Darby Quast, Chapter 1, Question 6

The statement "the market is amoral" really stood out to me while reading chapter one.  I find it interesting that in our country something like diamonds (which is relatively useless) is worth so much while water is almost free.  Like it said in the book, if there were no diamonds in the world, our lives would be unaffected.  With no water, we wouldn't be able to live.  Another example given was how health care is not provided to the poor, while some of the most talented doctors are using their time giving face lifts and breast enhancements.  The reason for all of this is the fact that the market provides for things that people want to buy, rather than what they need.  Although it does come with some problems, having a market economy is also very beneficial to the consumer.  Because there is so much competition, companies are constantly trying to produce bigger and better products, for cheeper.  Whether it is the new iPhone or pain medication, things are always being improved, consequently improving the consumers every day life.

Harris Worthman, Introduction, Question #6

I found many parts of the introduction interesting but strangely humbling. I realized I have a lot to learn. One (very critical) passage in particular about the French government hit me like a brick. In order to solve the unemployment problem they had they tried decreasing the amount of hours in a work week in hopes that it would make room for more workers, which the author states is "utter nonsense". The author boldly states that the leaders of the country, at the time, were unable to grasp even the basics of economics and to be completely honest, I would have probably responded in a similar manner had I been one of those leaders. If there's one thing I would take away from this it's to think through every possibility and to plan accordingly.

Julia Carle, Chapter 1, Question #6

One passage that particularly stood out to me is when Wheelan describes that Wesley Autrey, a fifty year old New Yorker, saved a stranger's life by shielding him/her from a train. Wheelan tells the reader this powerful anecdote to prove a point that "we all make altruistic decisions" (Wheelan 9), and that it is an example of utility that isn't a  selfish act the way some people depict it to be. Reading this passage really made me understand what point Wheelan was trying to prove to the readers. "Maximizing utility is not synonymous with acting selfishly" (Wheelan 8). In the example Wheelan provided, he shows that Autrey wasn't looking in a self-interest point of view of the situation, if he was he probably would've let the train run over the stranger. It was the most memorable passage of the first chapter for me because the point Wheelan was making made crystal clear sense to me, and it's nice to know that someone would sacrifice his life for a stranger, that they don't even know.

Elena Gutierrez, Chapter One, Question 7

Being a teen who has had the opportunity to grow up in a middle class family and attend private school, my economic values or personal "utility" is quite different from a person growing up half way around the world. One of the first points that Charles Wheelan makes in chapter one is that each and every person has there own personal utility; that each person values and spends their time and money on different things. Wheelan gives the example of how some richer countries might value the preservation of rain forests simply because they can afford to preserve the environment, while other countries value the production of malaria preventing mosquito nets over the preservation of of the rain forest. I use to not understand why some countries would cut down trees, and destroy various animal's habitats. I use to wonder why those people didn't share my concern for the rain forests. Now I understand this societal economic issue. Some societies or groups of people can afford (whether it be time or money) to plant or save one or two trees, but other societies simply don't have the resources to desire to plant or save trees. Wheelan words the issue perfectly: "It is bad economics to impose our preferences on people who's lives are much, much different." This idea that each economy is driven by      each individual's personal utility has opened my eyes to a deeper understanding of each economy. 

Rita Hammer, Chapter 1, Question 6

A passage that struck me as significant was when Wheeler says, "Small differences in talent tend to become magnified into huge differentials in pay as a market becomes very large." Wheeler compares this statement with a professional basketball player, and how their talent can't earn them millions more than someone who has similar or almost equal talent. This passage struck me because it puts my future into perspective in a sense that individuals will be expected to have more knowledge and skill as we become more innovated as a society. This idea creates significant competition as people try to pursue their ideal careers. The more you have to offer, the more valuable you are to an employer, making them want to hire you before the other x amount people in line. This idea effects our future as it pertains to how well we are succeeding right now in school, sports, etc. It's nerve-racking, the idea of being good but not good enough, yet disciplining in a way that it pushes us to become better, later benefiting society as a whole.

Sophie Gunderson, Chapter 1, Question #6

According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of economics is "a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services". Although this seems to be the technical and global understanding of what economics is, Charles Wheelan (along with the help of economists he studied under) introduced an interesting and alternative way of describing what economics is. On page 6, Wheelan quotes a Nobel Prize winning economist that once said, "'economy is the art of making the most of life.'" Not only is this quote striking enough, he goes on to explain economics by saying, "Economics is the study of how do that".

To truly ponder what those two simple statements were relaying to the reader was what I immediately had to do. Not only did this seem like a much simpler way to explain economics, but it also drew me into economics because I want to be a person to make the most out of life! What person wouldn't?Therefore, this passage enticed my mind with the curiosity to seek and attain the goal of making the most of my life using the principles proposed by economics. 

However, as I read further down the page I came to realize that I may have fallen into the enticement of economics too soon. Wheelan states, "Economics starts with one very important assumption: Individuals act to make themselves as well off as possible" (pg. 6). This second passage drew me in as well due to the fact that yes, humans always seek survival and once survival is assured, they seek luxuries. When I was thinking about making the most of my life prior to reading this second passage, I was thinking about pure luxuries and not even considering the necessities that most people have to consider on the daily. At the end of the day however, everyone tends to act in their best interest while making the most of the life they live. I guess it's these tendencies that make up the study of economics itself. 

Taylor Bye, Chapter 1, Question #6

There was a myriad of things discussed in this first chapter of Naked Economics: supply and demand, Soviet Union, rational self-interest, the Celtics, etc. but I'm only going to speak about one aspect that I found particularly fascinating, the aspect of behavioral economics.

Charles Wheelan writes about the illustrious cashew bowl at the dinner party of one economist Richard Thaler. Thaler offered cashews to his guests and they proceeded to gobble them down like they were going out of style until he took away the bowl, least his guests lose their appetites for dinner. His guests, already knowing that this rapid consumption of cashews would spoil their dinner, thanked him. This highlighted the behavioral economic theory that finds that, in the name of rational self-interest, people are not in the position to deny what is offered to them. It all centers around the fruit of the spirit mentioned in the Bible: self-control.

If people lack self-control, they can easily fall into incessant cashew eating (to keep with the metaphor) and they can be coerced into obsession. In reference to supply and demand, this notion would be when the supply is up and the price is low and consumers flock to abundant flow of supply. But of course, it doesn't stay this way forever. As the demand goes up, the supply goes down and the price skyrockets...as Wheelan said it's "the public policy equivalent of taking the cashew bowl away."

Jona Bakke, Chapter 1, Question #6

"A firm can attempt to sell the same item to different people at different prices... The next time you are on an airplane, try this experiment: Ask the person next to you how much he or she paid for the ticket. It's probably not what you paid; it may not even be close" (Wheelan 18). This passage struck me as shocking and very interesting.

I had no idea that airline companies use price discrimination to intentionally make the greatest profit possible. Business travelers, who are willing to pay a great price to get an urgent flight, are purposely charged more than a pleasure traveler, who needs to stay within a budget and has the option not to travel if prices exceed their limit. This is why it is much cheaper for buyers to book a flight weeks before than minutes before; the people who buy their tickets at the last minute are assumed to be the ones who are willing to pay anything for that crucial last-minute flight. As Wheelan states, "You are sitting on the same plane, traveling to the same destination, eating the same peanuts- yet the prices you and your row mate paid for your tickets may not even have the same number of digits" (Wheelan 18).

Air travel is a business in which price discrimination is very present, but it also arises in on-line shopping, human versus canine products, and even grocery stores. I was not aware of this discrimination or the economic rational behind it, but I find it very intriguing.

Jonathan Webb, Introduction, Question 6

      While reading the introduction, I sometimes had to stop and think about what the author was saying and realize how true his statements were. The first of the two statements that struck me was when Mr. Wheelan mentioned, "The problem is not that we like cars; the problem is that we don't have to pay the full cost of driving them" (xxi). I had never thought about that, and it just made me realize how big of a problem that is. He goes on listing what we're not paying and says we wouldn't do a lot of things if we had to pay the full cost for it. The second statement is when he mentioned how Economics is evolving. Thought the statement was a nice thing to know, a good piece of knowledge to remember. Later on he mentions that people tend to think that what is happening now is what's most likely to happen later...and how that not true. I thought it was a very good thing to remember when talking about econ now and in the future.

Olivia Barr, Chapter 1, Question 3

The implications about the amorality of markets clarifies that diamonds will always be scarce and expensive, and for the most part (in the developed world) water will be plentiful, safe, and of insignificant price in comparison to diamonds because the market rewards scarcity. There are no explicit consequences to this, aside from the fact that I can't rely on the price of diamonds falling so if I want diamonds, I (or someone else) must be willing to pay a significant amount of money to purchase them. It is also implicit that when I travel to Europe, I run the risk of being kidnapped and sold into the European market for sex-workers, in exchange for a great profit for captor. This implication is both negative and frightening, however the number of girls kidnapped is almost insignificantly low (mathematically) compared to the number of girls in Europe, so it is a case of a situation where one risk is feared more than another more relevant fear like...falling into financial distress and not being able to afford health care, then falling ill and accumulating more debt, while getting sub-par care all because you're not profitable to care for. Yes, refusing care to people who are poor is unfair and immoral, but hey, all is fair in supply and demand, right? Wrong, its amoral, fairness is irrelevant, its profits that matter. 

Nathalie Heidema, Introduction, Question #7

What I learned in this chapter was that Economics is really present in every aspect of our lives (politics, social, personal). Economics is about being logical and rational, but we tend to act according to our emotions and feelings. It is significant for us people to understand it so that we can predict and prevent some events or things that might happen; e.g. the financial crisis starting 2008. How could be people so stupid, he asks? It`s that they were economically illiterate. People often look at small groups rather than the society and prefer their current benefit and wealth instead of thinking about the long run. It`s well portrayed on the example with cars. Everybody thinks about their individual advantage of driving the car, not “paying the whole bill”. But it harms the society as a whole by global warming or pollution. 

Maddie Binning, Introduction, Question #6

The passage I found particularly interesting was the passage about the number of jobs available. While it seems obvious that the number of jobs are not limited to a specific integer, it's exactly the sort of observation that displays the thought processes behind economics. While each example of the benefits of a consumer (e.g. an extra night in the hospital) points out important facts about the economic system we live in, the issue of employment is one that struck me due to the overarching importance of it. The debate of immigration has often centered around the disappearance of American jobs, however this passage and economics as a whole allows for the realization that the number of work hours and the positions available are ever-changing. Just as the creation of internet brought about jobs, so can other innovations each day. It was memorable because it answered a commonly asked asked question with a simple answer, despite widespread disagreement.

Zach Du, Chapter 1, Question #6

The introduction gives the reader lots of interesting examples of how economic thinking applies to our daily lives. The example which proposed by one of the theoretical economists from Boston University Glenn Loury was particularly illuminating: "Only one of the white candidates has suffered from affirmative action; the other eight wouldn't have gotten the job anyway. Yet all nine white candidates go away angry, feeling that they have been discriminated against"(xx). The story tells the reader to examine the problem thoroughly and try to see it in multi-aspects. The Affirmative Action seemed beneficial for African American to live in a better social environment, but it harm the right of other races. In other words, this action instead of healing the relationship between African American and other Americans, further damaged this bond. In conclusion, this example is profound because it presented a simple economic thinking by telling a amusing story, which gives people the opportunity to learn economy easily and correctly.

Peter Webster Introduction Question 6

While reading the Introduction I realized how little so many people know about basic economics. It doesn't matter how smart the person is, they may not know much about the topic. I basically think of economics as how your actions will effect the society. I found it interesting how Charles Wheelan described the tradeoffs that we deal with every day without even thinking about them. "The effect is a bit like a night on the town with Dad's credit card: We do a lot of things that we wouldn't do if we had to pay the whole bill" (Wheelan xxii). His description of our actions is accurate, as most of us-according to his example- do not think about the effect we will have on the world when we go buy some gas to fill up the car. A couple times throughout the intro, Wheelan talks about how individuals do not pay the bill for what they do, but society does.

Madison Webster, Introduction, Question 7

When it comes to economics, I know very little. I was very hesitant coming into this class because I do not know much about the subject matter. After reading the introduction of Naked Economics, I discovered that I am not the only one. Wheelan comments that "...many intellectually curious people are missing a subject that is provocative, powerful, and highly relevant to almost every aspect of our lives" (xviii). This gives reason behind why economics is a required class at our school. Economics pertains to everyone, it is the way our society functions. "Economics should not be accessible only to the experts. The ideas are too important and too interesting" (xxv). It's interesting to me how little people know about economics. Even the presidents of the United States don't know every detail!

I learned that we must think beyond our personal selves and think of society as a whole. The actions that each person commits affects the world in some way. The example that Wheelan gave about "American lust for the automobile" (xxi), really caught my attention because it was something I could relate to. I drive my car everyday and the only thing I really think of is paying for gas. Maintenance and insurance don't even cross my mind, but they do cross my parent's minds. However, there are aspects that many people don't ever think about and those are "...the emissions we leave behind, the congestion we cause, the wear and tear on public roads, the danger we pose to drivers in smaller cars" (xxii). This introduction sparked my interest to read further into this book and learn more about the ignorance of humans.

Gunnar Nelson, Introduction, Question 2

I will admit that I thought reading the introduction to naked economics by Charles Wheelan would be pointless reading that I would not need to know or understand. I could not have been more wrong. I found the introduction to be both intriguing and very applicable to my life currently, as well as in the future. 

I never thought that the topics of air pollution, different health reform plans, affirmative action, and other topics Wheelan skimmed over in this chapter would ever be associated with Economics and with my life. However, these issues affect my life in multiple ways for both the present and future. One of Wheelan's arguments was about vehicles and America's need for cars, and how it provides such an economocial and environmental problem. The author proves that the only way to help the environment is to raise the price in gas and auto repair, to ween people off of the need for an automobile. I always thought these issues to be more political, but I now see that these issues involve more than just politics. 

Just in the introduction Wheelan has proven to me that an understanding of economics is a necessity to understand the way our country runs and to help our country run better. Not only will these economical situations effect me directly, but it will also effect my children and grandchildren aswell. 

Scott Stewart, Introduction, Question #6

"As obvious as the financial crisis seems after the fact, few economists saw it coming (with some notable exceptions). Virtually none anticipated how sever it might be. In the fall of 2005, several prominent economists wrote in a prestigious journal, 'As of the end of 2004, our analysis reveals little evidence of a housing bubble'"
This passage particularly stuck out to me because it is scary that the people who have a job to try and see (and predict) this kind of thing had virtually no idea when it happened. Even more scary, however, is the fact that some of them still were denying it when there was evidence of it right in front of them. It really shows how unpredictable the world can be.

Pontius Griffin, introduction, question 7

First off this was a phenomenal introduction to this book and I'm excited to read it.

       After reading the introduction of Naked Econmics, my econmic horizons have been broadened a little bit.  One of my favorite things about Econmics so far has been the critical thinking aspect of it.  The introduction talks about ideas such as the econmic benefits that smokers give to non smokers or  how extended maternity leaves would be bad for women.  Smokers die earlier leaving non smokers with more social security and pension funds. Extended maternity leave would actually harm the public because fewer people would be able to afford basic health care.
       The author does a great job of explaining how we never fully pay for something, in his example he uses cars. We do upkeep and fill the car with gas, but we don't pay for the gas emissions into the atmosphere (not yet anyway) This has made me realize that the same thing could be said for virtually any energy source.  Take giant wind turbines for example, over a period of 10 years, it's estimated that 1 wind turbine could save you 10 million dollars.  That would be great, but one wind turbine cost 5 million dollars to produce. The production of anything such as a wind turbine, has a cost that may not directly affect us, but could in the future.

Sophie Gunderson, Introduction, Question #2

It is a bit frightening to realize how little I knew about economics in general. This realization came not only after a few days of class, but also after having read the introduction to Naked Economics. However, it was made very clear to me by the author, Charles Wheelan, that this should change and will change. After this short introduction I realized that economics is everywhere. It is the way we react in different situations and it is the way we function as a society on the daily basis. I never thought about how immediate the affect of economics was on my everyday life. This directly affects everything we do and every decision we make.

This introduction posed many different examples about how economics affects us today and in the future. What became apparent throughout these examples was how humans tend to act in their best interest in the moment and never weigh the tradeoffs or the long term effects of their actions. This is portrayed through bank loans and long, unnecessary commutes that we insist on making. The money for the loans has to come from somewhere and the commutes only add more pollution and global warming. Other, more humorous examples pointed out well-known political leaders and how little they know about economics as a whole while they try (and fail) to talk about little parts of it. Specifically pointing out Ross Perot as being able to come up with memorable phrases throughout his election, yet never quite nailing the economics behind them.

Overall, this introduction gave me the momentum to continue reading and learning. I am further intrigued to see the teachings laid out through laughable examples. Wheelan made me comfortable in knowing that this book will not be "for dummies" but rather bare, to the point, and naked.

Darby Quast, Introduction, Question 6

While reading the introduction, what stood out to me the most was the fact that most people are essentially economically illiterate.  "Even many of our political leaders could use a dose of Econ 101".  If this issue was fixed, I believe that many of our nations biggest problems could be solved relatively easily.  It seems as though many Americans today are focusing on short term gains, rather than thinking about the future.  An example of this would be someone choosing to spend all of their money now, rather than saving for retirement.  Is driving a brand new car, or living in a big house worth having to work an extra ten years?  Another problem this causes is because people know so little, they may only see benefits and not consider the problems it would cause.  An example of this would be when Bill Clinton was fighting for an extra night in a hospital for women who delivered babies.  While this sounds like a good idea, the benefits would not outweigh the cost. It would cause insurance companies to raise their prices.  This would mean that now less people would be able to afford insurance.  An extra night of comfort is probably not worth people not being able to afford insurance.  Because so many people know nothing about economics, they aren't able to make smart decisions.  If they were given right tools and knowledge less bad decisions would be made.

Kiera Ziegler, Introduction, Question #7

While reading the introduction I realized how little so many people know about economics. Many of the issues in politics that to me seemed like a good solution are bad when truly looked at by an economist. The introduction broadened my idea of what an economist does. I would have never thought an economist would work with a psychologist to study behavior or do studies relating to social issues such as discrimination. Wheelan introduces a new way of thinking. He brings up how, many times a solution to a problem may seem straight. However, when the consequences are further investiagated it often creates a greater problem. I find it easy to think about the short run but Wheelan caused me realize how much more beneficial thinking about the long run can be.

Max Hobrough, Introduction, question 6

   In this introduction of  Naked Economics there were very interesting points that were brought up, such as all of the different examples the author used to show the vitality and necessity for economics to be understood. The more I actually read into the intro the more realizations I made on how this is actually being used everywhere and everyday around me.

       "Most of the great ideas in economics are intuitive when the dressings of complexity are peeled away" (Wheelan XXV). What intrigued me with this statement is that it is so open and subject to a vast quantity of situations that are out there. Just like when on the first day of economics I was only looking at the little picture and not what could happen to the future or in what ways it will effect other people. In this intro it kinda gives glimpses of things that people did not use economics very well, like the first page talking about the Russia and Smokers and what the economic impact is for them. Also it shows the other side on how all of these issues could have been solved just by digging deeper and pulling back the layers. Even with any subject it gets harder and more complex the deeper you dig into the matter, therefore it takes a lot of patience and deep thinking which this book and course should lead us to do.

Angela Scharf, Introduction, Q.2

In this first reading of Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan immediately stresses the importants of learning basic economics. He rather humorously gives the example of the candidacy Ross Perot's argument where Perot passionately voices his views pertaining to the North American Free Trade Agreement, although concluding to be embarrassingly invalid. What's even more embarrassing however is the fact that the majority of voters wouldn't have even noticed the mistake because of lack in economic background. Wheelan encourages the education of economics because it does indeed affect our daily lives regarding job creation (the creation of millions of internet-related jobs that didn't exist in the 1980s),  opportunity costs and blind costs (buying an SUV but not weighing the excess costs such as air pollution and the urban sprawl), and spending and markets in general (pertaining to the housing market and "hot potato" with morgage brokers and loans). Wheelan simply states that economics is as essential as gravity. These issues affect us both directly and indirectly, on a daily basis and in our lives generally. The decisions that are made presently will either reward us in the future or play part in our downfall.