Scott Stewart, epilogue, question 6

in this final reading, the author talked about how economics is just a tool, and we have to decide how we are going to use it. in europe they have a more cushy system, but less inovation. there are ups and downs to having more and less regulation. in my opinion, there needs to be a healthy balance between competition and simply helping people. those people under the streets in chicago are not bad people, and dont deserve to have to live like that, however if we aimply put them into a mansion with a comfortable lifestyle everyone would become homeless to try and get to live that lifestyle.

Peter Webster Epilogue Question 6

I found it interesting how much change could happen if our economy becomes more productive. We will continue to create new things that make us much more productive and make things easier and more cheaply. That will allow us to work on other things with the time that we save, and be more productive in multiple things. "Americans are richer than most of the developed world; we also work harder, take less vacation, and retire later"(Wheelan 318). So maybe this will change, and we will become the most developed world, but we take more vacation, retire sooner, and work less.

Scott Stewart, epilogue, question 6

in this final reading, the author talked about how economics is just a tool, and we have to decide how we are going to use it. in europe they have a more cushy system, but less inovation. there are ups and downs to having more and less regulation. in my opinion, there needs to be a healthy balance between competition and simply helping people. those people under the streets in chicago are not bad people, and dont deserve to have to live like that, however if we aimply put them into a mansion with a comfortable lifestyle everyone would become homeless to try and get to live that lifestyle.

Miriam Scheel, Epilogue, Question 2

As many have mentioned before, the epilogue ties all the different themes of the book together and draws a conclusion about the future: What are we making of our future with all the knowledge that we have? One aspect at which he looks is education. Education has been in the past and will always be a big question since so much of the future depends on how we raise the future generations. One part of the question is surely to determine what a good education is, but many psychologists are working on the specific aspects of the ideal education that permits a good development. The other more related part of the question is how to get people to  ensure this education. This is something that we will have to work on: how do we get teachers to do the best for their students when measuring what "the best" is, is almost impossible.

Julia Carle, Epilogue, Question #7

In the epilogue of Naked Economics, Wheelan taught me how, economically speaking, our future will look like. The very detailed seven questions that Wheelan answered about what life will be like in 2050 were very crazy to think about. Wheelan brought up how the U.S. could change their ways in order for the U.S. to stop being the largest debtor in the world. That's another thing I learned, the U.S. must pay for our government, pays the interest we've added up over the years on bills, and pay for new expenses involved with the elderly. That is a lot of paying in which will become very difficult for the U.S. I always never quite understood why we were in so much debt and why we haven't paid it off, but now I have a much better understanding of government debt and how it works.

Jonathan Webb, Epilogue, Question 2

Just thinking about the future is exciting but scary at the same time. Obviously this chapter was about our future and the 7 questions that we should ask ourselves. Defenitly all these issues will have an effect on my life, like he said, it's the decisions that we make now that will affect our future. One of the seven questions, do we really have monetary policy figured out, made me think how that can indirectly or directly Affect me. He even says, we thought that we had tamed  the business cycle but we haven't. And at the end he ask the question, " how do we allow the market to punish wrongdoers without sending all of us spilling down the hill?". I think that's a huge part of mine and others future. Will we have figured out the business cycle? Or will we even still have the monetary policy running? One question I do think he could've put in there is, what will be countries borders in 2050, the same or comeplety different because of wars or government fall? I think that's a big factor we should consider about our future.

Darby Quast, Epilogue, Question 7

Before reading this book or taking this class, I had never really thought about economics.  I knew it had something to do with the stock market and was fought over during the presidential elections.  Now, like Wheelan stated, I understand that it can be used as a tool, and if used correctly, can solve many of our worlds greatest issues.  I would have never thought that environmental issues, or the extinction of African Tigers could be solved using economics.  Also something like poverty, a seemingly impossible problem to fix can be fixed, or lessened by simple economic policy.  It seems as though people today are very ignorant when it comes to these topics and I realize now the importance of having a basic understanding.  The reason why things aren't being fixed is because of this lack of understanding and that is something that I think needs to be changed.

Harris worthman, epilogue, Question 6

While I was reading the epilogue I was finding it more and more difficult to focus. There was a passage in the first paragraph that would not cease to expell itself from my hippocampus. The passage basically stated that in order to achieve what we want, we have to figure out what we want first. So... stupidly obvious, which is why it stuck in my head like one direction's incredible music. I wondered why he decided to put such "fluff" in the final pages of his novel. He mentioned that the laws of physics weren't broken when we went to the moon. We just needed to allocate a bit of the resources around our feet; a "choice" to go to the moon. But do we choose to go into a recession? No. So why does it happen? Because the U.S. doesn't know what it wants? Of course not. Charles Wheelan was wrong. You can't make a choice you're not capable of making. We could have found out that space is far more dangerous than we hoped. Than we wouldn't have ever sent man to the moon. Economics is far more unpredictable than physics and if Wheelan thinks he can hint at that in such a vague way and manipulate how his point is stated then he has failed on me. There is no algorithm of formulas that we can use to solve all the ethical and human nature related problems that hinder so many governments from being the most effective they can be. Human nature isn't as predictable as gravity. Humans act irrationally and impulsively while the laws of physics never change.

Gunnar Nelson, Epilogue, Question #1

In the epilogue of Naked Economics, Wheelan describes the direct correlation between our generation and the future of the nations economic growth. Wheelan describes the Economy as a tool, which can be compared to physics. Physics made it a possibility for us to explore the moon, however it was not the driving force. In the same way Economics is used as a tool for us to use, which can either lead to a better understanding, and success, or lead to misfortunes- depending on how we use the tool. Ultimately we have the decision on how we should use the tool.

This directly correlates to my life. Later in the epilogue, Wheelan states that "Markets don't solve social problems on their own. But if we design solutions with the proper incentives, it feels a lor more like rowing downstream." In summary, anything can happen with the correct incentives. It is up to our generation to use the tool of economics as properly as we can. We never know what will happen, what the living conditions will be like, how international issues are, however with the proper incentives, we can be sure that we can face whatever occurs, and bounce back with strength. 

Max Hobrough, epilogue, question 6

When I was reading the section on if we will have strip malls in 2050 and I could clearly see that everywhere I look as the economy is turning around the cost of things doesn't matter as much. Even right by my house they were planning on building a strip mall by my house but they had to cancel their plans and sell the land because everyone preferred downtown Stillwater with the specialty shops. I knew this because my mom dealt with these people because they were going to have a bunch of ATM's there. This is just very interesting to me because people's perspectives of money change so much when they have more money. So in 2050 the quality of life seems to be raised quite a bit higher and so then there is more wealth in every class of people. Due to the rise of the economy after time these visual preferences on how the product looks rather than functions will be a much higher priority. The picture may be portrayed as being small but if this does happen then there could potentially be a trickle down effect that could help out a lot, due to the flow of currency and people's willingness to give to charities. Overall this book added new ideas to my knowledge and also strengthened them to comprehend and think differently about situations that I would previously not think as deep about. 

Zach Du, Epilogue, Question 6

In the epilogue, Wheelan proposes seven questions about economy for us to think about. The question "How many minutes of work will a loaf of bread cost?" attracted my attention. "Economc theory predicts that as our wages go up, we will work longer hours—up to a point, and then we will begin to work less. Time becomes more important than money. Economists just aren't quite sure where that curve starts to bend backward, or how sharply it bends" (318). Take United States as an example: it's one of the richest country in world, however people here are also work twice as hard than other countries. If the trend continues, people would work longer and longer in the future, and at one certain point, they would stop. "Productivity growth gives us choices. We can continue to work the same amount while producing more. Or we can produce the same amount by work less. Or we can strike some balance" (318). Make a long story short, it's our own responsibility for choosing the right amount of work we do everyday, so start to make wise decisions.

Madison Webster, Epilogue, Question 2/6

Like most people have mentioned, the Epilogue does a good job wrapping up the book. It reveals that many of the topics Wheelan discussed throughout the different chapters really does relate to our lives. Some of the information didn't seem important at the time but I feel as if Economics all ties together, and a topic may not be so important when standing alone but is very useful when woven with multiple points of emphasis.

I thought the portion titled "In forty years, will "African Tigers" refer to wildlife or development sucess stories?". This section was particularly interesting because it was really clear the the future is a mystery. We can predict and suggest ideas as to what will happen, but nobody knows. Wheelan gives many examples in the form of questions as to what economic issues could be tied in to affect the future. Monetary distribution, technology, human capital and market economy were all mentioned. I guess I never thought about the economics in the future. I will hopefully live on longer and I will be needing to think about these concepts more regularly to understand a clear image of what is happening in the world around me. I am glad that this book has given me a firm base of economics.

Taylor Bye, Epilogue, Question #6

After reading this book and the epilogue especially, I have truly begun to see how economics is woven through our every day lives. I like the sentence, "In the end, though, it is just a set of tools." A very important set of tools but there you go. And more importantly, this set of tools is used by almost every person at almost every moment of almost every day. Even if we are not the action, we get the reaction.

Reading through the questions of this epilogue just re-cemented the lessons I've learned about the importance of economics and how to apply it in my life. For example, "Will we use the market in imaginative ways to solve social problems?" was one section that particularly hit me again. The very fact that incentives play such a big role in our society and what people decide to do is a. true and b. vastly overlooked. I certainly didn't think incentives were that big of a deal, until I started reading about the Orphan Drug Act. Just one bill passed, taxing pollution, and society is a more environmentally clean place is astonishing. This is also a bit of a life lesson in soul searching: really looking at the decisions we make in life and asking why we make them. What are we doing and why we are doing it?

This epilogue really just highlighted everything that economics plays a part in, otherwise known as our whole lives, and I'm so glad to have read it and gain the knowledge needed to lead a good, economically sound life.

Olivia Barr, Epilogue, Question 2

While reading this book throughout the duration of the semester, there have been some chapters which highlighted topic that clearly affected my life, and others that didn't have clear connections what so ever. Through reading the epilogue, the topics that seemed very distant from my own life, and therefore having any affect on it, have become much more clear. Through reading the last seven questions of the book, all of the things that were less clear began to culminate in my mind to help me realize that no matter the physical distance, the economic circumstances of every country have some affect on my life, no matter the scale or directness of the affect. For example, it might seem like a waste of time for someone in America to concern themselves with the economic situation in Burkina Faso (or any other country with a bad economy), but if Burkina Faso continues to struggle they may look to the United States for aid, which in and of itself can contribute to the National Debt, and aside from that we begin to question if we will ever reform our methods of providing aid to foreign countries so that it can be more beneficial in the long term for the development of the country in need, etc. These connections are not limited to foreign involvement, but it is becoming more and more clear that there will need to be some type of reform in politics so that people seeking office with hopes of combating the national debt will not be laughed off of the stage as soon they say they want to raise taxes. All in all, studying economics might make an individuals thought process more complex, and sometimes provide a jaded view of the world, but it helps to create people who are willing to look at the hard questions and see that hard questions often have difficult answers, and sometimes it takes a long time to fix them; additionally, studying economics helps to develop citizens who are able to look through media slants and find that sometimes raising taxes, or interest rates is the most logical thing to do, despite the fact that they might seem like a bad thing from the surface.

Maddie Binning, Epilogue, Question #2

The issues presented in the epilogue of course affect the state of our country now and in the future. This section brought up not only the question of how to effectively put economic ideals into use, but also how to incorporate humanity and consideration for human life into the equation. The importance of these questions are monumental in a national and global sense. Should the US continue to burrow into debt without making the economic decisions needed to sustain the country, we as a generation could face a daunting struggle. If we decide as citizens of the human race to continue allowing the wealth gap to grow and poverty to thrive, we've ignored significant portions of human beings who need support. The ethical and practical implications are essential to our futures which is why it is important to consider them now.

Griffin Pontius epilogue, question 6

Durning the epilogue, Wheelan points out that humans are in fact, lazy.  As much of a shock that is to all of us, Wheelan uses an example that caught my attention.  While he discusses the question, "Will we use the market in imaginatative ways to solve social problems?" Perhaps 'lazy' is the wrong word, a more appropriate (and econmic) title would be, there is less of an incentive to help the world for lack of a monetary benefit.  Anyhow, Wheelan in answering this question almost rants about issues in the world and how they could be solved; the problems remain unsolved because there is no incentive strong enough for us to fix the given issue. This passage stuck out because it seems like common sense that to me that we should all try to better the world in some way, yet a lot of the time, we do the oppisite.  We posese so much potential as a planet that isn't utilized because of lack of incentive, or return in the investment.  It's a sort of dull thought that is almost frustrating.

Nathalie Heidema, Epilogue

Economics uses many tools to make our lives better. To make the best out of these tools, we must set our priorities, determine what trade -offs we are willing to make and what outcomes we are willing to accept. The future is full of uncertainty but we must start and do things now to make it better. The environment is one thing. If we get the incentives right a lot could be done well. We should impose taxes on on CO2 emissions and encourage green technology. That means that if we want innovation we need human capital and that's when education plays its role. Of course, it would be a waste to use just half of your work force and so all countries should promote gender equality.. We could go so on for a long time. In a nutshell, economics is (extremely) necessary because it is about everything - our social lives, wealth, poverty, gender relations, science, environment, politics, work, trade, travel, issue like discrimination or diseases.. It offers many solutions (not always moral), it help a lot (but can also harm too- especially with wrong incentives) and it can create a better place to live for us. Simply, economics is life (so learn it well!).

Nick Terlizzi, Epilogue, question 3

Wheelan closes the book with some questions for our future economy and lifestyle. Wheelan brings up how the U.S. is the worlds largest debtor and how "'over borrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country'"(324). He mentions how three parties have borrowed heavily: consumers, Finacial firms, and the US government and the first two have paid the price but the US government still is yet to pay the price. What would our future look like if the US had to pay the price for its debt? Overall Wheelan does a remarkable job on expressing his concerns for the US education school systems,  hard working Americans, and the US government. At the end of reading naked economics I have gained the knowledge to the "big ideas" of Econ, Wheelan says now "they begin to show up everywhere"(325).

Jona Bakke, Epilogue, Question #6

A specific passage in the Epilogue that got me thinking is when Wheelan is discussing how many minutes of work a loaf of bread will cost in 2050. He discusses the probable continual increase in productivity and then asks, "How rich is rich enough?"

Is there a point when Americans will become satisfied with the state of our nation's wealth and decide to work less? The economic theory states that to a certain point people will work more as wages go up, and then they will work less and value time more than money. This decrease in work would not necessarily change how much we produce. With continually increasing productivity, we can either decide to work the same amount and produce more or work less and produce the same amount.

It seems that Americans would have differing opinions in 2050 as to which of these options is chosen; some may choose to work the same amount while others think we should all work less. This is a very intriguing question and it will be interesting to see what really happens in 2050.

Sophie Gunderson, Epilogue, Question 3

This final addition to Naked Economics focused on what the world will be like in 2050. Who ever knows what the world will be like 5, 10, or 50 years from now? Charles Wheelan helps by asking questions and proposes different possible answers along with additional questions raised from the original question. He implies that the future is obviously very unknown. We have the tools (economics) to fix many problems and implement many different probable solutions but will we? Will we focus purely on getting richer and more productive or will that obsession cease and instead we spend more time in parks listening to music? Will the developing countries develop into economic powerhouses or will they continue to trickle along like they have through the past decades? Lastly, will America's current approach on markets and the economy work the next 50 years effectively? Overall, it's a bit frightening that we don't know what the world will look like in 50 years yet also empowering because we have to tools and we have to choice to fix the problems, we just have to figure out how. 

Angela Scharf, Epilogue, Q.4

     What I gained from the epilogue is that economics and productivity in all its power is worth nothing if we don't use it to its full potential. In the markets we've established that the most effective way to get something done is to give people incentives to be productive, but this can also have a negative effect on things such as social problems and ethics. The example used in the book regarded the topic of a serious illness that were too rare to be profitable by drug companies if they chose to research them. Technology today, especially in America, is bountiful yet we only choose to help if we get to benefit. Although this is not necessarily the case in all situations, and striving for benefits is not always detrimental, we need to shift incentives so that people will want to be more productive (and also profit) from things that actually matter, things like education and medical research.

Rita Hammer, Epilogue, Question 3

The end of the Epilogue struck me the most as it relates to my future significantly. Wheelan lists off the multiple things that have to be done in our country, or things could end badly. As the younger generation we are outnumbered by the older, meaning there are less people to contribute to increased productivity and more people who play bingo in the nursing home (on the tax payers dime). In addition to paying for the aging population, we must "pay for whatever government we choose to have, which we aren't doing now" and "pay the interest we've accumulated on past bills." Our country has an abundance of debt that needs to be payed off before our "over borrowing..ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country." As weird as it sounds, I will be alive in 2050. I'll only be 54! I won't even be close to playing bingo (I hope). Instead, i'll most likely still be contributing to society in some way or other. It's alarming that it is our generation to whom our parents (in the nursing home) and our children will be counting on to come up with solutions to fix these major issues. Overall, it creates incentive to work hard and develop leadership skills so that we can make critical changes.

Scott Stewart,Chapter 12, Question 6

A large part of this chapter was on the fear of outsourcing jobs. People are afraid that the outsourcing of jobs is harmful to the economy. However, on the whole, outsourcing jobs is good. more jobs are created and the economy grows! So the classic line from southpark of "they took 'r jobs!" should be ammended to say: "they took 'r jobs, whuch caused the economy to grow and created more better jobs and made us richer on the whole"

Chapter 12 Q-7

By reading this chapter Wheelan opens my eyes to the importance of specialization. Specialization is what makes countries productive, richer, and opens up trade. Wheelan also says countries can "consume more by specialization at what they do best and then trading"(274). Wheelan also opens up the idea of how in globalization there will be losers. People in the US will lose jobs because people can do the same thing for cheaper in foreign countries. Although there are losers, in the long run economies grow and absorb displaced workers.

Kiera Ziegler, Chapter 12, Question 2

Trade and tariffs accept my everyday life more then I knew. He uses the example of oranges. In Brazil the conditions are perfect to grow oranges, however the government puts a tariff on them to protect American orange farmers. This makes the price of the orange juices about 30 cents more expensive. Due to this not being a tax on the good we as consumers don't know about this price increase. For me as a consumer I find this frustrating, it causes me to question what others good are more expensive because the government wants to protect industries in the United States. The government isn't forcing them to improve the quality of their products or find cheaper more efficient ways to run their company. This, in the long run, is more detrimental then helpful.

Peter Webster Chapter 12 Q 6

It is interesting how trade is so good for some people, but bad for others. Wheelan says, "Trade makes the most efficient use of the world's scarce resources." Then the next line he says, "Trade creates losers." It is good for everyone because people on opposite sides of the earth get new ideas, better things, and higher quality things. In lower class countries work can be one dollar an hour as opposed to over in the US where the minimum wage is much higher than that. This is good and bad. It's good because the world gets things for a low price, and they can get a lot of things. It is bad because people like the couple at the Levi's plant we saw in class lose their job because they are getting paid 10 times as much as those in poor countries who are doing just as efficient work. Some of those people never get another job, some get better jobs than before. But overall trade is good for everyone.

Angela Scharf, Chapter 12, Q.3

In our lifetime we will have to continue the debate of globalization. People today tend to make a point about buying strictly "American made products" or specifically directing their money to American companies and goods which is fine, but what they fail to realize is that trading with other countries can prove to be just as beneficial if not more. Trading internationally can free up time for the American workers and direct them to jobs that they're better at. The biggest problem with globalization today is that people don't realize that giving jobs to workers in other countries is not a bad thing. These people are only looking at the short run sting of unemployment. Yet they don't realize that in the future the unemployed Americans can be directed to a more fitting job through comparative advantage therefore increasing overall productivity and making the US (and other countries) richer. Although there may be unintended consequences to an interdependent economy, the alternative is Protectionism which only slows economic growth and maximizes opportunity costs.

Julia Carle, Chapter 12, Question #7

After reading chapter twelve, I learned the pros and cons of protectionism and how it can be beneficial in the short run, but in the long run destructive towards the economy. I always wondered before reading this chapter whether foreign trading with countries such as China for goods was a bad way to run things. My thinking was that if all these Americans can buy a Chinese made pack of pencils for $1.00 versus the American made pack for $2.99, the person would most likely choose the Chinese made pack, which means that Chinese goods are more prosperous than American goods, meaning that Americans will lose jobs from lack of factory's prosperity. This concept of protectionism was new to me, but now I realize there really is no good simple solution. If you decide to save American jobs by. Cutting off trade from foreign countries such as China, you run the risk of destroying the economy eventually. And trading a ton with these foreign countries will put many Americans out of work. Before reading this chapter, I didn't quite realize how complex the conflict is.

Zach Du, Chapter 12, Question 6

The part in Chapter 12 which talks about how trade makes us richer really caught my attention. Wheelan uses a fallacy of Abraham Lincoln to start off the topic: "It seems to me that if we buy the tails from England, then we've got the rails and they've got the money. But if we build the rails here, we've got our rails and we've got our money" (273). However, Mr. Lincoln made some flaws in his statements. If I want to buy vegetables from the farmer, then I will pay the money and get my vegetables in return, everybody benefits; whereas, I buy the seed and grow the vegetable by myself, which would takes so much longer to get what I need, even if I keep the money. In conclusion, "We trade with others because it frees up time and resources to do things that we are better at" (274).

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 12, Question 6

Gunnar Nelson, Chapter 12, Question #6

In chapter 12 of Naked Economics, a particular passage about economics and environmental health struck me as interesting. Before, I would not associate the two notions as being synnonymous. I had the "typical understanding" of a growing Economy requiring the increase in waste. As Wheelan points out that "the very act of staying alive requires that we produce waste." I always thought that the way to boost environmental health would be to stifle industrial production and consumption, which would hurt the economy significantly. However, Wheelan proves me wrong. In the short run, if we produce more, we will pollute more as well. But as we get richer, we will pay more attention to the environment. For an example, Wheelan uses data from London: " the city's current air quality is better than at any time since 1585." This is shocking, who would have guessed... as industrialization continues to increase, so does the care in the environment. I also contend that we as a nation are fortunate to have the ability to even worry about the environment.

Darby Quast, Chapter 12, Question 6

A quote that stood out to me while reading chapter 6 was, "Productivity is what makes us rich.  Specialization is what makes us productive.  Trade allows us to specialize." (275)  I thought that this quote did a really good job of explaining the concepts of absolute advantage and comparative advantage.  When the factors of opportunity cost are not considered, there would be no reason for a country like the United States to trade with Bangladesh.  We can make t shirts just as well, if not better than they can.  Logically the United States would not even bother trading and making them all themselves.  The issue with this is the same people that know how to make t shirts, also know how to create airplanes.  This is why Tiger Woods doesn't do his own auto repairs, and why all of us don't own cows.  By being able to trade and have someone else do these things for us, we are allowed to use our time towards something we are better at and in the end have a more productive outcome.  This is why trade is so important because it increases the wealth and overall improves the quality of life for everyone involved.

Jonathan Webb, Chapter 13, Question 6

  Reading about geography really struck me. How basically 4 medicines were patented, because 9 of the 13 were US studies from Vietnam,  for tropical regions. I would think that that's where the main focus would be going to, tropical regions. But like he mentioned in the book, scientists go where the money is. And that's in developed countries. Thought that was a great idea by he British prime minister to change the insintives of making medicine. and defenitly should be followed by others to improve tropical areas of the world.

Madison Webster, Chapter 12, Question 6

I'm going to focus on the section titled "Trade is based on voluntary exchange." This part struck me as interesting because trade seems so awesome and enriching but it only succeeds if people choose to make is succeed. Wheelan talks about fast food restaurants because often times they succeed anywhere. Even when placed in places that are historic or not in the best condition, they still succeed because people choose to involve themselves with them through work or as a customer. It's crazy to think of the places where these modern restaurants are placed but overall, they make people richer through the jobs they create. We may not always want to see Starbucks sprawled throughout the world, but for people in poorer countries, they love to have work more accessible. Also, most people are willing to work for cheap because something is better than nothing.

Olivia Barr, Question 3, Chapter 12

This chapter left me a bit concerned for the future of the American economy because people are so often misled by logical fallacies that make economic globalization seem a net negative, while in reality it is good for people both within the United States, and abroad. Globalization gets a bad reputation within the eyes of people who do not have a basic understanding of economics, or buy into media slants on the negativity of globalization which only adds fuel to the fire of economic ignorance. If this pattern continues, and finds its way into the platform of a president that is elected, then the American economy could be destroyed within a single term. In short, if people continue to overlook countries like India and China who suffered in closed economies, and have become major world economies in relatively short amounts of time after opening their economic boarders, then the American economy could easily regress beyond the level of the great recession.

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 12, Question 2

After reading chapter 12 of Naked Economics, I have to admit that I am left a bit angered. Angered by the fact that many people in the world still strongly resist globalization and trade even through the pros have been shown to dramatically outweigh the cons. An example that Charles Wheelan used that was especially interesting and understandable involved the Mississippi River. Restricting trade around the world would be like restricting trade over the river. The people in the east would have to stop what they specialize in in order to make what those in the west do and visa versa. Long story short, it makes no sense and is very unwise to halt this trade. As time goes on and our ecomony, as well as the global economy, increases, trade should continue to increase also! Although there are some losers in the short run and possibly overall, there are many many more winners. I vote more trade and more random KFC's throughout the neighborhoods of the world because without it, we are less specialized, less productive, and less rich. 

Max Hobrough, Chapter12, question 7

In chapter 12 Wheelan discussed trade and how it can turn a one way deal into two way deal with hopefully both parties involved gaining from them. This topic expanded and depended my knowledge for the who world trade system and how it really works. When I got to the part in the chapter when he started to talk about that for something to be and effective trade it needs to be voluntary. A trade just will not work if it is only going to benefit one party and the other party is left unhappy and pissed off. Well from one rotton trade could possibly end a whole trading relationship. Also the whole concept of productivity and doing what you can do the best and most efficient is really interesting. There is always a cost to everything which trading helps with. The trading has groups create what they can create most efficiently so then they can rely on the other trading partner to do the same with whatever it is that is needed. This goes back to human capital and using our resources as best as we can so there can be maximum efficiency and we are not wasting a specific talent or skill set. This system if implemented could have the tools to lift all of Africa out of the dust by other wealthy nations trading products that we can not make. There just needs to be something that the African countries can do better than the rest of the world. I do believe if this can be found they can be raised from the dirt so many issues will then be solved.

Jona Bakke, Chapter 12, Question #6

A specific passage that stuck me as significant and particularly well argued is the point where Wheelan discusses the consequences of protectionism. While trade barriers do provide the immediate benefit of saving domestic jobs, they slow down the economy in the long run. Wheelan states that this happens because protectionism works against specialization. If one country is attempting to be self-sufficient, the people of that nation must perform every job instead of working specifically on what they are good (or least bad) at. Decreased specialization leads to decreased productivity, which leads to decreased overall wealth.

Wheelan also makes the point that in history nations have imposed trade blockades on their enemies in order to isolate them and make them worse off. And so, why would people prevent themselves from development and success by intentionally doing what nations have done to punish their enemies? Although protectionism may seem like a good way to secure jobs in the moment, it can have very negative long term costs, which I think Wheelan argues well.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 12, Question #6

The passage in this reading that struck me as sad and illuminating was the portion that discussed the protest of products created by children in sweatshops. While trying to make a statement of political and moral correctness, protestors contributed to the displacement of child workers to the street, worse jobs, or prostitution. This unfortunate situation shows the importance of informed activism. With the knowledge of opportunity cost, specialization is completely logical. With specialization comes trade and with that outsourcing. The benefits of globalization are fairly evident even if the research is limited. In any case, it just goes to show the importance of understanding economics and fighting for causes that you truly understand to be right.

Miriam Scheel, Chapter 12, Question 6

In this chapter one passage talked about a time Wheelan was the president of the Seminary Townhouse Association. About the same time as he was elected (even though he says that it was more of an appointment than an election) the CTA planned to modify one of their train stations which was close to his neighborhood. The plans were made to improve the accessibility of the trains for people with disabilities, but unfortunately they also would have increased the noise for his neighborhood because the station would have been moved closer. The association tried everything in their power to disrupt these plans even though they meant huge benefits for the disabled people and a smaller disadvantage for the house owners.
This whole situation reminded me of a problem our CFE group heard about in the multiple sclerosis center. Many of the members there had to be in motorized wheelchairs because of MS, and these wheelchairs needed a special transportation vehicle. The members told us that a law was passed that forbid the use of these vehicles after six o'clock; the reason for that was that they were very loud and people felt disrupted. For these people the law meant a little bit more quiet time for the people with multiple sclerosis it meant not to be able to do anything past six, not visit their families or go to concerts. Again one group benefits minimally and another is hurt hugely.
And even though that sounds unjust put in these words, at some point everyone is part of a small group that wants to benefit from the disadvantage of a large group or the other way around. And there isn't one easy answer that will satisfy everyones needs.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 13, Question 6

The introduction to this unit was kicked off with reasons why the global mark is growing, and the definition of globalization. Globalization is (put simply) the action that countries take to make their capital available world wide. Currently the global market is growing, because of an increase in globalization. Businesses located in various countries around the globe are opening up to trade with other countries, because of technological advances in communication between countries, and transportation between countries. After learning about globalization, it was nice to read chapter thirteen in Naked Economics, and get an idea of why globalization is so important for countries and their monetary wealth. 

In chapter thirteen Wheelan talks about countries that reach out and trade with other countries, and countries that "economically isolate" themselves. According to a researcher at Harvard Center For International Development, the countries that globalize typically had a 4.5% per capita annual increase. Non-globalizing countries or countries with "closed economies" had a 0.7% per capita annual increase. The difference between the economic growth in closed economies and open economies is surprising, and like my peers I had no idea how important it was for countries to export goods to other countries, and import goods from other counties. 

Rita Hammer, Chapter 12, Question 5

Overall, Wheelan emphasizes the importance of trade and what it does for an economy. Trade allows poor countries to slowly develop and become richer due to the fact that they "have access to markets in the developed world." I was surprised by the statistics he gave about Africa. After there was a law passed allowing countries in Africa to export goods to the United States with minimal tariffs countries such as Madagascar and Nigeria saw increases in exports from 120-1000 percent. Although people end up losing their jobs due to the competition created by trade, it makes the majority better off. Without trade we throw away a significant amount of potential that will contribute to the growth of not just our economy, but several others. It's controversial on whether trade is good or bad for the sake of people and their jobs; however, if everyone had the view of a protectionist we would be forever turning the specialization clock backward. Wheelan brought up the example of forbidding trade across the Mississippi River. By doing so, the majority of people would end up having to make things that they don't specialize in. "We would be denied superior products and forced to do jobs that we're not particularly good at." We can't possibly make enough goods in our country alone to fulfill the lifestyles we all live. If trade is allowing us to produce what we are good at producing, helping us grow as an economy, and satisfying our demand for goods and services then we shouldn't be doing anything other than trading.

Chapter 13 question 6

A driving force for productivity according to Wheelan is human capital. Despite how much human capital a person has their geographic locations can effect how they use their skills and assests. The man in the reading who worked hard built his own house and farmed his own food only made $40 the year of 2012 which was common where he was. Despite his human capital and productivity his geographic location offset any advantages he had. Geographic location can effect all different aspects of life.

Scott Stewart, Chapter 13, Question 6

Good Governance was a key point in this chapter. according to the author a study found that good governance led to economic growth, whereas corruption only stagnated it. In order for 3rd world countries to grow they MUST get rid of corruption wherever they find it. It only discourages foreign investment.
When looking at the world from a practical standpoint this actually makes a lot of sense. I, personally, would never want to invest into an area that has a corrupt government. It would be difficult to get anything done without bribing lots of different people. Because of this it would be too difficult to work in a corrupt environment, and not worth it in the short or long run.

Max Hobrough Chapter 13, Question 6

In this chapter starting on page 461Charles Wheelan brings up the Geographical location of the countries that struggle and how their climate can push a good long term economy away. It was very interesting to hear how he said that tropical weather is meant for vacation and not for long term stay. The idea of this is actually very true, even when I was in the Cayman Islands I could see this happening. The whole economy seemed to be built on tourism a lot like certain areas of Mexico, this economy could be closed up and shut down in one day if those tourists stop coming. This is the issue with these markets, they are set up for temporary sucess because nobody can stay there for a long period of time due to the way that there is not a good medical system. I have also noticed that when ever I go to a popular tourist city I never really ever see medical buildings or hospitals. This raises the issue on the conditions on how people are living, I saw this especially in Mexico. When I was in Capetown, South Africa it actually not just built on tourism but rather it actually had its own industries that could sustain the population of the people. So there needs to be a major investment in healthcare in these towns to make these economies more stable.

Kiera Ziegler Chapter 13, Question 6

 Wheelan listed characteristics characteristic that affect successful economies the one that struck me the most was how little natural resources matter. Many of the most sucessful economies do not have abundant natural resources. In fact some economist say having abundant natural resources may actually be detrimental to the countries economy. If counrty relies on that one resource such as oil for example and if the price drops the economy if brought down and affected. If the one good is doing well then their economy may be sucessful; however if that good is doing poorly so is the economy there.
     I also found it interesting that the government need to be involved but not too involved or restrictive. How is a government supposed to know if they are to involved or too little involved. I believe this is a constant challenge in our country. In general I think we are doing well but there are still disputes on whether the government is too involved with our lives or too little and I doubt  at some point everyone will agree.

Jonathan Webb, Chapter 12, Question 6

       Reading the two passages about how trade makes us richer and trade creates losers cought my attention the most. I thought it was funny but important how he went from talking about all the advantages of trade to the bad side affects of it. About trade making us richer, he says, "productivity is what makes us rich, specialization is what makes us productive. Trade allows us to specialize" (275). He gives examples of why it's better for people in Seattle to engineer airplanes rather than spend their time on making shirts where people in Banglesesh can do it because they do it best there while the people in Seattle do best by engineering planes. I agree with that. But when he gets into telling about how trade creates losers is where I question him. He mentions in trade, the Gaines outweigh the losses. An examle he gave was In Maine there is a shoe factory where many were employed but the the company notices that it can move the factory to Vietnam and pay those workers a lot cheaper than the ones in Maine. He then brings up that someone had written him, they're going to stay poor no matter what. He agreed but went on talking about how it's still better for the factory. My question is, why can't they keep the factory in Maine and keep Americans employed. Yes it's more expensive, but those workers can use the money they get and donate to the people in Vietnam. The people here might not know how to do anything else Either!Like he says no matter what, someone is going to lose out. But I think we need to focus on employing people in our country first rather than having these business take advantage of others. But again, he's an economist, and they think about the long run. Trade facilitates growth. But where do you draw the line on when is it not the best option to think about the long run? Or is the long run always the best option?

Griffin Pontius, chapter 13 question 6

       While discussing human capital in this chapter,  Wheelan writes about skills and how they matter in a developed world; what really caught my attention was when he began to talk about how little of incentive there is to attain skills if one does not live in a "skilled" area.
Wheelan ends his paragraph with the following quote, "If a nation starts out skilled, it gets more skilled. If a nation starts out unskilled, it stays unskilled."
       This idea was a foreign one. It seems like common sense that people would want to continuously push themselves to become better people. But in unskilled countries, it seems to be the oppisite.  Wheelan provides a great example of how a skilled worker needs other skilled workers to be successful. (The heart surgeon needs nurses etc) He then goes on to explain how there is much less of an incentive to become skilled if those around you are the same way.  It shocked me that this was the case, but at the same point it makes sense.  It really makes me wonder what kinds of things these unskilled people (who are very trainable) could become.  Who knows, it sounds crazy, but Micheal Oher was that way, who's to say there aren't more like him?

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 12, Question #12

People and businesses do things that make them better off so is it with (international) trade and globalization; the benefits from them far exceed the costs involved. Trade makes us richer by freeing our time and so allowing us to do what we can do the best - and thus be productive. Productivity, then, is what makes us rich and specialization is what makes us productive. Trade allows us to specialize ad therefore it's so essential. "Trade makes the most efficient use of the world's scarce resources." The downside of it is that it also destroys (especially low-skilled) jobs (even though in the long run they are replaced by new, more efficient ones). The economic gains from trade outweigh the losses, but the losers lose badly. To avoid that, protectionism tries to save jobs. Although it's clear that they saved a certain amount of jobs, it's difficult to estimate how many new ones could have been created. And so by cutting off the trade in order for businesses to survive, a country is made poorer and less productive. That's how by imposing taxes on Brazilian oranges , the government Mae a trade barrier out of this tax. The orange juice became $0.30 more expensive and by taking this money from common citizens it benefited merely the interest group - the orange growers in Florida. 

Trade is also good for poor countries, too. It gives them access to developed markets, export industries pay higher wages and create more competition for workers (which raises wages elsewhere) and also they are introduced to foreign capital, technology and new skills. 

Economic development is not necessarily just bad for the environment. It's true that with production pollution is involved, but as we get richer we care more about the environment and have more resources to help it. It's tricky with the climate change though. As China and India are getting richer, they produce more and build more plants that release a lot of CO2 emissions. The solution would be promoting growth in ways that minimize environmental damage and impose carbon tax. 

Zach Du, Chapter 13, Question 6

The part which talks about Geography's effects on economy really caught my attention: "Given the varied political, economic, and social histories of regions around the world, it must be more than coincidence that almost all of the tropics remain underdeveloped at the start of the twenty-first century" (303). Development expert Jeffery Sachs gives us the answer of why these tropical weather has negative effects on economy: in the tropical areas, where always has high temperature and heavy rainfall, food production is much less efficient than European countries and it's much easier for diseases to spread all around the town; on the other hand, Chicago for example, would have much lower possibility to suffer diseases, because its cold weather could control mosquitoes, therefore reduce the spread of any bacteria.  

Peter Webster Chapter 13 Question 6

Human capital and money are clearly very important in creating and maintaining a successful economy, but they are much more important in a failing economy. By failing economy I am referring to countries like Ghana, Chad, Haiti, etc. Bringing human capital and money to these countries may really develop the economy. It will bring innovative ways to do things, increasing the productivity. With money, technology and equipment will be purchased. Since a lot is done through human labor in poor countries, productivity would be increased tremendously using machines. If people are coming from a country with a successful economy they could bring ideas to other countries to help develop another economy. Bringing education and basic medical supplies would decrease a lot of illness and increase human capital, leading to jobs.

Julia Carle, Chapter 13, Question #7

After reading chapter seven of Naked Economics  is mainly about how economics knows how to solve many economic problems, but at the same time, economics doesn't know major economic issues. Wheelan even stated "we do not have a proven formula for growth that can be rolled out in country after country like some kind of development franchise" (296). What I've learned from reading this chapter though, is that economics doesn't know exactly how to have every country be as prosperous as ever. I also learned the sad truth when it comes to the impoverished part of the world which is two billion people. That is a crazy high number that I wish wasn't true. I knew poverty was a big problem worldwide, but I was completely oblivious to how many people are affected by it. It has broadened my perspective on worldwide poverty. It's made me feel more grateful that I was born into a relatively prosperous economy compared to others around the world.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 13, Question #4

The solution to fixing the economy of developing countries is not a simple one. While the things Wheelan suggests such as fixing the government and their policies, finding the resources to properly use human capital, and raising up women make logical sense in the fight to bring these countries into the healthy world economy, success is questionable. The many steps it would take to fix a countries financial situation is far more involved than many of these corrupted governments will be willing to take part in. Intervention from other countries often gets messy and threatens to create conflict. For these reasons and others, the success of the developing world depends on the reformation of government in a number of countries hence creating a very involved and difficult path to success.

Olivia Barr, Chapter 13, Q.7

     While reading this chapter I was astonished by the number of complex issues aside from poverty itself that keep poor countries from economic development, and ultimately escaping the grips of widespread poverty. Things as seemingly insignificant as not granting property rights can serve as a major hindrance to economic development. Some of the most prominent factors of widespread and prolonged poverty is lack of human capital, infrastructure, and economic activity, but it is unfair to blame "laze" citizens for these things because if they are forced to spend large amounts of time protecting property that is only nominally theirs, they can not be expected to get a formal education that would enable them to get a good job and contribute to the economy, or even create low cost methods for developing infrastructure within the weak economy of their country that could arguably light the path to economic development.
     It was also very shocking to me to read that poor economies foster political and social unrest. That is not something that I had not known before reading this chapter, but I hadn't fully realized the importance of that fact. While living in one of the most stable countries in the world, both socially and economically, we are a target for groups who are radically disheartened by the conditions within their own countries, so as a result the United States Army sends troops and drones to combat these issues; maybe a better response to fighting terror groups is to identify the issues that contribute to poor economic circumstances in their countries of origin, and provide guidance in eradicating them before they become extreme enough to foster radicalism rather than giving the countries more reason to dislike the US by sending troops into their land.

Angela Scharf, Chapter 13, Q.6

     A part of the reading that interested me was the passage about no excessive regulation. This section refers to the government regulations that are unnecessary and provoke corruption within the bureaucrats. Government officials, especially in underdeveloped countries, tend to enact excessive civil codes and rules that make opening businesses difficult and unnecessarily time consuming. The natural human tendency is to want to avoid these regulations, and in order to do that these entrepreneurs pay off individuals in the government, further promoting corruption. This allows the business to open earlier, but sets their income back because of the cost of bribes. This passage explains that the excess regulations are only helping the well-off government officials, while discouraging business owners who need the money. This cycle proves to be detrimental because these excessive codes decrease productivity and potential spending, therefore bringing down the GDP and doing more harm than good. 

Jona Bakke, Chapter 13, Question #7

Something that I found particularly interesting in Chapter 13 is the observation that having natural resources does not make a country more successful or wealthy, but may actually be more harmful than helpful. Wheelan points out that Israel, who has no natural resources, is much wealthier than other Middle Eastern countries who have vast oil reserves. And Japan and Switzerland are much better off than Russia, who has far greater natural resources. This seems backwards; I would expect that resource-rich nations would naturally be wealthy from their ability to make profit off of their natural reserves.

However, Wheelan explains that having natural resources changes an economy and can actually be harmful. Mineral riches can lead a country to spend much of its time and resources exploiting these reserves, which takes assets away from other industries. Also, an industry of natural resources is prone to random price swings. Furthermore, countries that are rich in resources often do not use the money they acquire from these resources to better their nations. Wheelan states, "Money that might be spent on public investments with huge returns- education, public health, sanitation, immunizations, infrastructure- is more often squandered" (Wheelan 309). This idea that having natural resources can actually be more detrimental than helpful to an economy is very interesting and is something that I had never thought of before.

Darby Quast, Chapter 13, Question 6

While reading chapter 13, the passage about the importance of women in an economy struck me as very interesting.  Wheelan compared not investing in girls or women, to a farmer only planting on half of his land.  I always knew and believed that women should have equal rights as men, but I never realized how important this is to an economy.  In the Arab League, the per capita income growth has been only 0.5% a year.  This is lower than any other place in the world except for sub-Saharan Africa.    One of the problems thats causing this is women's status in these arab countries.  I also found the study in the Ivory Coast very interesting.  It showed that when women in developing countries get more money, they spend it on things like housing, nutrition and housing, where men spend it on tobacco and alcohol.  If Saudi Arabia ever wants to be one of the Top 10 countries in the world in technology, they are going to start using all of their recourses, not just half.

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 13, Question #7

There are policies (and geographical endowments) that make the difference between rich and poor countries. First of all, effective government institutions are essential for a country to develop and grow. A country needs laws, courts, basic infrastructure, efficient collecting of taxes and so on. This, however, must be done in an honest, transparent way because corruption is what kills economic growth. Resources are allocated badly, innovation stifles and foreign investors are subsequently discouraged. Why are former Soviet countries doing so badly in comparison with Western Europe? For  sure the corrupt politicians have a lot to do with it. Another thing is property rights. Providing formal property rights makes countries most valuable assets (land) more productive and it encourages work. Next, human capital is what makes us productive, which subsequently determines our standard of living- wealth. Increases in education and training of labor forces is what has a major impact on countries growth and growth in income, it also improves public health and decreases infant mortality. Also, geography plays a role in wealth too just 2 out of 30 rich countries lie in the tropics. The weather can be attractive but it is bad for the food production and spreading of diseases is easier (malaria). Trade is also crucial for domestic businesses and industries in order to face international competition and thus grow stronger, which makes the economy stronger. The government should conduct responsible monetary and fiscal policy (not heavily over-borrowing) but avoid excessive regulations. Other points (but not less important) are democracy, gender equality and no wars. Natural resources might seem to some as determiners of wealth, however, why do resource-poor countries like Japan or Switzerland have far better economies than Russia or oil-rich Middle Eastern countries? Creating wealth is taking inputs like human capital and producing things of value. Poor economies are not organized to do that. That's why 2 billion people live on less than $2 a day.

Madison Webster, Chapter 13, Question 6

It was semi strange to me to think that skilled workers succeed most where there are other skills workers. This seems weird because I feel as if a skilled workers' time would be more valuable in a location where there is an absence of skilld workers therefore their talents would be rare. However, this is not the case. If a country is unskilled, they will stay unskilled because the resources are unavailable to remove themselves from this title. If a country is skilled, the will stay this way because there are numerous people to learn from and grow in a skilled area. Not to mention practice the skill they acquire. 

I was able to see this first hand. I traveled to Haiti this past February with 60 others on a medical mission trip. My father is an ophthalmologist and this was his fourth time down in Haiti to do surgeries and volunteer in the community. Since the rules regarding health and privacy are more lenient, I was granted the opportunity to join my father in the operating room to watch him do surgery. By my surprise, he was actually helping to teach a local Haitian ophthalmologist. This woman was skilled but was surrounded by an unskilled environment so was unable to practice her work. It took a number of skilled workers to arrive in order for her to succeed in a skilled environment. 

Taylor Bye, Chapter 12, Question 6

A KFC in the middle of Bali. Seems a bit odd, does it not? Maybe back in the 1980's when Charles Wheelan first saw this sight on his trip to India. Now it's common to see McDonald's and KFC's and other primarily American companies anywhere in the world, as well as seeing products from China and Germany here in the states. And that's a good thing! Maybe it makes me some kind of snob, but I can tell you that if I can afford a German car when I'm older, I will jump into that before any American car. This brings us to the overall analysis of economics found in Chapter 12: globalization and trade.

What I find interesting is that depending who you ask, globalization can either be a very good or bad things. It's quite relative...in fact, it's quite amoral. For example, a form of isolationism would keep certain American workers in their jobs but would slow down both our economy as well as the world's. Ask that American worker if isolationism is the way to go, he or she would probably say yes because they get to keep their job. Ask an economist, the answer would be a solid no. Ask someone who likes to avoid conflict and unfairness and they would probably frown upon globalization. But ask those higher-ups in the business world who are making millions off of people a half a world away and they'd be all for it.

Trade and globalization stimulates our interconnected economy and makes us good economists because we have to take into account how our spending/saving actions are affecting the world economy. Yes, it may cause some people to lose their jobs and an unfair competitive air, but it's working to better the economy as a whole not only for us here in the U.S. but everywhere.

Rita Hammer, Chapter 13, question 6

The majority of this chapter was about policies that economists believe make a country wealthy or poor. The part that stuck out to me the most was that natural resources matter less than we think. I always thought of countries with an abundance of oil, coal, etc were extremely wealthy; however, Wheelan points out that "Isreal, which has no oil to speak of, is a far richer country than nearly all of its Middle Eastern neighbors that have large petroleum reserves." It was surprising to me that Wheelan even pointed out that abundant natural resources may actually be harmful to the growth of an economy. His point relates to the importance of trade. He says,"they (mineral riches) divert resources away from other industries, such as manufacturing and trade, that can be more beneficial to long term growth." This statement puts things into perspective for me, especially when talking about poor countries. Having stuff simply doesn't make any country rich; however, having skilled, educated people and the ability to trade does.

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 13, Question 4

Over the past summer, I participated in a World Vision Mission Trip with my church to a small town called Wallace, West Virginia. The culture of this Appalachian town was very different than the culture I grew up around in midwest Minnesota. In short, I was able to realize the huge wealth gap that is present in the United States through hands on experience with a family I worked with all week. However, instead of striving to get out of the immense poverty they lived in, I saw that it was generational poverty that was not going to end soon. They had no will to end it and they saw no way they could end it. This community had been working in coal mines their entire lives and had no other skills. So, once the mines shut down, they were out of jobs and out of luck.

While reading Chapter 13, my mind wandered back to this family and to this community. Charles Wheelan focused more on the different countries in the world that struggle with poverty and the continuous cycle of it but even though the United States is one of the most developed economies in the world, we struggle with the same issues as the poorest. At the very end of the chapter, Wheelan says, "things become better when there is an overwhelming political will to make them better." Along with the infamous saying of "where there's a will there's a way",  I think that with increased political effort and increased human capital, these families and countries living in ill poverty can be better off. Wheelans provides many ideas and examples throughout the chapter other than human capital but at the end of the day, it comes down to the will to make it happen and carrying through with that will.

Taylor Bye, Chapter 13, Question #3

It probably shouldn't be a surprise to me, but funny enough it is; that government is so involved in the economy of a country. I guess it just never occurred to me. Maybe it's because when I used to think economy, all I thought of was Wall Street and the stocks in specific companies. However this chapter, along with the whole of this semester, has proved me to be extremely wrong.

Economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and James Robinson had a theory about what would determine the economic success of a developing country. They believed that the success would directly correlate to the success of the countries that had formerly colonized them. They found that countries that had been colonized successfully by European countries had flourished while those that were difficult to colonize were much worse off. The impact of this was to highlight the importance of a stable, non-corrupt governing body in establishing the steadiness of a country and its economy.

Of course, I cannot hope to live in a country whose government is perfect, but since I reside in a democratic now, I at least have a say in who will end up in charge. This bit of this chapter made me think long and hard about how I will choose to stay informed and vote when the next election rolls around. I will look for someone who will establish as stable of a foundation for the country as he or she can and I will look for someone with good economic and social sense. I will not be mindless in deciding who runs the country I'm living in for as Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson found, whatever kind of government runs the country, makes the country what it is.

Peter Webster Chapter 11 Question 6

I found what he said about the gold standard to be interesting. The gold standard backed up American dollars in gold. A good thing about this was that it provided exchange rates that were consistent and predictable. The government couldn't print new money unless it had enough gold to backup the currency. The problem is that when money is backed by gold and it has a problem like in the Great Depression, foreigners want gold instead of money. Then the government has to increase interest rates, although that is the opposite of what people need during a depression. So the gold standard is no longer in use as it failed during the Great Depression.

Kiera Ziegler, Chapter 11, Question 7

This chapter caused me to look at currency differently. I now see that a country wants to maintain the value of its currency not only for its own economy but so that's it is appealing to the global economy. He used the example that if Mexico's currency had stronger buying power we would exchange our money for pesos so we could purchase more with less and live better.  When Wheelan said "National borders are political demarcations, not economic ones," this provided me with am entirely new view on global economy. The borders make the world seem separated and disconnected; however one thing we all have in common in money. Also, when Wheelan talks about currency exchange, I always though you would just exchange a dollar for a dollar, however that is not the case. The value of each currency must be calculated to know how much to exchange.

Harris Worthman, Chapter 11, Question 7

While I was reading chapter 11 of Naked Economics there was about two pages about the importance of the exchange rate between countries. If the correct value of exchanging different currencies is not equal then it is liable to have those that take advantage of the system to make a profit. It is also important to exchange for the right value in another currency because, in one instance, the author, Charles Wheelan, went to China and though he exchanged 100 dollars of his money for what it said it should be exchanged for in his book, he realized his book was outdated and he ended up only receiving about 13 dollars in return. The exchange rate is important not only for the average person but for governments as well. Many governments are afraid that when they receive money from another government that they recently created more money just to pay off their debt. That makes the value of the money they payed them to down.

Jonathan Webb, Chapter 11, Question 6

   When he said that, "in a modern economy, more than three-quarters of goods and services are no tradable." that was a big surprise to me. Because of the examples he was talking about earlier in the chapter about the car trades and my own experiences in my life I thought it would be that number just for tradable goods. The whole Mumbai example got me thinking just how relative the world is. I mean, some who is struggling here in the United States could have the same kind of benefits as someone would who is doing successful in a 3 world country. But the fact is, would they be happier in the U.S. or there. Or if you think the oppisate way, some famous rapper in Africa is getting all these benfits, but if they came over to the U.S. and earned the equivalent as what he was earning in Africa, it obviously wouldn't be as nice. So again the question would be, would that rapper rather live in Africa getting his benefits there, then"highlife" in Africa but worse conditions or to the U.S. making less and not getting the same benefits but living in better conditions with more opportunities?

Max Hobrough, chapter 11, Question 7

In chapter 11 they talk about international markets and how they operate and how they can relate each other. I think the most interesting section of this chapter is how they actually use the Big Mac Index all over the world to compare prices in the economy. This is an easy product to do a comparison because all over the world it has to be made with the same ingredients. This meathod can determine how strong an economy's currency is compared to other countries. Now though this is not as effective because different economy's have been crashing and the fast food lifestyle has gone down the drain. Another part of this chapter that seemed interesting was that Pepsi made a barter agreement with Russia for vodka because their currency was so soft and weak that it would be worthless for Pepsi to use. This system can be very effective because it can cut out all of the negative externalities for the most part, when it comes to the rate of exchange in currency. If more people started to do this they could get what they wanted without all of the unnecessary eceonomics effects.

Zach Du, Chapter 11, Question 6

In Chapter 11, the part which talks about relationship between China and US really caught my attention. "China's export-oriented development strategy depends on keeping the renminbi relatively cheap. To accomplish that, Chinese government recycles accumulated dollars primarily into U.S. treasury bonds, which are loans to the U.S. federal government. Both parties get what they want (or need), at least in the short run" (266). James Fallows stated that:"Without China's billion dollars a day, the United States could not keep its economy stable or spare the dollar from collapse" (266). But on the other hand, "The Chinese have it worse. Suppose America's debt burden grows beyond what U.S. taxpayers can (or are willing) to pay back. The U.S. government could default- simply refuse to honor its debts" (267). This means if US prints more money and creates inflation, the debts would automatically lose its value. What's more interesting:"In fact, every person in the United States has over the past 10 years or so borrowed about $4,000 from someone in the People's Republic of China" (267).

Gunnar Nelson, Chapter 11, Question 6

I find it interesting how Wheelans last statement ties into the relationship between America and China, which we are in an unhealthy economic relationship. The bulk of China's economic success is in the main production of exported goods, in the short run- both economies get want they want. China uses exports to generate jobs, GDP, and wealth, and America gets loans to add onto the national debt. " The United States gets loans from China to buy its exports." As a debtor country, we are vulnerable to the demands of China's creditors "America has a borrowing habit; China feeds it." I have always wondered how American policy of debt has effected other countries. We are in a difficult position with China because of our large amount of debt. In order to pay off our debt without infuriating tax payers would be a dirty task, your two main options are 1. Inflate it away, which would hurt both economies, or 2. refuse to pay the debts, also extremely detrimental to international, as well as national economics and social health. However through cooperation, nations can plan ahead to decide on the smartest way for an economy to act, which gives a small sense of relief.  

In the last passage of Chapter 11, Wheelan makes the comparison of baseball to international economic health. Baseball is a zero-sum game, where only one team can take it all and win the World Series, where as international Economic health is a different story. "All countries can become richer over time", as nations cooperate with each other, the world gets richer at the expense of no one.

Olivia Barr, Chapter 11, Question 6

While reading this chapter, I found the section about the gold standard to be very interesting. Although I've understood the concept of a backed currency for a long time, it didn't occur to me that using a backed currency could have such unstable effects on the economy. I found it troubling to learn that the gold backed currency used at the time of the great depression contributed to the depression. Previously, I've been told that buying in credit was the key problem leading into the recession, however after reading this chapter, and learning about the gold standard, it is very clear to me that the gold standard limited the number of options to fight the economic downturn. Ma also found it interesting that Argentina used a dollar backed currency for some time. All in all these sections of the chapter made it clear to me that using the gold standard, or backing one currency with another will likely lead to economic downturn.

Madison Webster, Chapter 11, Question 6

The part that most struck me was titled "Funny Money". I thought it was super interesting how when Berlin was split into East and West by the wall, East Berlin had its own currency. This sounds reasonable of course, due to the distinct separation, but the fact that the currency was only allowed in that part of Berlin, in that part of Germany, in that part of Europe, in that part of the world! The money was completely worthless anywhere else!! Not because the exchange rate was bad, but because no money was allowed to be taken out of the area. If leaving, an account would be started to save the money for when you return.

 I think this is an excellent example to reveal the importance of having an exchange rate. The world is separted into many countries but is interconnected through location. Currency, language, food, appearance, values are just a few of the aspects that differentiate cultures. A key way to interconnect the world is to have an exchange rate for currency. If East Berlin would have established this idea, people could take there East Berlin money and exchange it for an equal value in any other currency of the world. This makes buying, selling, trading, etc. way more efficient and convenient.

Darby Quast, Chapter 11, Question 6

The description of the gold standard stood out to me while reading chapter 11.  At first, it seemed as though this was a logical solution to coordinating exchange rates.  Having a gold standard would create extremely predictable exchange rates.  If  an ounce of gold is worth 10 dollars in America, and worth 1 Yen in Japan, you would therefore receive ten dollars for every Yen.  To me, this seemed to simplify an incredibly complicated process.  It also makes sense to me that the dollar would have some intrinsic value.  The fact that the dollar can be worth close to nothing is a hard concept to grasp.   When it is tied to something like gold, it gives it value.  There are many problems with this system, which is why it is not used in the modern world.  The federal reserve would not be able to devalue he currency, which is a major way to fight off a recession.  They would also be more likely o raise interest rates and cut spending to try and protect their gold.  Both these things would hurt an economy  in a recession rather than help it out of one.

Nathalie Heidema, Chapter 11, Question 6

There were several things that I found interesting in this chapter. I chose Goeorge Sorosis` one billion in a day and the Big Mac Index.

When Britain was in a recession, the value of the pound fell and international investors withdrew from from their investments in Britain, selling the pound and looking for other opportunities elsewhere. With currency it`s similar, it`s all about the supply and demand. As the demand for pound decresed, so did its value. The government could either "use its reserves of other foreign currencies to buy pounds" or it could raise interest rates, so it would attract foreign investors. However, as we know, raising interest rates is the opposite that one wants to do when in a recession, as it makes the economy even worse. Anyways, even the ERM could not help the fact that the pound was falling and eventually the British government stopped trying to defend its currency and withdrew from ERM. The pound fell 10%, which is the source of Sorosis` gain - a successful bet that made him a billion dollars in one day.

To compare the value of currencies between countries and "evaluate the exchange rates relative to what PPT would predict", the Economists created the so called Big Mac Index. As the McDonald`s really conquered every corner of the world (even the small town in the mountains where my grandma lives), they found it as a good way to find out if the currency is over or under-valued. That seems pretty fair, but the example shows that it doesn`t always work out that well. When American and Chinese Big Mac were compared, the result was that a dollar buys 3,5 renminbi. However, the official exchange rate was $1 to 6,38 - which is quite a difference. That says, even if the Big Mac appears in more than 120 countries, we shouldn`t let it have the final world of the exchange rates between countries.

Taylor Bye, Chapter 11, Question #6

You may have heard Michael Jackson's and Lionel Richie's "We are the world" before. All about how we're all connected. Well it's not only our human souls that find connection, but it's our economies too. The country of Britain found that out in a most brutal way on September 16, 1992, when their currency, the pound, lost ten percent of its value. This was due to a system called the ERM or the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which was supposed to manage large discrepancies of European countries' currency. This worked for a while but, like with inflation, values of each currency fluctuate.

I find it very interesting not to mention metaphorically resonant that the world's economies come down to one important thing: value. What we hold value in, we try to capture for ourselves. We try to understand subjects that are of some worth to us. We try to hold onto things that are most precious. Both life and money have these astonishing fluctuations of value. To one person, something may not be as valuable as it is to another. Such with countries and their economies. With this idea of value found both in this chapter and the one before, I am opened up to seeing money as more than just cold hard paper and coins. Money represents something. It represents what we put value in. And this value, whether it is worth more to me than to you, dictates what I do with it. In fact, it dictates what entire nations do with it.

Angela Scharf, Ch.11, Q.7

What I learned in this chapter is the basics of international exchange. The world currencies are no different than national goods and services in that they essentially "change prices" on a supply and demand curve. If the demand of currency is down, so does the value. When it comes to international trade, the concept is slightly more complex, however when broken down is not unlike national trade. It is just capitol that extends beyond the international borders. The issue in international exchange is that not all mediums of exchange have and equal ratio in value. Furthermore, because most modern economies don't have currencies with any intrinsic value, the rate at which one currency can be exchanged for another is called the exchange rate. This also carries over into the Purchasing Power Party (PPP) or the idea that one dollar that can purchase a set amount of goods and services that can then be translated into another international currency based on how much of their money is used to buy those same goods and services. For example, if 50 American dollars bought a certain good, and those same goods cost 75 Japanese yen, then it could be implied that 75 yen is worth roughly 50 American dollars. Another factor that has to be recognized is the difference between the nominal exchange rate (as earlier stated-the rate at which one currency can be exchanged for another) and the real exchange rate (which takes into account inflation).

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 11, Question 7

The currency that belongs to each seperate country is unique and symbolic (with the exception of the euro). Most countries print their most infamous leaders in their coin and paper currencies thus showing the strength and prosperity of that country publically. In a way, a countries currency could be as unique as a nation's native language. Fortunately, we are able to translate most languages into another language and for currency, our translator is the PPP or purchasing power parity. 

Through Chapter 11, I was able to learn and understand more about the translation that occurs between the different countries and economies of the world as well as why that is. My mind automatically began comparing the different currencies to languages and as I was figuring out an easier way to translate the currencies than the PPP, Charles Wheelam introduced the Big Mac theory. To me, this way of thinking was essentially equivalent to the English mid translator at the annual United Nations meeting. Due to the fact that the Big Mac is served at many places around the globe, the prices are easy to compare for most countries. Although there are some variations on the actual price it's being sold at and what the PPP says it should be, this mid translator is the theory that seemed most logical to me.

The ins and outs of global economies and currencies are incredibly complex and most likely need many year of schooling to fully understand. However, what I understand from reading twenty pages of an Econ book is that economies fluctuate and affect other nations economies daily, yearly, and will continue to. The most important thing overall is making sure Iceland gets Big Macs back and thus can use their mid translators again!

Taylor Bye, Chapter 10, Question #4

Isn't it scary to think about something we've previously put so much value in can suddenly become worthless? Well, to me it is. And that thought is put into nightmarish reality with inflation. It urges people to spend hastily and almost mindlessly just to get the biggest bang for their buck while they still can. Yet when inflation deflates back to a somewhat normal state, people may see that the things they spent in their inflation-induced shopping spree can be as worthless as the cash they used to buy them with. Inflation can bring the whole nation to its knees within hours, and then leave it in disarray after it's done vomiting everywhere.
So how can we decrease this problem that can leave the whole nation in a shambles? One way is the Federal Reserve. In order to fight inflation, the federal reserve can heighten reserve rates, discount rates and also sell bonds. It's these actions that keep the nation from really slipping under when inflation hits. Thanks to the Federal Reserve, America has not experienced hyperinflation. And also thanks to the Federal Reserve, we can all start putting faith back in the worth of things again.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter 11, Question 6

The most interesting, and fun part of this chapter for me was learning about the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, Great Britain's recession and devaluing currency in the 1990's, and George Soros' billion dollar gain in one day. Wheelan's explanation of what the exchange rate between currencies is (the value of a country's currency relative to the value of another country's currency), and the example of an actual exchange rate that Wheelan included (Britain's 1 pound equaling 2.95 German marks)  really helped me understand the importance of exchange rates, and what that means to have a strong valuable currency. Wheelan also included how the value of currency is measured (the supply relative to the demand for the currency.)

I thought it was really interesting how a man named George Soros made a billion dollars in one day by monitoring the value of Great Britain's currency during their recession in the 90's and taking out loans based on the decaying value of the British pound.

Basically Soros waited for signs that the British pound was going to drop tremendously in value. Right before it did Soris took out a loan for basically 10 billion pounds. Soros then exchanged these 10 billion pounds for 10 billion German marks (assuming that the exchange rate for British pounds and Germany marks was 1 pound = 1 mark) Then Soros waited for the value of the British pound to drop. When it did drop, it dropped by 10% causing the exchange rate for British pound and German marks to be 1.10 pounds = 1 mark.  Soros exchanged his 10 billion marks for 11 billion pounds. Then Soros paid off his loan with 10 billion of his pounds, and walked away with an extra 1 billion pounds.

Maddie Binning, Chapter 11, Question #7

I had never realized that strong currency did not necessarily mean a healthy economy. It's an easy conclusion to jump to that a strong dollar meant a strong economy, but through this explanation, it's easy to see what that isn't true. In addition, the explanation as to why one single currency wouldn't be a realistic, functional way to control an economy opened my eyes to a new way of thinking. I had always wondered why we didn't simply have a universal currency in other to do away with exchange rates and such. It makes sense that having a single currency doesn't allow for adjustments in order to maintain differing regional economies. The adjustment that would be made to reduce inflation would only exacerbate potential recession in other localized economies, therefore rendering a universal currency illogical and unrealistic.

Hammer Rita, Chapter 11, Question 7

While reading chapter 11, I kept asking myself why doesn't every country just have the same currency since inflation, exchange rates, etc make transfers seem extremely complicated and often times result in a bad deal for someone. On page 262, Wheelan adresses this question by saying, "There are benefits to broadening a currency zone... A single currency across Europe reduces transaction costs and promotes price transparency," Its a good thing that Europe doesn't have the struggle of exchanging currencies all the time anymore; however, Wheelan goes on to say, "countries that share a currency with other nations...give up control over their own monetary policy." I found it interesting that if all countries did actually have the same currency, the world would have an extremely hard time growing economically because if one country or area is heading towards a recession and could benefit from lower interest rates, the other areas that are thriving or experiencing severe inflation (and could benefit from lower interest rates) would suffer. This perhaps would create huge tensions and disagreements amongst different nations about how the economy should be operating. Overall, the idea of having one currency wouldn't work.

Miriam Scheel, Chapter 11, Question 6

In this chapter Wheelan talks about several global economic issues, but it is his summary at the end of the chapter that struck me. Especially these sentences: "Only one team can win the World Series. International economics is the opposite. All countries can become richer over time, even as individual firms within those countries compete for profits and resources." (p. 269)
In my head there has always been this underlying assumption that if one country gets richer others get poorer. I had the same assumption about humans, that in order for one person to become rich that person had to steal (more in a figurative sense of the word) the wealth from other people. Now this rule is as I found out in this class is not directly true, and I could have imagined that this also counts for the global economy, but I never thought about this part and I never thought about the consequences of this new truth: that every economy could grow at the same time. Given this statement, the goal of global wealth seems a lot more reachable, it seems like if there could only be the right people in the right position, this goal can be achieved. Now, I know that these right people may not be able to exist, and that our current system doesn't particularly favor working hard for someone else's outcome, but it seems like a very nice thought that, in theory it could happen.


But then of course wealth is somewhat relative and doesn't at all guaranty happiness.

Jona Bakke, Chapter 11, Question #6

One passage that struck me as particularly significant is when Wheelan explains the ongoing predicament of the United States and China. While I knew that there was an unbalanced relationship between the two economies, I did not realize the extent or possible consequences of the situation. The United States is indebted to China for about a trillion dollars. Wheelan describes the situation as an "unhealthy symbiotic relationship that has the potential to come unglued at any time" (Wheelan 266).

The United States has reason to fear from the unbalanced relationship with China because it is the debtor nation, relying on loans to maintain a strong economy. If China were to break this relationship, our economic position could plummet. However, Wheelan states that the Chinese have more reason to fear. The United States could simply choose not to repay its debts, or increase inflation in order to lessen the value of them. Wheelan says, "If someone owed me a trillion dollars and also had the authority to print those dollars, I would spend a lot of time worrying about inflation" (Wheelan 267).

I was not aware of how large of a role both China and the U.S. have in each other's economies and what great damage could occur. Wheelan states that the current relationship between China and the U.S. will come to an end, although we don't know when, why, or how, which imposes fear on both nations as well as on the rest of the world.

Harris Worthman, Chapter 10, Question 6

In chapter 10 of naked economics Charles Wheelan devalues the dollar in a single paragraph. Stating that the bills in your wallet are "just paper." He also stated that if you were on an island and had 1 million dollars you would quickly perish. If you were on an island and had the same value in gold you would be no better off. Money is an item used for trading, it's not supposed to have other uses. I understand his point but we are not children and money is a great idea. It was designed to be useless.

Kiera Ziegler Chapter 10 Question 6

It unnerving to me that economists don't agree on how the Federal Reserve should manage the money supply or why it affects our economy as much as it does. I always had the perspective that there's has to be a solution or an easy way to regulate money and it's effects on the economy; however, that's not the case. Wheelan say, "getting it wrong can have disastrous comsequences," (220). If the federal reserve makes a mistake can affect the world as Robert Mundell argued. He claimed that if the price of gold had been raised in the 1920's and 30's and pursued price stability there would have been no Great Depression, no Nazi revolution, and no World War II. As in many other things in economics hind sight is often 20/20, to me this is the scariest thing about economics often times it's hard to know where you are or what's going wrong in the moment or to know the effect of something on the future economy.

Max Hobrough Chapter 10 question 7

This chapter mainly talked about the value of money in all of its forms and how they can be used and the flow of this currency. The part that really interested me was how when you look at an object that you bought a long time ago for cheap then you look to buy one these days and it is so much more money. This strength of the domestic American dollar has gone down in value over time due to inflation and the amount of currency that is actually available for the public. The more currency we produce the more the dollar goes down in value. An example of this is buying bonds, it is almost anticipating inflation of the dollar because really if you look at the actual amount of a bond you bought a while ago in most cases you are just getting the same amount of money it would be worth when you bought it. So some people look at this and are mind blown because a bond they bought a while ago is "worth" so much more than it they bought it for, but it is really just inflation of the dollar. There is a way we can fix this, my idea is that we make our currency actually have self-worth and not just a meatless piece of paper or zinc. This would actually give value to the dollar which would secure strength for it in the future. 

Griffin Pontius chapter 10 question 7

       Of the things the discussed in this chapter, the idea that economic growth has a speed limit, was a very interesting analogy.  When we go "over" this economic speed limit, we risk inflation.  In order to curtail this,  We raise interest rates.  The exact oppisite can be said if we go "under" this speed limit; if we go under the speed limit, we risk deflation.  Our combatant to this is to lower interest rates, by doing this, we should return to the legal limit of about 3%.
       As I read this chapter, my understanding of how much power the federal reserve has and how they can control the economy.  The author talks about how after the 9 11 attacks, the Federal Reserve realeased a two sentance statement that cut intersest rates by .5%.  Also by reading this chapter, I learned how important the federal reserve really is, up until reading this, I had heard the term "Federal Reserve" kicked around, and on the news, but I had never really understood what it was.

Scott stewart, chapter 10, question 5

The issue of the federal reserve and what the federal reserve should do is an extreemly controvesial subject. On the news we always see people complaining that the should/shouldn't have done this. The author helped illuminate the great importance if the federal reserve and why its actions are so controversial. The federal reserve works to maximize our economy without causing inflation, and to keep up going at our economic "speed limit." Because of the importance of this job, everyone wants it to be done differently.

Chapter 10 Q-2

Overall chapter 10 blew my mind. It's complexities are so deep that it's no wonder why we struggle every year with this same concept of inflation. In chapter 10 Wheelan mentions a lot about how inflation can really impact my life. The biggest impact of inflation on my life is how it hurts my "buying power." As inflation increases the value of each dollar decreases making it less powerful. This simply effects everything. Now I worry about retirement. When I'm older and want to save for retirement, as I save inflation causes that savings to be worth less and now I have to put more money in because the cost of goods and services will also increase with inflation. Wow, this really could screw some people over and it has and will continue to. Inflation can also help people interestingly. If someone is in debt and owes someone a lot of money then unexpected inflation occurs, what you owe them is less now and isn't as bad anymore hurting the person needing to be paid back but also benefiting the debtor. I used to always ponder about inflation as a kid without knowing what it actually is. I would say "let's just make a bunch of money and all get rich!" I think this thought might cross a lot of kids minds but soon they'll learn from Mr. Hoffner of Minnehaha Academy how deeply inflation effects ones life.