buy them. It also means that the farmers are not putting themselves in a financial crisis. This whole view on how different countries give out subsidies is memorable and interesting.  

Emma Tyler, Chapter 8, Question #7

In Chapter 8 of Naked Economics I truly learned about the power of organized groups. I learned that small organized groups will generally be more successful in getting what they want as opposed to larger groups whose benefits would me more widespread. These small organized groups (like Ethanol or Mohair farmers) can be more influential in our society than I imagined. At one point in the chapter Wheelan starts to expand on their power and he mentions that these organized groups are capable of preventing something called "creative destruction." At first I was confused as to what the term creative destruction meant because it sounds like it is a bad thing for the economy but once explained through the scenario of the Pony Express being destroyed by the invention of the telegraph, I realized that "creative destruction" is a necessity for the economy and society if it wishes it grow and become more advanced. However, these small organized groups can "stop...creative destruction in the first place." (185) If the small group "chain themselves to their congressman's office door seeking protection," it might be more effective than the creative destruction taking place in which case the economic benefits that come with such competition would be widespread, which as was mentioned before is not preferable for having a successful organized group.

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 8, Question #6

In chapter 8 of "Naked Economics", Charles Wheelan speaks on the topic of the power of organized  interests. In particular he speaks about the licensing of teachers. Existing teachers highly advocate to have stricter regulations regarding the up and coming teachers. Of course these regulations would be exempt from existing teachers. This would ultimately lower the number of teachers across the area, leaving benefits for the existing teachers. (Benefits unknown, if I missed discussion on the benefits of having a smaller number of teachers, please comment.) The author states that when Albert Einstein came to New Jersey, he wouldn't of been able to teach high school physics because he did not have a license. Which I found preposterous. Next, the author went into collected data in which he concluded that 1) good teachers matter, and 2) Certification doesn't matter. This leaves to point out that teachers who advocate for raising regulations on licensing students who aspire to be teachers, are only looking at benefits for themselves, and not as a society. I found this interesting, because teachers are said to be the most important part about the structure of America, but by this topic, it seems as if that some teachers only think in self interest. Which is appalling and surprising to me. I am not saying you are like that Mr. Hoffner.

Megan Thurow, ch 4 question 6

Chapter four of naked economics talks about the government and how it effects the economy. I found the passage about the vendor at the white sox game very interesting. I had sort of a hard time understanding what the meaning or point of the passage was at first. I thought it was interesting how Wheelan compared the making of  the margarita maker that I pant needed to how the technology used to make this can be very useful to make things that could be more useful to people. It could lead to new inventions coming from an un useful item.

Sam McDonald Chapter 4 #6

An interesting view that was presented in chapter four of Naked Economics was the idea that cutting taxes would, in the long run, raise the total revenue of the government. The first time I came across this passage I had to re-read it since it seemed counter intuitive to me. Although many people would argue for my initial thoughts, the opposing side does have a valid argument. Cutting taxes helps the economy by putting more money in the pockets of individuals and stimulating hard work. Both of these things help the economy grow, and potentially the economic growth could surpass the revenue lost in taxes, making cutting taxes an logical decisions for the government. Consequently, Raising taxes generally makes individuals change their behavior in ways which effect the economy negatively. Although both of these things are true, in the majority of circumstances a government can not cut taxes and expect money for programs to go up.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 4, Question 5

In chapter 4 Wheelan discusses how the government regulates certain parts of the economy. One example that he gives from a different book Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman is that people believe that lawyers should have a less restrictive admission to the bar. Which in turn allows lawyers to practice even if they are not the smartest or the most knowledgeable. Some people believe that they need lawyers to be the best of the best, but others believe that because of everything we use lawyers for we don't necessarily need the best lawyer. It still struck me that lawyers were deciding/talking about allowing lawyers who were not as brilliant to pass the bar because in this time with all the things that you need lawyers for, it could be detrimental to someone if they got less than the best of the best. To me I agree with the people who say that we should have "Cadillac Lawyers" (88).

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 4, Question #6

In chapter four of "Naked Economics", Charles Wheelan speaks of the government and what it does for the economy. He contrasts private and public sectors to discuss how the government affects the economy. He said that in Private sector, the market tells us where to put our resources. He used an example of a vendor at a baseball game that made a portable margarita maker. This increased social benefit, but was it necessary? No. The engineers who invented the margarita maker could of put their resources to better use with feeding starving children, or building roads in underprivileged countries. But that's not the case because the government is not telling them what to do, which ultimately makes me questions whether the government should direct resources or not to improve an economy. I found this passage significant because I have hopes of becoming a successful engineer one day, and I only hope that my job will include benefits to underprivileged people or places, and not making useless items such as an automatic margarita maker. It also opens my mind to the thought of government directing what I create as an engineer, as long as I am doing good for others.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 4, Question #6

The passages that I found intriguing were the passage about corrupt politicians, lowering tax rates and its effect on revenue, and the controversial use of DDT. I thought that it was sad that politicians would put their personal interest above that of an entire nation. Politicians are in place to help run the country, not destroy it. I originally thought that if taxes were cut just a little bit then the revenue would go up because more people would pay taxes and work more. However after reading this chapter I learned that this is not true. The final thing I found interesting was the controversial use of DDT. DDT is the most efficient pesticide as well as the cheapest, but it is the most dangerous. Some people believe that it should not be used because it is not safe. However economically speaking it should be used because it is efficient and cheap. It also saves many people's lives from malaria. While looking at making decisions people have to look at the oppurtunity cost and weigh that into their decisions.

Kispert Kyle, chapter 4, question 1

The topic of government regulations is brought up in this chapter and discussed through the brief story of Gary Becker and striped bass. This is another one of the countless examples in this book about how a regulation was set in place to help but actually had a negative effect. This story of the striped bass makes me think about which goods may become obsolete if they are regulated incorrectly. It's stories in like presented in this book that makes me want to do more research. I'm curious about what goods are regulated and if any incorrect regulations were not noticed until it was too late. These regulations directly affect my life both now and in the future and after reading this chapter I will pay more attention to other regulations.

Caroline Pellegrin, Chapter Four, Question Six

Prior to my reading of Chapter Four I understood that the government did not always act most "efficiently" or in a way that isn't totally impartial, but I did not understand to what extent. I was especially shocked at the passage that discussed both the stricter licensing for manicurist and doctors- both of which were implemented to undermine the potential success of new entrepreneurs and workers. The government was deliberately stifling capitalism and new economic growth and change. Capitalism would dictate that if one manicure salon will charge six dollars for a manicure and the other will charge twenty-five dollars that it is up to those salons to compete and perhaps negotiate, not the government. In my opinion, during this example the government was exerting too much of a strong hand, a partial hand at that. Now I feel a bit skeptical, what other policies is the government implementing that exhibits that same type of burden? How often does the government side with wealthy enterprises in order to gain more wealth and success for themselves?

Emma Tyler, Chapter 4, Question #5

Chapter 4 of Naked Economics is entitled "Government and the Economy II." The previous chapter ("Government and the Economy") was all about the positive aspects of government involvement in the economy, while this chapter focused on the negative aspects. The question of whether or not the government should be involved in economic decisions is quite the controversial topic. It seems that nowadays many people correlate conservative Republicans with lessened government involvement stance and liberal Democrats with more government involvement regarding economic decisions (large generalization). As much as I would have liked for Wheelan to finally come to make a statement at the end of the chapter saying: "If you were a smart, economically thinking citizen, you would think blankity-blank-blank about government involvement", he does not. Wheelan simply says "Is the role that government plays in the United States economy too big too small, or just about right? I can finally offer a simple. straightforward, and unequivocal answer: It depends on who you ask." (100) Some economists think the government plays too large of a role already, others think that it doesn't play a large enough role, and still others think it is somewhere in between at the moment. I can safely say that after finishing this chapter I am more confused about my view of government involvement because I have now seen a glimpse of both side's arguments. I don't quite know where I stand as of right now on my opinion of government involvement, but I do know that there are positive aspects to government involvement (that are very necessary sometimes), and negative aspects. I am just not quite sure how (or even if it is possible) to create a healthy balance that would also make everyone happy at the end of the day. Economists have it tough.

Thomas Shogren, Chapter 3, Question #7

This chapter talks about externalities, both positive and negative, and the role of the government in a market economy. When making decisions I have only thought about the costs that I will have to deal with. In reality many of the decisions I make affect others as well. These costs are externalities. Sometimes my decisions are good for others making it a positive externality, while other times my decisions are bad making it a negative externality. The government steps into these situations in order to issue a rule in which my decisions are either made more expensive or cheaper. I never thought about the role of the government in my decisions because they are not telling me what to do, but the invisible hand of the government affects my decisions every day.

Emma Tyler, Chapter 3, Question 7

In chapter 3 of Naked Economics, Wheelan discusses the topic of the necessity of government in the market system. While there were many examples in the book that discuss incentives (the SUV vs. Honda Civic dilemma) and externalities (fits within the SUV debate too), I found one of the most interesting topics in the chapter to be the philosophical aspect of economics. Wheelan specifically mentions that there are some things that come up in economics that cannot be solved with an economic thought process. He brings up a question posed by Amartya Sen (1998 Nobel Prize winner)  about having only one job to offer and three men up for the job who are equally qualified. In an economic sense, the employer would want to "make the world a better place by hiring the man who needs the job the most" (76)- Externalities!- but if the one man is the poorest of all three, the other is newly poor and not accosted to his new lifestyle, and the other has a chronic health problem. Who gets the job? Shouldn't the answer be an economic one? But it's not! This is the line where economics and human morals/philosophy come in. Additionally, the government aspect rears it's ugly head again. Economic questions (at first glance) of the world come up and then the question of whether or not the government should get involved in some way, and then another huge question comes up: "should government protect people from themselves?" On another note, I am extremely interested to see the opposing argument on government involvement in the next chapter because this chapter's argument for government was very strong.

Kyle Kispert, Chapter 3, Question 7

This chapter put into words what happens on a daily basis. Externalities without a doubt effect everyone but I had never though about issues like these in the way that this book presented. Externalities take place on various levels from two individuals to the whole world. Once I understood how they work I realize how similar the concept is on different levels. As Wheelan talked about the externality of co2 emissions, I had a lightbulb moment. The quote "And it's arguable that some people in cold climates will benefit from climate change, so maybe they should pay me" was really a breakthrough for me on how everything is connected and effects more than you see on the surface.

Sam McDonald Chapter 3 #6

While reading Naked economics and listening in economics class, I have come across significant evidence which has lead me to think that if government would just disconnect itself from the economy, the economy would be better off. Contrary to my credence of the government and the economy, Naked Economics shows that in order for there to be a market economy the government must make it possible, and a lack of a government is much more detrimental to the capitolist market than the presence of one. The rules of the market are set and enforced by the government. Without these rules in place, a market would end up in shambles. An example in the book is the economy of Angola, which although has enough natural resources to be economically stable, are in an economic peril because the government has not supported a market economy. Although many people, like myself, often think that the interfering of the Government is detrimental to the economy, the reality is that we need government intervention in order to sustain a market economy, as well as set up rules such as copyright laws which protect the existence and effectiveness of the market economy.

Chapter three, question 2

Chapter three of  Naked Economics, it talks about a family that needs to buy a large car for space as well as safety. I can relate to this because in my family there are three kids and none of us like car rides. We need a car that is big enough for all of us to ride at the same time. When buying a new car this summer, my moms biggest concern was safety. That was the first question she asked for every car we tested. The book talks about putting a tax on large cars because of the amount of pollution but I don't think it would be very effective. I think people would still buy large cars because of the safety factor. Large cars are much safer than say a smart car.

Amelia Vayda, Chapter 3, Question 2

Throughout chapter 3 Wheelan discusses the positive and negative externalities of large cars to smaller more environmentally friendly cars. He gives an example of a family with children who are more inclined to buy a large car not because it is environmentally friendly, but because it is safer in some aspects. The family gives a list of what they want in a car and most of them are for safety reasons, but they realize that their is no social benefit to them. They don't necessarily care if they are polluting more CO2 or even causing problems with asthmatic kids. They really only care about the car being the safest. Wheelan also discusses the ideas of incentives in the fact that people who buy larger cars should pay more tax on gas and for the size of the car because they are polluting more CO2 and are bringing greater risk to smaller cars if they are in an accident. This issue directly relates to me and my family mainly because in my family it is a rule that the car has to be a larger car like an SUV because it is safer on the road if you were to get into an accident. If I were in a smaller car like a Mini Cooper I would be placed in a dangerous spot if I were to get into an accident with a large SUV. This issue can also affect me now and in the future because when and if I have a family I would consider both positive and negative externalities on buying a larger car but put more emphasis on safety.  

Andre LaRenzie, Chapter 3, Question #6

Chapter 3 of "Naked Economics" is about the Government and the Economy. The author, Charles Wheelan, discusses the topic of externalities in this chapter. He defines externalities as private behaviors that have social costs. There was an example that shocked me. The example of Cigarettes having both positive and negative externalities left me amazed. I though there wasn't a way that cigarettes could have a positive externality because it causes so many deaths, indirectly and directly, but there is. Smokers generally die younger than non smokers. The early death of the smoker leads to the social security being uncollected, and returned to the government. On average the government gains 148 million dollars of smokers dying young. I found that truly amazing, and somewhat disgusting.