Harris Worthman, Chapter 9, Question 2

Live long and prosper... or don't and help the rest of us out. The rise of the planet of the elderly is soon to come. This is even worse than apes. When that happens everywhere will look like Florida, but not in a good way. Unfortunately for the USA we are also having less children as well as living longer, so when we get old there will be far less people paying for our retirement. In the 1960's there were five workers for every one retiree. In 2032 it is estimated to be two... What we need to start doing is taking retirement funds from the shuffle board and backgammon companies. If the US doesn't do something soon things will only get worse. I don't want to see more 👵 than 👩 if you know what I mean.

Scott Stewart, chapter 9, question 6

The fact that a higher gdp doesn't result in people being happier is suprising. Despite the saying that money doesn't buy happiness we tend to think that people with more money are happier people. It is almost ironic that people in america have worked so hard to better themselves and theynare less happy then theynwere before. The moral of the story really is mo' money, mo' problems.

Jonathan Webb, Chapter 9, Question 6

   A couple passages that interested me were where he mentioned how recessions can hurt other countries and also spending less hurts the economy even more while in a recession. It makes sense how a majors economy in the world can have an effect on others, but it's so interesting on how it happens. How these big consumers stop consuming from that country, but really they're hurting the economy even more. He even said in the book, if he decides to hold off buying a car till the next  year because of how bad the economy is at that time, he just made his friend or someone else become unemployed. I have no clue all the details on how spending more during a recession helps the economy but I would love to learn more about it. Seems very interesting and hopefully this csn help us and even myself hoe to react to the next recession.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 9, Question #2

I think the issue of measuring the economy through the GDP is one that is important for my generation especially. As wealth gaps grow, the unrepresented disparity between the rich and the poor is an economic factor that must be considered when measuring success. In addition, as negative externalities associated with the environment become a more pressing issue. The problem doesn't lie necessarily in the model of the GDP, but it can be deceiving if the population believes a high GDP means pure economic success when there are many issues underlying. This is especially important for younger generations because mismanagement of negative externalities will more than likely be detrimental later on in our timeline as a country.

Griffin Pontius chapter 9 question 6

       While reading chapter 9, there is a passage that talks about how economists asked people to record in journals what they are doing at various times and how it makes them feel.  The author goes further into saying how many things that we do (like a long commute to a petter paying job) might not be worth it.  Sure we get more money, but in the end, it takes away from our happiness making us less happy overall.  While one might get paid more, but that longer commute takes away from our time of relaxing, exercising, or chatting with friends, yet we still choose the better paying job.
       This struck me as significant because it shows how crazy we are for money.  We choose money over happiness, and it's almost disgusting.  I feel like we focus on money to much,  there are a few people I know that can say that they are happy, regardless of the circumstances.  One person I know is a fishing guide up north named Jeff, he's a great guy and a great fishermen at that.  But, there was a time where the bank was about to foreclose on his house, and he didn't care because he was happy, he's doing what he loves over what rakes in a bigger pay check, and he is one of the happiest people I know.

Chapter 9 Question 6

While reading Naked Economics a passage that stuck with me is when Wheelan mentioned how recessions can spread across borders. I often wonder why politicians care so much or take so much interest in foreign policies and dealing with international trade etc, the answer is because those countries simply effect us. "If other powerful countries fall into recession, they stop buying our goods and services- and vice versa"(205). We need to stop thinking of this world as a competition between each country but as we are a team working together, because overall we kinda are a team. By us buying goods from Mexico there economy is stronger and same with china and Japan. Wheelan mentions how the U.S. consumes the most goods in the world, that is a huge effect on the exporting  economies around the world. In conclusion major economies around the world effect countries around the world in positive and negative ways. So when answering why to take so much interest in other countries economies we have a clear answer by Wheelan.

Olivia Barr, Chapter 9, Question 7

After reading this chapter I've learned that accurately calculating national economic progress, and avoiding recessions is much more complex that it might appear to be. It is easy to suggest that raising taxes, adding jobs, or cutting certain government programs are simple answers to fighting economic downturns, but in reality these things can accelerate a recession. Adding jobs is helpful in raising the GDP, but if everyone has work then there is more demand for goods and services which causes prices to go up, which intern acts as a deterrent for people who would otherwise be putting their income back into the economy. Additionally, adding jobs may look good for the GDP, but the fact of the matter is that the GDP can make notable gains, but the economic well being of the country could be no better off. There are many important factors of "economic progress" that are not factored into the GDP that allow for much discrepancy between what the numbers say and what the actual situation is from the top to the bottom categories of working people and families. It is also very difficult to predict when an economic downturn will start, or even what caused it, but one thing that has been identified is that it is within human logic that if we are unsure of something we will be less likely to do it, and this applies to the economy; unfortunately, this can act as a catalyst in the formation of recession during a time of economic instability. In short, combating recessions is much more complex than the general public might want to believe, but from what I have learned from this chapter, we might be able to make large steps in preventing them if we are able to calculate economic progress in a much more holistic manner capable of accounting for nuanced and underlying factors of progress, and fight intrinsic human logic in situations of uncertainty so as to prevent economic stability from being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Darby Quast, Chapter 9, Question 6

One thing that stood out to me while reading chapter 9 was how much people care about the GDP.  It's in the news almost every day and is used as a tool to determine how well an economy is doing.  I find this odd because there are so many factors that are missing when the GDP is calculated.  For example, it does not include factors like economic activity that is not paid for such as working at home or environmental degradation.  Once Chinas environmental damages (around 64 billion dollars) was calculated into the GDP growth it went down from 10% to around 7%.  It  also does not take into account wealth distribution.  This means that if a country had some people who were extremely rich and some who were very poor, its GDP could still look good even though that might not necessarily be the case.  After learning all these different factors that are not accounted for while calculating GDP I find it interesting how inaccurate it can be when determining the health of the economy.

Max Hobrough, Chapter 9, question 7

There is a very real issue in our economy due to the ever changing economy. There are so many issues that can lead to this major issue of a false economy and these things will catch up with us over time and lead to economic failure. So to prevent this I believe the government should just let the economy do its thing and not try to interrupt the economic cycle that is actually necessary for a flowing economy. The issue with this is that many people will get angered if the government just stands by and let's all crap hit the fan, but instead what usually happens are tax cuts which are an artificial and temporary stimulant to keep an economy progressing. Like the author said these recessions are actually good in the long run because they get rid of all of the businesses that are not meant to survive, sort of like natural selection but in the business world.

Zach Du, Chapter 9, Question 6

The quote of the official at the Dallas Fed in this chapter caught my attention: "Making money takes time, so when we shop, we're really spending time. The real cost of living isn't measured in dollars and cents but in the hours and minutes we must work to live". Here's an example: each pair of stockings costs 25 cents in 1900, and the average salary is about 14.8 cents per hour; this means people have to work for 1hr 41min to afford a pair. In 2000, a pair of stocking costs 4 dollar which is way more expansive than that of 1900; but people's average salary grow to 13 dollar per hour, which means people can buy a pair of stocking every 18min (195). This example illustrates the idea that the hours and minutes we work to live are the real cost of living.

Gunnar Nelson, Chapter 9, Question 4

In the opening pages of chapter 9, Wheelan defines GDP- as gross domestic product- which is the total value of all goods and services produced in the Economy. However as Sophie said in her blog, " GDP only looks at thing from a numerical and financial perspective." Wheelan also advocates that GDP is not taking all aspects of an economy into the picture, such as natural disasters, or environmental degradation. " If an industry pollutes in the process of manufacturing products, and the government pays to clean up the mess, both activities add to GDP." However there are some solutions to the problem regarding GDP. China's state Environmental Protection Administration has begun to calculate GDP through " Green GDP ", which evaluate economic growth by subtracting the costs of environmental damage. The United Nations has also implimented a new calculation, which I find to be further of use and accuracy. The Human Development Index (HDI) uses GDP, life expectancy, literacy, and education to calculate the overall health of a nations economy. Overall I think that the HDI is an accurate display of both present and future economic health.

Julia Carle, Chapter 9, question #7

In chapter nine of Naked Economics, I learned about the cycle of recession and recovery. Also the causes of recessions and recoveries and how we today, measure our modern economy. I also got a clearer picture of what gross domestic product (GDP) means, and why it's such an important factor in the economy and the way it runs. I've heard the term GDP several times before, but it was a completely foreign idea to me. Now I can understand that it is simply just the percentage of how much we grew or how much we shrunk as a result of the goods and services produced. The idea of the cycle of recession and recovery also is very interesting to me. It is very much so accurate in that all economies at one point in time are extremely prosperous but then they hit rock bottom. The book even used the U.S. Depression as an example of rock bottom. After this chapter of the book, I have a much better understanding as to why economies have this recurring cycle year after year.

Peter Webster Chapter 9 Question 7

The thing I found most interesting was how one person's thrifty spending during a financial crisis has such a big effect on others. I never thought about that. I assumed that during a financial crisis everyone SHOULD be saving their money, but in fact that is not the case. "My thrift-a decision to curtail my advertising budget or to buy a car next year instead of this year-may cost you your job, which will in turn hurt my business!" Wheelan says that the problem in those crisis situations is the nation's attitude. "If we all believe it will get better, then it will get better." If everyone assumes the economy will continue to be awful, they won't spend regularly. But in order to restore a good economy, people need to spend.

Angela Scharf, Chapter 9, Q. 6

The passage that struck me as interesting was the explanation of Gross Domestic Product. Essentially it is weighing the productivity and total output of a country. The percents that headlines always advertise (etc. the economy dropped 2.1 percent) is referencing the GDP growth. The consumption of the total country is constrained by what they can produce in turn. Inflation has to be factored into the GDP, which by definition is the increase in prices and the fall of the value on money; this is called the real GDP. An example of this is if a country's GDP increases by 12 percent, and the inflation also rises by 12 percent then the economy hasn't actually produced more of anything. The GDP per capita also has to be factored in because of general difference in population. This GDP was interesting because it explains the typical "today the economy dropped ____ percent" that's always advertised on the news.

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 9, Question 7

Before reading Chapter 9 of Naked Economics, I would not have been able to confidently explain what GDP is. Although I knew it existed and was related to the economy, nobody ever explained to me what it was and I never thought to ask. After reading about it extensively, I find it extremely interesting. I am a very big math person so I like the idea of thinking logically and looking at things from a logical perspective like how the GDP is calculated. However, Charles Wheelan pointed out how GDP only looks at things from a numerical and financial perspective. It tends to leave out the happiness of the citizens, the environmental outcomes that the growth effected, and many more factors. This made me consider how many things can be left out of many ideas in life when I look at it from just a logical or numerical perspective. Overall, this chapter made me realize that stepping back and taking into consideration the different factors on a seemingly simple answer is incredibly important and essential.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 9, Question 6

The passage where Wheelan wrote about behavioral economics was interesting to me. Specifically Wheelan wrote about a study that behavioral economists conducted that asked its participants to journal about various things that they do throughout the day and how they felt while doing it. The experiment's results were not surprising. People felt the least happy while driving to work in the morning, and the most happy when engaging in "intimate relations" with their significant other. On an emotional economic level, Wheelan wondered if the joyless commute to work was worth the income that a person recieves from their job. In other words Wheelan was wondering when the emotional cost of doing something would surpass the economical benefit. My question now is to what extent are people willing to give up their happiness for material gain? 

Jona Bakke, Chapter 9, Question #6

One passage that I found particularly significant is when Wheelan explains the paradox that follows a recession. He says, "Our natural (and rational) reaction to precarious economic times is to become more cautious with our spending, which makes our collective situation worse" (Wheelan 202). When people decrease their economic activity in times of trouble, they are actually adding to the economic downfall. The result of a population's reaction to a recession may actually cause more damage than the recession itself. Wheelan explains that if people believe the economy will get worse and act accordingly, then it will get worse. And if people believe it will get better, then it will get better.

I was not aware of this concept before reading the chapter and I found it very interesting that a simple decision to spend or not to spend can have such an effect on the economy, and a reaction that seems rational can actually be quite detrimental. This idea further proves the importance of learning economics. If more people knew about the role of a population's reactions to a recession and expectations of the economy, then they could act accordingly and help prevent the economy from plummeting further.

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 9, Question #7

What I learned in this chapter is the importance of GDP and its flaws, and other economic indicators.

GDP is everywhere. Every day they appear in newspapers, TV news or in discussions among people. What does it exactly mean? It "represents the total value of all goods and services produced". However, it does not take into account the distribution of income, the environmental degradation nor does it count any economic activity that is not paid for. Although it's such an imperfect measurement of how well off we perceive ourselves to be, it is still popular and essential in the economic world. It does not show us our happiness, but it shows how well (or bad) a country is doing in general. Take USA and India, for example, the GDP of America per capita is $47 000, India has around $2900. So it really tells us how big a difference it is to live in one country or another. India is indeed poor and 100 000 people are suffering there from a disease that costs $3 to cure. And I can tell that I've seen so much waste of food in the US as never before. I cannot even think about how many poor Indian kids it could feed. Moreover, my host family's dog goes more often to the hairdresser's (or doggy stylist?) than most Slovak women do. That's how big the difference really is. 

Other significant economic indicators are: unemployment, poverty, income inequality, size of government, budget deficit/surplus, current deficit/surplus, national savings, demographics and the total national happiness. So if Barrack Obama would wake up from a coma, along with the GDP these would be the first things he would ask for.

Hammer Rita, chapter 9, question 7

In chapter 9, Wheelan begins by explaining GDP and the rise and fall of it. He explains the fact that things essentially aren't getting more expensive as their prices increase. Wheelan uses the example of one's grandma complaining about the price of a chicken. He points out that the time it takes to earn the amount of money to buy the chicken has decreased significantly from two hours and thirty seven minutes (1919) to thirteen minutes (present day). Even though it's logical to say the chicken got more expensive as we say the same for gas, clothes, and other goods, it really hasn't. It's all just a different, more logical way of thinking that I have failed at. It's weird to think that as we see the prices of goods and services increase, our economy is actually growing; we are making things more efficiently and therefore have time to give our attention to other ideas.

Olivia Barr, Chapter 6, Question 2

The issues raised in this chapter directly effect my life in a multitude of ways. Firstly, in going to Minnehaha and continuing my education after I graduate, my parents are investing in me gaining human capital that will benefit me in the long run. The choices I make (or do not make) will also have an effect on my human capital because I have the choice to work hard in college, and continue building my human capital, or as Mr.Hoffner said (roughly) I could squander the opportunities I've had and "go chewbacca with all the freedom, drink my way out, and only have a ton of student debt and STDs to show for it." In the future the decisions I make now, and in the near future will mean the difference between living paycheck to paycheck, or living comfortably with a good job and a nice house, and being able to provide opportunity for my children to distinguish themselves in the job market by providing them with a quality education, and the values that will lead them to take education, and a good work ethic seriously. I think these effects are affirmative because I trust myself to make the right decisions, but for some these could be very frightening if they doubt that they have the will power to make good decisions going forward that would lead to them having a lack of human capital, and thus the prospect of struggling in their future.

Taylor Bye, Chapter 9, Question #6

Wheelan starts out this chapter with the President getting chucked in the head by a horseshoe and waking up from a nine month coma induced by this encounter with the horseshoe, asking about the "numbers" of the country. This might've been just a humorous anecdote but he uses this joke he wrote lo those many years ago when he was a speech writer for the governor of Maine to illustrate what matters when measuring the success of America's economy.

Wheelan claims that if the President were actually to have had his head hit by a horseshoe and slip into a coma for nine months, the first national number he would inquire about upon his coming to would be the gross domestic product or the GDP, which is the measure of the total worth of all the goods and services produced in the nation. Wheelan then goes on to explain how this is just one of many ways to measure the health of the economy. 

The passage I'm going to write about is actually going to be in two, but only because I think they both link together. Two other ways the President would be able to tell if America's economy was going down the toilet or staying firmly on the sink counter (weird metaphor, I know, but you get my drift) are poverty and economic inequality. 

Funny enough, my dad and I had a lengthy debate about whether poverty was necessitated by society today on the ride home from school. This was also explored in last class' reading assignment. But I digress into the idea that poverty is relative. This is where I think the tagline for this chapter, "is my economy bigger than your economy?" is so appropriate. Poverty is measured by the poverty line but, as we saw in today's class' chart, the poverty line can be moved. In comparison to the "rich", the poor are getting poorer but in comparison to how poor the poor were in the '90's compared to the 2000's, the poor were actually getting "richer". Which leads me to the next part of this passage that I found fascinating: economic inequality.

This too was a topic I had previously discussed today, other than in class. It's one of the potential debate topics for this season. With that being said, I can assume that this is quite a debatable topic. It goes back to our pie metaphor. It's not just the size of the pie (like the gap between the poor and the rich) but also the slice (like the "then" and "now" of the poverty situation in America). 

I believe these two topics intertwine so readily is because the relativity of poverty can create a greater, or smaller, degree of economic inequality. And atop that, the idea that we take these two very organic, very changeable factors and rest the success rate of the country upon their shoulders is utterly astonishing and fascinating. It makes sense, of course, but it amazes me that such a big, important structure (America) is built on such fluctuating numbers. 

Olivia Barr, Chapter 8, Question 3

The implications on my future could go two ways; in one situation I could be part of an interest group, in which case I would greatly benefit from earmarks (also known as "pork fat") in legislature; contrarily, I could be part of the general public, and have my tax dollars be used to fund an interest group from Mississippi that is concerned with gun rights, even though I am against liberal gun laws. In the long run, I fear that the influence of special interest groups could lead to even more inefficient use of tax dollars, and painful government reforms in response to this issue. It is concerning to me that special interest groups have become such an intrinsic aspect of politics because it seems like it could easily lead to massive, widespread corruption of lawmakers running for office. Conclusively, I would argue that it is plausible that if the government put an end to "pork fat," then the money that would have been allocated to these special interest groups could substantially aid the repayment of the national debt over time.

Harris Worthman, chapter 6, question 6

Jobs are hard to get. But making a job isn't hard at all. All you have to do is look for a way to save time. If it allows someone to focus their energy better on something productive then everyone wins! In chapter 6 of Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan makes this point. He gives an example of a man going to a small farming town to sell plows. "The agronomist can support himself; the farmers have more to eat, even after paying for their new plows..." What this country needs if we want more jobs is more people motivated and capable of finding better ways of doing things.

Peter Webster, Chapter 6, Question 7

Chapter 6 starts off by asking why some people have private jets while others are living on the streets. It is a tough question because some people are born into tough situations and they have little education growing up. Some of those people drop out of high school and have no where to work. Wheelan says that these are the people who end up working at a McDonalds, Burger King, etc. Although that is not always true, Wheelan makes it clear that those with more human capital are going to get better jobs than working at a fast food chain. Wheelan gave an example of two different situations involving human capital. The first one, a guy with no skills comes to a farm town and tries to get a job. They send him out because there is no extra land to farm. In the second situation, a guy comes to town with his Ph.D. in agronomy. He created a new plow that improves corn fields. So he gives farmers his plow for a share of their harvests. This way everyone is well off because the smart guy has enough money and the farmers have more money because they have more corn. They can use that money to tutor their children (creating a new job) and give them more work opportunities when they are older. Human capital is very important to the economy, and that's why people are willing to pay so much to get a good education.

Griffin Pontius chapter 6 question 5

       Over the past couple of years, there has been many movements towards raising the minimum wage.  Initially, I don't think this is a bad idea however, I refuse to believe someone flipping burgers for McDonalds deserves a wage of 20 an hour.  Yes this is a blunt statement but, basis that people with a higher human capital are more valuable to society, they should be paid more.  While the author appears to make the assumption that everyone who flips burgers is a highschool dropout, the assumption does hold a common truth with a message conveyed throught the chapter.  In general, people with a valuable skill set are going to make more than a person with a lesser skill set.
       While the argument could be made that minimum wage is not enough to support life in the U.S, a vast majority of the people working in low income jobs made decisions that landed them there in the first place.  This implies that if a persons diggs themself into a whole, it should be up to them to dig them self back out.  By no means does this mean they cannot be helped, but I think the real issue is lack of an incentive to do productive things.  Why would you search for a job paying 7.25 an hour when the government can and will pay you more? You wouldn't.  There does need to be more incentive to work harder, and wether that is a higher wage or something else, I don't really know the solution.

Darby Quast, Chapter 6, Question 6

One thing that stood out to me while reading chapter 6 was the passage about NAFTA.  If I was told about this before reading chapter 6, I would have agreed with Ross Perot.  Its logical to me to think that if America opened their borders to free trade with Mexico, America would be loosing jobs.  The reason this does not happen is productivity.  In many cases American workers can produce more than Mexican workers because they are better educated.  While jobs that require unskilled labor would be outsourced to different countries, there would be more jobs created by the increase in exports to Mexico.  Another example he gave was what the effect on America would be if 500 million people in india became more productive and moved into the middle class.  At first I thought this could potentially hurt America, more people to compete with but this is not true.  Those 500 million people would be able to produce more goods, possibly find the cure for AIDS or fix global warming.  Overall an increase in productivity helps everyone.

Max Hobrough Chapter 6, Question 6

In Chapter 6 Charles Wheelin talks about how the economy and how it has been shaped to fit our needs and the global needs in the current time. There is the whole issue if income equality and why people like bill gates can buy 100 million dollar homes and other people sleep in boxes. This is just a matter of the fact that bill gates has a special and rare talents that helped him to do things he has done and make all of the money. Generally speaking if you have a skill set that is very uncommon and useful odds are that you are going to not go unemployed, but land a good job and be successful. Because of this there is one small part that stuck out to me not just because it was dealing with Nike and building planes, rather that people always criticize how wrong these sweatshops are. We briefly talked about this in class and I realized that these sweatshops are a lot better than what they could be doing. There is actually competition in the sweatshops just like other markets on who can make the good for the cheapest price. This goes back to the point where their skill set is not desired because millions of people can make Nike shoes in a factory and not millions of people can create computer software. This all dwindles down to the simple fact that a worker with a high skill set is not going to be working in a sweatshop they are going to be more desired and obviously become more wealthy because of what they have to offer.

Jonathan Webb, Chapter 6, Question 5

     I don't think human capitalism and income inequality is controversial, they're just very debatable topics. The fact that he started out using the Bill Gates example was very helpful to understand the rest of the chapter. For human capitalism and income inequality I don't think the wealthy acknowledge it as much as the poor obviously because the wealthy are already there, while the poor are wondering why they ended up having to be the ones with so little and wealthy just get to do what they want to do. I agree with that income inequality is good. It gives the poor motivation to be better or to make their situation better. How he used the small town example where one person filled with human capital comes in and makes a huge difference to the town. I think that can easily relate to the sports world today. Most of these professional athletes grew up in poverish communities, and were able to make it to the pros. I think the biggest factor in creating more people like that is going back. Having a successful professional athlete go back to his home town and motivate the kids to work hard and get through school gives them that motivation to become famous and to get lots of money. I think another good example of this is what Warren Buffet is doing with his kids. He gave none of his money to him. He's making them earn it on their own. By doing so, I think it makes his become more educated and learn what it takes to get where their dad is. Make them strive to do better than he did. Rather than just not learning a thing about the world and sitting at their big house that they didn't earn. To have a successful economy, you have to have lots of production, and to have lots of production, I think you need income inequality.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 6, Question 6

Right off that bat I thought the distinction that Wheelan made between natural human capital and acquired human capital was interesting. The distinction is obvious, and yet over looked. When do baseball fans ever stop to think about the "natural" human capital that their favorite players have?In fact  when do people ever stop to think about how important it is to develop their human capital. Sadly not everybody is born with a natural human capital worth millions of dollars like Joe Mauer. So where do we go from there? Wheelan writes about how people with developed human capital would be more likely to survive and get back up on their feet if they were turned out on the streets than a person with an underdeveloped human capital. If somebody like Donald Trump were stripped of all his money and possessions, then he would have a greater chance of getting back on his feet than a high school drop out. Why, simply because Donald Trump is educated (developed human capital,) and the high school drop out is not (underdeveloped human capital.) This chapter teaches the importance of developing your human capital. 

Chapter 6 Question 4

In chapter 6 of Naked Economics Wheelan comes up with a few solutions to poverty. First off he talks about how poverty is a symptom of an illness. The illness is the lack of human capital. People living in poverty in this world most likely don't have human capital. They haven't been educated, haven't been taught much, and most likely haven't been taught skills that would make them valuable in this world. Wheelan uses the analogy of human capital as if someone was stripped away from everything and what is left with them is their skills, virtues, and assets that make them valuable in this world, that is their human capital. So the solution is human capital. Investing human capital in this world will decrease poverty. I think of poverty as in some cases a constant cycle. The parents didnt get education and lack human capital and therefore can't find a job or work making them poor. Now their kids are living in poverty and won't most likely get education due to their parents. Now those kids have kids and the cycle continues. So the solution isn't to just give them money or give hand outs, the solution is human capital. Educate them, train them, open them up to skills they are gifted with but can't know because of the state their in. Now say the kid gets educated and trained with skills, the kid has kids and educates them and the cycle is destroyed thanks to human capital. Praise God for human capital and the gifts he has given us!

Kiera Ziegler, Chapter 6, Question 7

This chapter corrected a misconseption that I previously had about jobs. Previous to this chapter I believe that inorder for me to be emplyed someone else will have to work less or be unemployed. I believed that there were limited jobs and the number of jobs available didn't change; I was wrong. This chapter illuminated why this was a flawed way of thinking. Over the years more and more jobs have been created as more and more people enter the work force and unemployment numbers have stayed generally pretty low. If there were a fixed number of jobs this would not be possible. As people invent new goods and find faster more effecient ways to create goods more jobs are created. People will lose jobs with others coming in to the work force with more knowledge but this only boosts the economy. Those people are forced to find another job or further thier education. When individuals further their education they are making a good investment and benefiting the economy. More jobs are created then lost with innovation.

Gunnar Nelson, chapter 6, question 6

In the openning pages of the chapter, Wheelan defines human capital as being worth more than your wealth, and materialistic lifestyle. If Bill Gates were stripped of his wealth and home, and was cast onto the street, he would be back on his feet and earning money in a heart beat. How can this happen? Human capital. 

Wheelan goes on to describe human capital in different analogies. I find two passages most interesting.   Wheelan relates human capital to the overall healthiness of the economy. When the "tide" rises, all boats will be lifted, however even then, unskilled workers will still be hanging on to the "driftwood" out of desperation. Continuing the paragraph, Wheelan explains " A robust economy does not transform valet parking attendents into college professors, investments in human capital do that." Personally this is a small sense of relief, and encouragment. As long as you have the willingness to learn and the work ethic to do so, you will develop human capital, which in turn can make you more valuable to the eonomy and workforce. 

Scott Stewart, Chapter 6, Question 2

After i read this chapter, I immediately ran to my parents and thanked them. I thanked them for putting a huge monetary investment into me so that i could get an education. Human Capital affects everyone in the world everyday, even though most of us are probably not even aware of its existence. Because my parents have invested their money into making sure that i have the best high school(and hopefully college)  education possible I will be significantly better off for the rest of my life. The job opportunities that i get will be better and my(and everyone else's) quality of life will be improved because of it.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 6, Question #6

The passage that really struck me from this reading was the early section on human capital that essentially said that those who are in poverty are in that state due to a lesser quantity of useful human capital. This seemed to me somewhat offensive until it was clarified that the belief was not necessarily applied without the consideration of addiction, disability and the like. Further explanation also brought up the importance of applied effort through education and training in order to gain human capital. My aforementioned discomfort with the idea was replaced with an understanding of the resource of human capital.

Another aspect of the passage that struck me as significant is the idea that the uniqueness of human capital dictates the level of success, which based on the examples seems quite true. Nearly anyone can learn how to flip a burger, but far fewer people can effectively argue a case in court and a great deal fewer can become astronauts. Just as limited and desirable products are worth more on the product market, limited and desirable skills are worth more in the job market.

Julia Carle, Chapter 6, Question #7

In chapter six of Naked Economics, Wheelan writes that he believes the reason for poverty is human capital and they can't find good jobs. The underlying problem is a lack of skills he writes. Wheelan basically is saying that illiterate people will not prosper economically because of their lack of skills, and he gives statistics to back up his belief. Even though I agree with Wheelan this issue could be somewhat controversial. He even said that Sacramento, California and Atlanta, Georgia actually went out and bought one way tickets for the people below the poverty line in their city in attempts to better their economy and make crime go down. I had no idea that that happened so they'd get rid of the poor people. After reading this chapter, I've learned that there is proof that people who don't go to college or dropout of high school don't do as well, economically speaking. I've always thought that, but now I know there's proof.

Zach Du, Chapter 6, Question 6

In Chapter 6, Wheelan gives us some compelling datas to demonstrate the importance of productivity and human capital:"In 1870, the typical household required 1,800 hours of labor just to acquire its annual food supply; today, it takes about 260 hours of work. Over the course of the twentieth century, the average work year has fallen from 3,100 hours to about 1,730 hours"(136). All of these progresses because one simple rule:"the more productive we are, the richer we are"(135). Nobody has to be poor in the first place; if a person is aware of the importance of human capital and productivity, he or she would definitely work hard in school, therefore find a better job and increase the productivity in certain field which they work for. "Human capital creates opportunities. It makes us richer and healthier; it makes us more complete human beings; it enables us to live better while working less. Most important from a public policy perspective, human capital separates the haves from the have-nots"(147).

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 6, Question 7

What I learned in this chapter is how extremely important human capital is and how poverty is linked with it. Why are there poor people and where does the income inequality come from? It all depends on human capital - that means: all our skills, intelligence, health, creativity etc. The price of these skills depends on scarcity. Ronaldo and Messi are one of the best paid football players because nobody else can play like them. Our human capital can be naturally gifted or we obtain it through education or specialized training. "Human capital is by far the most important form of capital in creating wealth and growth." Therefore,new should not neglect investing in our education because it really pays off. A fact that I didn't know was that in some countries the right to immigrate is based on skills and education- human capital! 

And how is this linked with poverty? For example India, one of the poorest countries in the world, has an illiteracy rate of 35%. That means their human capital is not developed and weak. In the US, for example, homeless people are often disabled, mentally ill or addicted, something that affects their human capital.

Also, I broadened my view by looking at the Bill Gates example - he did not take a bigger slice of pie, he made the pie bigger! And so when some people would think that he stole our parts, he actually made us all better off (even if it wasn't his intention). "Human capital creates opportunities."

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 6, Question 2

It's coming to the point in my life where I am constantly considering what my future will be. Not only am I always thinking about where I am going to be next year, but people are also constantly questioning me about what college I have decided on. Through my college search and talking with others, I have come to realize that college is the very beginning of much more education to come. Graduate school is slowly becoming the next college due to the increased amount of people who attend college in the recent generations. 

Chapter 6 of Naked Economics points out the fact that as productivity and human capital increases, people become increasingly better off. I've been taught that hard work pays off which is why I noticeably tend to have a type A personality when it comes to school and the effort I put into it. However, Charles Wheelan reassures the encouragement I have recieved from my parents about the benefits that will come from hard work. Human capital has proven to be the core of America's success due to the drive that the citizens have towards working hard and recieving payments in various forms. 

Overall, this chapter was one big reassurance to me about the work I have put into school and the work I have yet to put in through college and what comes after. I plan on fully using my human capital to benefit not only myself, but hopefully many people around me. 

Jona Bakke, Chapter 6, Question #6

One passage that I found particularly interesting in Chapter 6 is when Wheelan discusses relative income. Wheelan first states that tradition economists believe that we should not care about the gap between rich and poor as long as we are all living better. That is, we should not care about our income relative to others as long as the economy is advancing and everyone is being made better off. Wheelan then goes on to explain how much influence relative income actually has on us.

Relative wealth becomes very important when determining one's utility, or happiness. There was a survey done by Robert Frank, a Cornell economist. He asked responders whether they would rather earn $110,000 when everyone else is earning $200,000, or if they would rather earn $100,000 when everyone else is earning $85,000. The survey found that most Americans would choose the second option, even though they would be earning much less income. Wheelan explains that envy may play a role in this decision but also that "in complex social environments we seek ways to evaluate our performance. Relative wealth is one of them."

This part of the chapter really struck me as interesting. Would most Americans really rather live worse off just to be ahead of everyone else? According to the experiment, the status of others really plays into how we evaluate our own achievements.

Rita Hammer, Chapter 6, question 6

Something that particularly stood out to me in chapter 6 was towards the end. It was concluded after talking about how the key to becoming successful is through human capital, that if everyone becomes a doctor, engineer, entrepenuer, etc. there will still be "sludge work." As I first read this, I started to ask the question, is poverty/people who lack education and talent necesarry for the economy to keep running smoothly? Wheelan quickly affirms the answer as no by saying, "the wage for hauling sludge would get bid up to the point that some individual- a doctor, or an engineer..- would be willing to leave a more pleasant job to hail sludge. Thus a world rich in human capital may still have unpleasant tasks...but no one has to be poor." Some people might even do these sometimes satisfying jobs and settle for less money. Simply by saying "well, somebody has to clean toilets and work at McDonalds," is no excuse for people not to become educated and develop skills associated with human capital.

Angela Scharf, Chapter 6, Q.6

     Human capitol is the sum total of skills embodied within an individual. Examples include: level of education, charisma, word experience, or essentially anything that defines us as an individual rather than a job, house or socioeconomic status. The importance of human capitol is that an individual with good attributes can be placed in almost any situation and radiate because of their uniqueness and ability to communicate intellect. Productivity and human capitol go hand in hand because the knowledge of a person will lead to more efficient ways to do things, therefore higher productivity. An example of this is the reason behind why America is one of the richest countries in the world; it's because we are simply better at producing goods and services. The worth of our society as a whole is based on our total stock of human capitol. Investing in human capitol is one of the smartest moves an economy can make.
     Why is India one of the poorest countries in the world? It's because over 35% of the population is illiterate. Why should we care, other than the fact that we should generally try to be moral human beeings and keep track of other human suffering? It's because if other world countries experience productivity growth, it makes the U.S. wealthier because they can now afford to buy our goods and products. One of the biggest mistakes a government can make is thinking that there is a fixed amount of work to be done in the economy. Instead of "replacing the pie" we can make the pie bigger through productivity.

Madison Webster, Chapter 6, Question 6

The first couple pages of chapter 6 really stood out to me. The contrast that Wheelan makes is so powerful, he says, "Why do some people have indoor trampolines and private jets while others sleep in bus station bathrooms?"(126). This is sad to me because it is so unbelievable true. We are all human and have our own unique qualities, but why are some more fortunate than others? Wheelan gives a simple answer: human capital. Many rich people, when left with nothing, still have a skill. Leonardo DiCaprio would still have his acting skills, Brett Favre would still be able to throw a football precisely, Albert Einstein would still have all the knowledge he obtains, people would still be willing to hire these people. However, I didn't say all rich people have this, I said many. There are many people who are rich because they are "trust fund babies". Many kids don't have the same skills as their parents yet they still grow up with an abundance of money and toys. I believe a situation like this wouldn't relate to human capital because the sum of skills a child protigy obtains is likely low. I also notice that many poor people have skills that are unbeleive but simply do not get noticed. I have seen many YouTube videos where homeless people sing and it is crazy how good they are. I guess the only thing you can say is: Life isn't fair.

Harris worthman, chapter 8, question 2

When I was reading chapter 8 of Naked Economics I stumbled upon a passage about college universities and how many of which have tons of teachers that are not, in fact, licensed. This stuck out to me and it was at that moment that I recollected a tale told to me by my sister (a current student at North Eastern University) about how her college went from being unknown to one of the top 50 business universities in the country in less than 20 years. To my surprise it was one big economic illusion that boosted NU's ranks. In 1996 NU was struggling to keep itself alive and the new president of NU saw an opportunity in the massive parking lot surrounding NU. What he did is he created more buildings which, in return, made the classes smaller as well as added more classes. Having a larger campus and more classes to choose from makes a school more desirable, however, it also has it's drawbacks. The main drawback is that it is harder for students to get into the classes they want and, in my sister's case, this makes everything way more chaotic. Another big drawback is that the tuition rose to a fairly large amount immediately after the construction and many students dropped out or transferred within the next year. Not only that but since North Eastern, at the time, had been ranked 146 in the country in business, students looking into the college were quickly turned off by the high tuition and NU suffered for the next year. That is until NU's rank started to rise due to the sudden changes. In a matter of years NU became notorious in Boston and many students flocked to the "up and coming" business university. North Eastern University; the school that added a couple bricks and became one of the top 50 business universities in the country.

Kiera Ziegler, Chapter 8, Question 5

The last couple pages in this book struck me as sad and illuminating. I find it sad that politicians have to lie to become elected because we as a public do not do what we can to understand the full meaning and truth behind what they tell us. This is a problem that is not easily solved. In order for this to stop all politicians would need to stop lying but there would always be someone that would lie to get themselves elected. It is frustrating for me to hear a politician admit that they lie to become elected. This is the root of why politicians get a bad reputation, they are used to lying to get what they want and we as a public reward them by electing them. It is sad to me that the public does not seek out the truth try to understand political topics so politicians are able to just tell us what sounds good.

Chapter 8 question 6 Nick t

In chapter 8 Wheelan addresses how the government spends around $7 billion on pointless farms. This tax subsidy is bestowed on a small group of farmers(2 percent), putting money in each of the farmers pockets while the costs are spread over the remaining 98 percent of us. You may think and wonder how the heck this happens, but by the 98 percent of us who don't know about these subsidies the people who do are the farmers who obviously vote for the subsidies. This is absolutely shocking and ridiculous how presidential campaigns are becoming transactional in the way that they will do things for people if they receive their votes. We are seeing this happen today with farmers. With the farmers votes in states like Iowa where they are a caucus state which leads to a huge impact on the election. 
 Overall I find this shocking how we as the people are letting this happen. We need to make a change and so do presidential campaigns. With them being transactional instead of transformational and benefitting the economy, they hurt the economy. The government can really determine the US economy so as the people we need to be engaged in what they are doing.

Zach Du, Chapter 8, Question 6

In Chapter 8, Wheelan illustrates an example of interest groups which I found was quite fascinating:"My doctoral dissertation set out to explain a seemingly anomalous pattern in Illinois: The state requires barbers and manicurists to be licensed, but not the electricians. A shoddy electrical job could burn down an entire neighborhood; a bad manicure or haircut seems relatively more benign"(183). These groups are seek to get licensed, and in Illinois the size and budget of its professional association is the best predictor. Sometimes, they would obtain the opportunity to make legislators to do things which are not beneficial to our economy, "The broader the scope of government, the more room there is for special interests to carve out deals for themselves that have nothing to do with the legitimate functions of government described in Chapter 3"(183).

Taylor Bye, Chapter 6, Question #6

Innovation. Ideas. Light bulb moments, to use the slang. It is these ideas that come from the minds of human beings that lead to new businesses and new jobs. It is from these people and their beautiful minds and the skills they posses that we get human capital.

Wheelan talks about human capital being an "economic passport" and it is quite. He speaks about a Palestinian man he met named Gamal Abouali. He was studying to become an engineer and was bound to graduate from college in three years instead of four. This overachieving attitude was instilled upon him by his father, who was an accountant. The push to get through college at this pace was more or less a push to get him into the work force at a faster pace. Engineering, like accounting, is a very versatile occupation. Companies are always looking for engineers and accountants. Since this fact is present, you can see that this human capital is in high demand which is good for those like Gamal.

The fact of the matter is, the more skills and education you have, the better off you'll be in the future. Like my great grandfather used to say: "education is the one thing that no one can take from you."

Taylor Bye, Chapter 8, Question #4

Oh dear, farming again! My mind instantly flew back to that sassy reporter and the equally stubborn cotton farmers he was interviewing.

Here Wheelan discusses mohair farmers and how they have received nearly 40 years of subsidies from the government. Okay, before this book, I had never even HEARD of mohair. I mean really, I'm fine with just wool, thank you very much.

So the question raised here, as well as that interview with the cotton farmers, is why is the government subsidizing seemingly insignificant products? Why can't that money go to education funding or more all-incomposing health care? Well, these insignificant products, as Wheelan states, cost insignificant amounts of taxpayer's money. But the idea still stands: why does the government pay for things that seem to be economic drains for well earned money to just swirl down into? Why is it that economists are so smart and yet hit brick walls when trying to push through their intelligent ideas?

The answer, however slightly vague, can be found in Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker's seminal paper. "When it comes to interest group politics, it pays to be small." What Becker was essentially saying is that all equally small and well organized groups were most successful in politics and their process because the costs of the favors they get from the system are spread out over a large part of the population. I guess meaning that the government decides to pay small groups, no matter how insignificant they seem (cough cough mohair cough) in order to spread that money beyond to the greater population.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 8, Question #7

This chapter introduced the idea of interest groups. It opened my eyes to the societal issue of taking political positions at face value. The fact that so much money goes toward the ethanol subsidy, for example, seems absurd, but that doesn't stop it from happening. It almost makes me wish you could set the country down for a lesson in economics and doing the proper research. I wonder how much money the country could be putting towards other more worthy causes if they discontinued subsidies that benefit very few people. Logically, it would seem that this would also boost the economy by forcing those who subsisted on these subsidies to pursue other professions and specialize in newer technologies. However, they may be too simplistic a view. It still stands that the public needs to pay more attention to the information behind certain policies. (ex. Ethanol is good - or is it?, Raising the minimum wage would help low income workers - or would it?)

Scott Stewart, chapter 5, question

In chapter 8 Wheelan talks about "earmarks." This is where a congressman will support eachother's bills, but only if ere is somthing that helps their district. The author gave the example of a "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. The government allocated money towards a bridge that would never be built. The author also talked about how most politicians thought that these were evil unless it benefited the politician. For example, most politician were against it unless it was supportig their nearby children's hospital.
I beleive that these earmarks are a nessesary evil. Nobody would put funding anywhere in politics unless it directly benefited themselves. Because of this in order to get funding for these nessesary things we sometimes must fund unnessesary things.

Gunnar Nelson, Chapter 8, Question 2

After reading chapter 8 in Naked Economics, I have learned that the government stepping in can suppress the stimulation and growth of an Economy. I have come to learn and appreciate the effects of government subsidies through my own experiences, but came to the overall conclusion in this chapter. 

In 2009 the car company GM went bankrupt, the government decided to bail out GM, spending over 50 billion dollars in expenses. If the government had not decided to bailout GM, the company would have had to cut back on cars on their line that were not selling as well as the overall size and employment of their company would have to be re-utilized. As a result the company would be forced to produce more effectively and grow economically stronger as a result of their failure. GM would have probably turned out just fine. But as a result of the bailout, GM has an overproduction of cars and resources that are sitting in a vacant lot. This is what would happen if the government stepped in, however there are companies that are not bailed out of bankruptcy and do just fine. 

Hostess' comback in the competative world represents just that. Hostess declared bankruptcy, and around 7 months later, stores were re-stocking shelves with twinkies, ding-dongs, and mini-donuts. How did this happen? Hostess made a decision to withdraw all production and revise their employment, and running of their corporation. " The sweetest comeback in history" has been attributed to economic a corporal running decisions without subsidies or a bailout from the government. 

Angela Scharf, Chapter 8, Q.2

     The topics brought up in this chapter are especially relevant to students our age because we are at the age where we are eligible to vote. We need to actually understand who and what we're voting for. Economics ties into politics because suggestions to fix problems and suffering may be produced by economists, yet they go nowhere because politicians stand in the way. This is not because they necessarily agree or disagree with the policy, but as campaign slogan, the idea may not be popular. Their prime motivation is to 1) get in office and 2) get reelected in office, but sometimes that means pushing ideas that get the voters riled up. What they're promoting is not always what's best.
     Because most of our classmates will be turning eighteen soon, we need to become familiar with how politics work. Although some (most?) politicians campaign on popular ideas, it is our job to do our own research and get necessary background on the topics at hand. It angers me that office holders are more interested in spitting hallow promises to get reelected, than to blatantly address problems and risk getting outvoted, yet it is our responsibility to not conform with the majority, and actually understand what we're voting for instead of acting on faulty facts and catchy campaign slogans.
   

Miriam Scheel. Chapter 8. Question 2.

One of the passages has a title that says death through thousand subsidies. In this passage Wheelan argues that each subsidy and trade protection and tax break and price support taken on its own is insignificant, so small when shared by the whole population of the U.S. that no one notices the parts of cents per dollar they spend on unnecessary support each time they pay their taxes. No one notices and that is why they are so successful. And every year tax money is spend on upholding economies that, after the laws of the capitalist market would be gone or at least shrunken down by now. 

This does affect everyone. Maybe not because the few cents spend every year for nothing would have been the ones who saved the concerning person from the hunger death (hopefully), but more because there are so many areas in today's society that could need this money. By supporting the people that really do need support (which are not sugar or corn farmers). And that could improve everyone's life. Taxes are meant to provide a population with things that are needed and can't be gotten by individuals. Not to fill allready full pockets of other individuals.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 8, Question 6

In this chapter Wheelan writes about the "status quo" of capitalism. Wheelan talks about normal progression in legislative policies, innovations in business and technology. A normal progress would be the "destruction" of old/dated policies and technology, and the implementation of new policies and technologies. I thought this was interesting, because of the positive, and negative affects these changes have on society. For example if a factory worker's job is terminated, because of a innovation and implementation of new technology, then the worker would suffer the loss of his/her finical support, and security. Though the worker is unhappy, the factory owner would be happy with a decrease in his/her factor payments. 

Madison Webster, Chapter 8, Question 6

The part of the chapter 8 that I found interesting was when Wheelan starts talking to the reader. "Yes, ladies and gentlement, we are the special interests. All of us" (187). This really drew me in and realized that everything Wheelan has been discussing pertains to me! It was interesting how he said that when somebody does something good or right, the people who you benefit will probably barely notice. The people who will notice are the people who were negatively affected. For example, say you make a decision to cut out eggplant parmasean as a school lunch because nobody seems to keen on it. Well, the people who didn't really care for it, will be glad its out of the way but it doesn't impact them that much because they have other options to choos from as well. Those student who love the lunch will be extrememly dissappointed because their favorite option is now gone! I have never really thought about this before and I find it to be true.

Darby Quast, chapter 8, Question 6

The concept of special interests is what stood out to me the most while reading chapter 8.  I found it very interesting that for the most part, things go well for the smaller groups even when it is hurting most other people. Logically it seems as though everything would be done for the benefit of the most people, but that rarely happens. For example, the mohair farmers or farmers that grow corn.  These people make up a very small percentage of the population but are recovering large subsidies at the cost of everyone else.  The reason this goes unnoticed is the cost of the subsidies is spread out between so many people.  What would be one or two cents to normal people would be thousands of dollars to the mohair or corn farmers. This is why Wheelan said "it pays to be small".

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 8, Question 6

A passage that interested me was about ethanol. Gasoline with ethanol is taxed 5.4 cent less that pure gasoline because it was believed that it burns more cleanly and it also makes us less dependent from foreign oil, so it was subsidized by the government. Actually, a study showed that ethanol can even contribute to ozone problem and the corn farming, which provides ethanol uses fertilizers and pesticides which also harm the environment. It cost the Treasury $7.1 billion to provide the subsidy. However, this theme became crucial when it came to politics- especially Iowa campaigns. The farmers wanted the subsidies and as we learned in this chapter, small, organized groups can be pretty effective when they want to achieve something. They benefited a lot from the subsidy (30 cents were added to every bushel sold) but us, the remaining 98 percent, do not really notice the pennies of our taxes that go to them, we are usually ignorant. And so when politicians concentrate on a specific group and their interest, they can easily get their votes by promising them benefits, like the corn subsidy here. By the way, Obama was a ethanol subsidy supporter, John McCain wasn't.

Julia Carle, Chapter 8, Question #6

One passage in chapter eight of Naked Economics that really stood out to me was the fact that for teachers, certification requirements have no correlation with the performance in the classroom. Wheelan went onto give an example of this from Los Angeles, California. His example was that the state of California made a law to reduce class sizes, probably so students could get more one on one time with the teacher to help the student learn. When they did this though, schools were forced into hiring many, many new teachers some uncertified.  The school then used data from this to figure out if it was a good change. They found out that it really does matter if you have a good teacher, and that certification doesn't matter.
This really stood out to me because I thought the results/data would be different. I thought it would've turned out that uncertified teachers would be equivalent to a bad teacher, not because they're dumb or don't know the material, but because they hadn't gone through the specific training for teaching. This passage in chapter eight of Naked Economics surprised me and interested me to learn more about the schools thinking and kind of the idea of hiring a ton more unqualified people to do the job just as well, which I was unaware of previously reading this chapter.

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 8, Question 6

A resonating point Charles Wheelan brought up through the chapter is the fact that "When it comes to interest group politics, it pays to be small (p.170)". This quote, along with the example of the corn farmers that followed, stuck out to me immensely. 

It's interesting that the people that have the most passion about something tend to be people that are included in a smaller group. They are the people who I thought tended to be glanced over as the politicians are more focused on the other 98 percent of the population. Little did I know that these small groups, when passionate enough, gain subsidies and benefits from the government. However, when these small groups add up on top of each other, those mere pennies that come from our taxes to subsidize corn farmers. Wheelan also uses an example of right handed voters vs left handed voters and if we gave a benefit to right handed voters, the lefties would have to pay for it. A wise politician would go with the small group of lefties and gain their votes. It struck me because that isn't necessarily how I thought it was. I always tended to assume that the large group won most of the time. 

Wheelan ends this segment of the chapter by saying, "In politics, the tail can wag the dog (p. 180)". 

This humorous slogan and segment is what stuck out to me most from this chapter because of the new knowledge and creative thinking behind it.  

Rita Hammer, Chapter 8, Question 5

In chapter 8, the author talks about unnecessary subsidies. Wheelan points out that many of these subsidies appear to be small and not significantly effecting the economy as a whole; however, he says, "But in total, these things-and the tens of thousands of others like them-are significant. Little inefficiencies begin to disrupt the most basic function of a market economy." As government continues to protect individuals in the market, the abundance of subsidies that are only benefiting the well being of smaller groups increases. In the end, as Jona mentioned, the majority of us are losing out on benefits that would be gained if the economy was given the chance to grow. Wheelan states the overall problem pertaining to these "tax shelters": "Governments should not be in the business of providing incentives for people to do things that would not otherwise make sense."

Small groups have incentive to get what they want from the Government. If the Government is willing to help them, why shouldn't they? The problem of these 'small' acts of kindness made by the Government are, in reality, too large of acts due to the fact that the rest of society is losing out on opportunity to expand. The individual citizens asking for help are not the only people who are acting the way they are, out of self interest. The politicians to whom they are turning to are purposefully handing over the solution the small groups desire because in the end the politician gains more voters. Developing a stance on the issue is hard because people are almost always going to act according to what benefits them. Wouldn't most of us ask for help if we were about to lose our farm or become unemployed? Is the issue even possible to fix?

Jona Bakke, Chapter 8, Question #3

Chapter eight discusses the effect that government regulations can have on the future of an economic system and a community as a whole. Many firms and individuals who are threatened by bankruptcy and layoffs due to new, competing technology and ideas seek help from politicians. But, as Wheelan states, "There is a crucial distinction, however, between using the political process to build a safety net for those harmed by creative destruction and using the political process to stop that creative destruction in the first place" (Wheelan 184-185).

American society advances when the government refuses to protect "old structures" in a way that will inhibit "new structures" from emerging. In the fifteenth century, China was more advanced than the United States in technology, engineering, exploration, and farming. However, "the Chinese elites valued stability more than progress" (Wheelan 186). As a result, America experienced the Industrial Revolution while China banned further exploration and societal changes.

Decisions involving development made by political leaders pose long-term consequences for the future of the nation. While the government can be helpful in offering aid or compensation for those who lose their jobs due to advancement, it can do more harm than good if the government listens to people's pleas to stand in the way of innovation.

Harris Worthman, Chapter 4, Question 6

I found it really frustrating how politicians with a ton of power can act so selfish and in their own interests. In chapter 4 of Naked Economics he talks about how the government was to make a relatively simple decision of where to put funds for a particle accelerator. The choices were either Texas or Illinois. Illinois was obviously the better choice; "...it already had a particle accelerator and a major federal laboratory. Much of the scientific infrastructure was in place and would not have to be duplicated," but since president knuckle-head was born and raised in Texas he made the bold decision, despite all the good reasons to have the money go towards the Illinois particle accelerator, to create yet another billion dollar disaster and spend money on Texas, only to abandon the entire project later.

Kiera Ziegler, Chapter 4, Question 2

These issue that he brings up do affect my life directly and indirectly. When I work in the summer my income is taxed, this affects me directly. When my parents are taxed and they have less money this affects me indirectly. Another issue he brings up is transferring money from the rich to the poor with taxes. This is something he brought up in a previous chapter and he mentioned how this system is not effective. This issue will affect me in the future because I believe that the government is going to have to change how it transfers money to the poor. Taxes will also affect me greatly in the future because I will taxed on just about everything and I will want to know how that money is being spent. He bring up the main issue of giving the poor and attempting to give to people in need is that no one agrees on what is appropriate to give and how to give it. Each country differs in how they spread out their goods and some are more successful then others.

Peter Webster, Chapter 4, Question 6

I thought it was interesting when Wheelan talked about Gary Becker and his striped bass problem. He is a consumer of striped bass and the numbers of these fish were going down, so "the government imposed a limit on the total commercial catch of striped bass allowed every season." Becker realized the problem that comes with this; fisherman will go early in the season to catch all of the fish they can before the quota is up, but then they sell their fish in big supply and do not get as much money as they should from them. Later in the year consumers cannot even get striped bass because they are all gone at that point. Wheelan says, "Regulation can disrupt the movement of capital and labor, raise the cost of goods and services, inhibit innovation, and otherwise shackle the economy." So it is tough for the government to know how to handle situations where a supply is running low, but if they made a rule like they did, it completely ruins the market. Massachusetts eventually changed their system so that the quota was able to be filled individually and at any time throughout the season. This worked better for the market and for the fisherman.

Griffin Pontius chapter 4 question 7

       While reading chapter 4, an intresting idea had struck me.  In the beginning of the chapter, the author writes about how government can be very good, and how government can be very bad.  The author goes further into this by stating "if government were so wonderful, then the most government intensive countries in the world - places like North Korea or Cuba- would become economic powerhouses."  This was not imedatily surprising to me, I knew that in general, communism doesn't sound horrible on paper, but when implemented, it always fails.
       However the author contiunes into this, and as he does this, I recived the following idea from the passage.  The government is great at controlling goods that are inelastic, simply because they are inelastic; however if the government begins to control the elastic market, it appears to fail.  This is supported by the idea of communism.  Communism has never worked on paper and one of the reasons why is government control over elastic goods.  Later in the chapter, the author talks about how USSR allocated reasources towards a space program rather than feeding their own people.  Had the government not been controlling the market, there is no reason that this wouldn't have happened.  Moral of the story, communism is not a good thing.  

Scott Stewart, Chapter 4, question 2

The government's decisions don't directly affect me every day, but they do have effects on my life. For example, both my parents are lawyers who went to prestigious law schools. Because the government only allows "cadillac" lawyers my parents are probably paid more for theirnwork because there is a smaller supply of lawyers. This is beneficial to me but probably harms those who can't afford lawyers. Another way the government affects me is when they meddle in the economy. When they do this things may become either more or less expensive for me.

Zach Du, Chapter 4, Question 6

Chapter 4 illustrates how the government affects the economy. Wheelan's second thought about the role of the government in the economy especially stand out to me:"Some government activity shrinks the size of the pie but still may be socially desirable"(102). In order to build a stable economic environment for society, it is inevitable for government to collect more taxes from capitals. Therefore, countries like France would be a great place for poor kids since it "guarantee some pie for everybody"; US on the hand is better for high-tech engineers to live due to the higher per capita  income, yet "a higher proportion of children living in poverty" because of the policy differences.

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 4, Question 6

A passage that highly interested me was the old joke of a woman in Soviet Union that wanted to buy a Lada. There were so many people waiting for it that she should come back in 2 years. She then asked if she should come in the morning or afternoon because the plumber is coming that day. This story shows how inefficient the former government of USSR was in allocating resources. They had the money to build a rocket and compete with the Americans, but they were feckless in providing its citizens with other, more necessary, goods. It all depended on who was the politician and what was their incentive. And as we know, bad incentives can ruin the economy. The politicians were all corrupt, you could get well off if you had friends in the government. Politicians also made sure that other high positions in government, army etc. were occupied by their family members or friends. They used the state's money for building their villas or  they accosted public land. This still can be seen in Slovakia.

I remember my mum saying that there was a store called Tuzex, which sold goods from the West. They were highly desired, expensive and limited- as called in the economy - scarce resources. When my mum and uncle got extra money, they spent it on the canned Coca-Cola drink. 

The services were not much better in USSR. As there were usually public businesses and services instead of private ones, employees had no incentive or motivation to be productive and more friendly because they wouldn't get more customers or get more paid. Until this day, old ladies at the desks of social services etc. are seldom friendly or productive. The communistic system is still present in the old generations. 

Olivia Barr, Question 2, Chapter 4

The issues discussed in this chapter directly affect my life on a daily basis. With regard to the example of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), it is true that they often have inconvenient hours, and can be very busy, which makes replacing your license a big pain; however, it is also true that the issuing of licenses is a necessity that should be controlled by the private sector (government) because it helps prevent from unfair pricing, and bad practices. The same goes with roads. It would take a very long time to get the public to find the building of a bridge, and when they came to an agreement the builder would probably be low cost, and have shoddy practices. In contrast, the government takes over with these types of projects, and applies tax dollars to pay for the construction, which is outsourced to a public company that has competed with other companies to earn the job, thus insuring (theoretically) the best product and the fairest price. The government can also use tax dollars with poor digression, like when president Bush chose Texas as the site for a new nuclear particle accelerator, even though Illinois already had a lot of the necessary infrastructure (so it would cost less in Illinois), this project was later abandoned after 1 billion tax dollars were spent on the project. In short, these things affect me because I have to trust that the government will make good decisions with my tax dollars (when I file taxes), because if it were left to civilians, we would probably not have good bridges, and there would be many more drivers licenses with false information on them.

Max Hobrough Chapter 4, question 7

In this chapter once again the main focus was about the government in the economy, but is shows some of the negative sides to this practice. There were a few example that the author gave like mail delivery service, steel plants, and negative regulations. This was very interesting to me because the chapter before the author was talking about how the government is saving and providing public goods through tax payers dollars. Now in fact when it comes to the private sector and something that a non- government program can do correctly the government swoops in to snag up what kind of revenue they can get by interfering with this. Eventhough this is looked at by a large portion of people as a bad thing the author directly says, "Politics is a necessary but imperfect process, and everyone has a right to seek influence"(Wheelan 87). When analyzing this statement I came to the conclusion that politics is really a huge factor in Our economy so much that some people do not even realize this and just pass it over. There are it's punishments to this method in the way that when the government regulates trade for the economy too much the people become turned away from it. If this happens too much you get to the point where you just look at the economy and you realize that it's just failing and that's all due to the government getting the nose in it. For conclusion, in some ways the government can help about to start programs like the post office, but in other ways they can regulate the economy too much and ultimately mess up the whole economy.

Angela Scharf, Chapter 4, Q.6

     A passage that is profound to me is at the very end of the chapter when Wheelan addresses the roles of the government as a whole. He chooses to shine the government in three different lights: 1) The thought that government has the potential to make everyone better off through the stimulation of the economy and 2) The thought that the government's involement constricts the economy, but it's still socially necessary and 3) The thought that the government's involvement in the economy is leading to our downfall.
     The first point states that a big government is essential to maintain the markets and the maximum utility. Big governments provide public goods that are unable to be otherwise obtained. Although one could make the argument that the U.S. government is increasingly corrupt at that capacity, it also has attributes that smaller governments couldn't provide such as more spending on resources.
     The second point states that some government policies may not be popular with the people, although these actions are in the people's best interest. Likewise, the popular demands of the people may not be the best course of action for the government. Examples of this is the debate over minimum wage, or whether lower tax rates would put more low-income earners to work at higher wages. These issues are especially tricky because people, depending on their socioeconomic backgrounds, are more or less willing to have a larger trade off between wealth and equality.
   The last point states that the government as a whole is detrimental, and it drags the economy down with it. Examples of this include government programs that begin with bad intentions, and stem off into faulty policies and laws. Greedy and corrupt politicians are also a real problem within this thought process. The economy is built to sustain the wealthy politicians, therefore teeing the market up to implode on itself.

Darby Quast, Chapter 4, Question 6

One passage that stuck out to me while reading chapter 4 was about the pharmaceutical college in Mumbai.  In India there are many people who are in extreme poverty and one way of fighting this is the education system, which has already brought a large portion of people out of poverty.  Recently there was a shortage of skilled workers which was slowing economic growth.  The solution would be to get more people in school, and therefore have more workers but because of the strict restrictions the Indian government has placed on its technical colleges this is impossible.  For example, a technical college must provide 168 square feet of building space for each student.  For the Principal K. M. Kundnani College of Pharmacy, that means they cannot teach more than 300 students.  There are also rules for the size of libraries and administrative offices, ratios between professors to assistant professors, and even the number of computer terminals.  I think that this shows that while the Indian government had good intentions while creating these rules, it ended up doing more harm than good.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 4, Question 3

In the beginning of this chapter Wheelan talks about monopolies. A monopoly can be anything from the only restaurant within miles that serves a rare delicacy to a single auto shop in a small town. A monopoly is "a service or commodity exclusively controlled by one party." (The Merriam Webster Dictionary 468) Wheelan gives some "food for the thought" in this chapter that intrigued me, and made me want to know and understand it more. Wheelan writes that public education is one of the largest government monopolies in the United States. I wondered how this could be, so I did some research on my own. The public education system is a monopoly because it holds a service that many Americans need: free education. The problem with the public education monopoly is that since the government funds the public school administrators, public schools can choose how to allocate those funds based on what they want, and not necessarily what parents want. If certain public high school decided to invest more time and money in the athletic and theater program, and not in the economic curriculum then perhaps certain graduated seniors who took economics would receive a below average education on economics.

I also wondered if the government cut public education funding, wouldn't public schools (out of their own rational self interest) hire fewer or less educated teachers? If my assumption that public schools would hire fewer or less educated teachers is true, then it would most definitely have negative effects on the future. Think of how many students attend public schools rather than private schools. Sadly if there aren't good teachers at public school then there would be an increase of poorly educated students (and later citizens) in society. 

Jona Bakke, Chapter 4, Question #7

In this chapter, I learned about some negative effects government decisions can have on the economy that I had never considered before. When the economy is controlled by the private sector, decisions involving where resources are allocated depend on what will be the most productive use of them in the market. However, when government has some control over an aspect of the economy, decisions are made based on politics.

Wheelan provides examples of economic decisions made by governments such as the production of steel plants in the former Soviet Union to ultimately build a rocket to go into space, and the investment of the high-speed particle accelerator, which was a project that required large amounts of money in resources but ended up being abandoned. Ultimately, these decisions that are made by politicians often direct tax money towards inefficient projects that fail to advance the economy. Wheelan states that, "the less the economy is left to politics, the better" (Wheelan 87).

Reading about the negative effects, as well as the positive effects, politics can have on the economy intrigued me and made me further understand how certain decisions are made pertaining to the use of resources and what their effects are.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 4, Question #6

The passage that stuck with me from this reading was the portion that mentioned the difficult process of passing the bar. It would seem that the benefit of having lawyers at different skill levels and therefore different price points would benefit both those studying law and those who are in need of lawyers. Less stringent requires for lawyers would employ more people as well as giving the option of affordable representation to the general population. This effectively displays the potentially detrimental effect of the government's involvement in the economy. While most people would agree that the justice system should be left in the hands of the government, here is an example in which a person may conclude that the government's hand has left the economy worse off.

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 4, Question 5

The role of the government and the politics that goes along with it is something that can be argued about endlessly around the globe. It is even a common phrase that there are two things you should not talk about: politics and religion. Well, in this chapter, Charles Wheelan discusses just how good and tragically bad a government can be. 

First this chapter centered around the amount of influence that is fitting for a government to have on its markets. Through many examples Wheelan explores the do's and don't's in government regulation and influence. With too much regulation, market flow is interfered with and it could be costly to profits of the market itself. In communist countries, regulation and monopolies are what they rely on and what they like. However, in the United States, the market prefers to receive little regulation from the government so monopolies don't always form and capitalism expands.

The second thing Wheelan focuses on is taxes. People could be, and have been, arguing about taxes for years! Wheelan points out the reason we don't lower tax rates to "increase revenue" because it won't increase the government revenue at all. In fact, it will most likely lower it. Throughout the world, taxes are argued at every level of government and it will be a rare day of we see people agree on one specific form of taxation. Furthermore, taxes can be increasingly helpful or detrimental to the economy as a whole. 

Overall, this chapter focused on very controversial issues that I have heard in conversations since childhood and will continue to hear. As a working citizen and not a very strong politician, I follow the regulations put in place because I trust the reasoning behind their placements and the people elected to place them there. 

Miriam Scheel, Chapter 4, Question 7

In this chapter I learned how complex the question oof government innvolvvvement actualy is. This question has been around in the U.S. for almost as long as the U.S. are an independent country: how much should the government regulate american citizens lifes, and how much should it regulate the economy. Should it be allowed to regulate our daily life or leave everything as it is and not touch any aspect of our life? In the end neither is desirable or practible in this country and a golden middle has to be found. If that exists in this case.

In the history of this country there have been good examples for and against strong and little influencive government. The communist government of the Soviet Union (and several still existing countries) provide several arguments that prove that overly controling governments hold back the economy and restrict its natural growth. In none of these countries would a margarita space pack ever been developed. And when in the U.S. The government made a decision that should have been left on its own, a particle accelerator ended up in Texas instead of Chicago where it would have been a lot more efficient. 

On the other hand does a less intrusive government not automatically lead to a faster growing economy and a better society as shown in examples from India, where a corrupt government lead to a corrupt, inefficient and unjust justice system, or the fishing restrictions in Massachusetts that backfired on everyone. 

All this information together should not lead to the conclusion that government, no matter how ingaged in society and economics, is allways failing, but that there is no absolute answers to how involved the government should be. It allways depends on the situation and the problems society faces. There are cases when the world turns without the government moving it, then the it would probably damage more than help, and there are cases in which the government is essential to the solution of a crisis. 

I was not aware of most of the aspects of this question, in my mind I had set up an answer that would solve all the problems, and even though I still believe in the direction this answer went I did realize that the question as well as the answer is a lot more complex than that.

Jonathan Webb, Chapter 4, Question 6

     Reading that the Harvard economist Jeffery Sachs estimated that sub Saharan Africa would be a third times richer today if malaria had been eradicated was very interesting. Weird that if DDT wasn't banned malaria could've bee almost completely gone and have saved many lives. And the point where I think he said later, it's not if the government regulates or not but it's how they regulate it is really important. Because that carries over to his other example of Gary Becker and how many fish they were allowed to catch and taxes later on in the chapter. It's crazy to think that the government might think they're helping a huge problem when they're actually making it worse. Sometimes I get confused how the government makes these decisions, I mean each person in congress and the president need to have there own personal economist. Well the president probably does, but everyone else needs to have one. And the reason why these things happens is because politics, and that's what I think this world can be so much better. I know he mentioned politics are good but politics means people start acting for their own party and not for their country or world. Here in the US, politicians end up always at a stalemate and don't get anything done because they don't want the other party to look good. I know this got of topic but I don't know. Something that was on my mind.

Rita Hammer, chapter 4, question 5

In chapter 4, the overall topic was about how much weight the government should have in a society. People across he globe have completely opposite views as to what level of power the government should have in order to be successful. Many societies in history have repeatedly failed due to the governments power. When the government has full control as to how all money is distributed, people end up suffering from extreme poverty; however,  the market wouldn't even exist if government was eliminated completely, and chaos would be the norm. Wheelan says, "government creates and sustains the legal framework that makes markets possible.....thus, the notion that smaller government is always better government is simply wrong." Overall, the two ends of the spectrum (powerful government vs. weak government) have both proved to have extreme faults thoughout history. Being controlled by any so person or group is undesirable; however, perhaps it is in our best interest to have a balance between being controlled and having complete freedom, in order to obtain a healthy society.

Julia Carle, Chapter 4, Question #6

In chapter four of Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan, one passage that particularly stood out to me was the passage about the "helping hand" versus the "grabbing hand" idea. And it also talked about how it's so much harder for entrepreneurs in poorer countries to start up a business and get profit. Entrepreneurs in poorer countries have to pay like twice what their salary would be just to a business license. Another thing that struck me was the fact that in Canada, if you wanted to start up your own business, you'd have to go through only two procedures, but in Bolivia you have to go through twenty procedures to open for business. I didn't know about all of these procedures you'd have to go through in other countries, and it's quite interesting to me and really makes me question why you have to go through twenty procedures just to get your business license in Bolivia. It's interesting learning about the way other countries economic systems work and what you have to do in order to open a business.

Madison Webster, Chapter 4, Q 2/6

A topic that stood out to me while reading chapter 4 was monopolies. A monopoly is an exclusive control of a service in a market. I always associate the word "possession" with the word monopoly due to the board game. Wheelan describes this very well, "...monopoly stifles any need to be innovative or responsive to customers". There is no need for employees of a "monopoly" to work their hardest to please customers. The customers aren't going to leave. They have no other option to turn to!

Wheelan gave a great example, the Department of Motor Vehicles. I always talk to people and they say "Ugh, I waited at the DMV for eight hours today and they still told me to come back tomorrow!". This happens over and over again. The workers take their sweet time to do what they want, whenever they want because they know that customers won't leave. The government has a lot of control, forcing the population to suffer through extreme lines and inconsiderate treatment. I, personally, do not see the good in monopolies. This topic certainly affects my life because I am the one who has had to wait in a long line to get my driver's liscense. I believe they should create a law to fix these circumstances, so in the future it would become a smoother process. 

Question 2 Chapter 3 Nick T

The issues raised in the book certainly affect my life directly and indirectly. First is the negative externalities of CO2 emissions. My or anyone else's decisions can affect people all around the world and inderictly affect our own. The author gives the example of CO2 emissions in Pennsylvania possibly causing floods in Bangladesh, or acid rain in Canada destroying forests. The author also mentions how someone's decision to buy a bigger car can affect someone driving a smaller car giving them a higher risk of dying or affecting a asthmatic child. The author gives a solution for some of these externalities by saying how the government can tax companies which would influence them to stop the negative externalities. With that being said the government can positively affect many problems and also cause a negative affect when trying to do good they do the opposite. Overall the issues brought up in the book will affect my life in ways I don't know yet but will some day; the issues also affect my life everyday I walk this earth.

Kiera Ziegler, Chapter 3, Question 6

After reading last chapter when Wheelan talked about private ownership can me more beneficial for everyone. In this chapter he also talks about how private ownership of something will make sure it gets put to the best use. However, this is not always the case, he gives an example of how private ownership can damage the good also. His example was Chicago's lakefront. If the government did not own the land someone would chose to build on the land because that ensures they would make the most money. This is not the best use of land though, it would block the the view for many people and eliminate the benefits to many of the people that simple appreciate the open lakefront from a distance.  This was sad to me that the only way an asset is used to its best use if the most money is able to be made off of it. As Wheelan pointed out there is no way to charge someone for simply appreciating the view, because of this the government has to step in. Companies often do things to make the most money and spend the least amount of money, because of this the public and what is best for them is often not considered which often causes them harm.