Bennett Pope, epilogue, Question 5

One passage that caught my attention was when Wheelan said "if we are to make the best use of these tools, we ought to think abouth where we are trying to go." I think we have reached a point where we let the economy drive us, not making sure we drive the economy. We have become so focused on making money that that has become our goal, and, newsflash, it won't make us happy. Where are we trying to go? And how do we need to get there? We need to ask ourselves this question if we want to be happy in this country.

Eleanor Oakman. Epilogue question 5

A passage that I found interesting was during the part where Wheelan is discussing the future American system. "The American system is a richer, more dynamic, more entrepreneurial economy - and harsher and more unequal." This passage struck me because being a senior in high school I can't help but wonder what the American system will be like when I most likely am involved with it. As time goes on American and it's economy is forcing itself to get bigger and bigger, even if that means damage to some people.  This is what is so intimidating about finding decent jobs, paying the bills, and putting food on the table. As a young person I can't predict correctly how competitive the economy and the job market will be, but I am guessing, like how Wheelan predicted, it will be "harsher and more unequal."

Lily Bjorlin, Epilogue, Question 2

In the epilogue, one of Wheelan's questions about life in 2050 is about putting pleaser and aesthetics above income. One of his examples Anthony Lewis talking about how in Italy there are still small family farms and vineyards despite them being economically inefficient. They are beautiful both for their visual aesthetic and for the history and culture they preserve with them. My favorite quote from this passage is "There are values of humanity, culture, beauty, and community that may require deviations from the cold logic of market theory." Much to the chagrin of my friends, I love little small towns and family farms in the countryside. There is something so pleasing and relaxing about the simplistic beauty of it and Everything is less hectic and there seems to be such a sense of community and togetherness that is being lost in more urban areas. Every summer my family goes to Sawyer, MI for a week. Sawyer is a drive by town on the lake on the way to Kalamazoo. There are a bunch of little family farms growing cherries, grapes, soybeans, corn, and of course blueberries. Though it would be more profitable for one big corporation to buy a bunch of land and start cranking out blueberries, the families who live there would suffer and that tight knit community they have would be broken. I believe it is important to hold onto those "old" values of family and respect and handwork that are often found in old timey small towns, even if they don't directly contribute to helping grow the market economy. I'm not saying big corporate farms are a bad thing because they most definitely aren't but they shouldn't completely take over the entire farming industry. They can just stay in Iowa.

Christen Majors Epilogue

I am excited for the time to come when time will be more important than money.  As I can only speak from my personal experience in America (also backed by Wheelan) I will say in general Americans are always going and working and doing. The epilogue of Naked Economics is called Life in 2050: Seven Questions and primarily focuses on the implications on the future. There is a economic theory called the backward-bending labor supply theory gives me hope for our future in America. It gives me hope that we soon we will not have to work like we are on the clock 24/7, like hamsters on a wheel and that we will feel safe in doing so. It gives me hope that my children will have less stress than I or my parents have. Although economics is not the all-knowing and doesn't give us the answer to everything, it does facilitate a better understanding of things like human nature, wealth, poverty, discrimination, and politics.

Epilogue, Question 5 Laura Bartz

The part that I found most interetin was when Wheelan asked "Will the family of a baby girl born tomorrow in rural India have an incentive to invest in her human capital?" Feminism and gender equality have come a very long way in the last century and the amount of investment that has been put into women and girls has risen at an unforeseen rate. I think about questions similar to this on a daily basis, but how long will it take for human capital to be given to girls without a second thought? And when that time comes will it be because gender is not a part of the equation anymore or will it be because that is the smartest decision wight the least opportunity cost, financially and socially?

Caroline Paulsen, Epilogue, Question 5

One of the passages that I found interesting in the Epilogue (starting with the question "Will we have strip malls in 2050?") discussed the possibility of a shift in values in the future. Charles Wheelan writes about how, at some point, society may begin to favor things of culture, community, or aesthetic beauty (such as small-scale, economically less viable farms in Italy) rather than simply amassing wealth in as efficient a way as possible. I found it interesting how, in some ways, by growing wealthier, humans can be drawn to sacrifice some of that wealth for things that are "inefficient" and could even be considered as anachronistic. Likewise, in the more developed parts of the world, tasks that used to be necessities (baking, gardening, etc.) seem to increasingly be becoming hobbies instead.

Matúš Kočalka, Epilogue, Question 5

Mr. Wheelan has done a great job by mentioning some interesting thoughts concerning the future Economics. For me the most interesting part was the one when he said that: "Time will become more important than money" 

Nowadays the world is driven by the supply and demand, and people often think just economically. We focus on our future savings, finances, jobs, duties etc. We are overwhelmed by the massive amount of work that we have to do, and that is usually very stressful. At the same time, people are slowly trying to go back - to live within their communities, to spend time with their families and friends and to focus on the spiritual life. We are also continually moving outside of the stressful city environment. Time is slowly becoming more and more important, and people are starting to realize that money isn´t everything. I hope that in my future life, I won´t be dependent on how much money do I make, but on what life do I live. 

Adam Hano, Epilogue, Question 1

In the Epilogue Charles Wheelan explains what will our society's main concerns be in 2050. What was the most interesting for me was the question about productivity. Charles makes the case that if the productivity grows (as now is growing) then we will have to choose whether to work the same for more wealth or work less for the same amount of production as today. 

Furthermore, Charles brings back the question of Inequality. Today, still more than billion people live on the edge of poverty. How are we going to solve this problem in the future?

Collis McKenzie, Epilogue, Question 2

In the epilogue Wheelan closes his book by once again stating that economics is nothing more than a tool. It does not shape who we are, but we use it to help achieve the goals we set. Economics is not a self-driving car. We cannot just set it and forget it, we still need to steer it. The long- and short-term consequence of thinking of economics as more than a tool is a misguided dependence on the market to guide our actions. Wheelan states that productivity gives us choices, but we still have to make them, and to me that's frightening because, good or bad, people often make the choice that is either not economically sound or serves them at the expense of others. I guess we just have to cross those bridges as we come.

Nathan Rowley, Epilogue, Question 5

The most interesting part of the epilogue to me was at the very end when Charles Wheelan introduces a quote from Simon Johnson, who "noted, 'Overborrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country.' During the first decade of the new millennium, three parties borrowed heavily: consumers, financial firms, and the U.S. government. So far, two have paid a huge price for that leverage. Is there another shoe to drop?" The culture of limitlessness that Wendell Berry speaks of is the cause of such overborrowing, and two of the three levels of society in this nation have already seen the consequences. And although the U.S. is still within a zone of relative safety with the size of its debt, the country will eventually fall if society continues to blind itself to its own limits.

The fourth and largest level of society, that of humanity in its entirety, is also overborrowing, in this case from the planet. The agreement that was just ratified in Paris is a step in the right direction, but as with the U.S. debt, it will fail if countries do not take Earth's tolerances seriously.

Tens of thousands of years ago, Homo Sapiens evolved and humanity entered its infancy. We developed agriculture and settled in villages, which grew into kingdoms and empires as humanity entered childhood. Young children don't like to share, and so it was with the various groups of humans for more thousands of years. The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution brought us into our adolescence, and we engaged in risky and rebellious behavior just like teenagers: we chewed the rainforests like tobacco, and we experimented with different social norms (each generation seems to have their own set). We also learned a lot through science and other areas of study, just as you and me are learning now in high school. Now we are about to enter adulthood, and assume the responsibilities that come with it; it is time for humanity to do the same.

Epiloge, Question 6 Marin

This might have been on of my most favorite chapters just because I liked how it did't necessarily inform me a lot of facts about economics, but rather started asking questions which then made me really think about human nature and our future for economics. The question that struck me the most was "How rich is rich enough." This I feel like can really describe a common issue or theme in American culture. A lot of people may be working towards the American dream, go to college, get a job, get married, buy a house have a family ect. Also when a person says "I wanna be rich" and then you follow up with "Oh how much do you want to make or have saved." Do they actually  know? There is no end game. I feel like human greed can take over and lead to a never ending game. Instead, we should measure things like happiness, love, and stress. I mean there really is no way to measure these, but if people start using " I wanna be happy" when I'm older, I feel like it will pave a more enjoyable path for them. Maybe once we do reach the rich-enough stage, we might be able to step back and analyze this more. Also as I read and saw that there will come a day when we work so much that we eventually will work less. I am so excited for that day. I hope it comes within the next few weeks.

Jack Bexell, Chapter 12

Absolute Advantage vs. Comparative Advantage

In the chapter Wheelan talks about Absolute Advantage by giving an example of Saudi Arabia. He explains that it's about how when 2 countries have a good crop of different goods, when they trade, they trade their crops fairly. It could be indirectly, like the example of Microsoft to rice, but there is still that one for one trade. At the end of the explanation he compares Saudi Arabia to Tiger Woods, which kind of dates the book in a whole, considering Tiger Woods became a sort of untouchable subject...

Comparative Advantage was shown with an example of Bangladesh and Seattle. The engineers of Seattle have doctorates in their craft, and are therefore more qualified to make shirts and shoes, but then they would be spending their time making those shirts and those shoes, instead of making Boeings, and important software. In turn, the people of Bangladesh who are poorly educated make the shirts and the pairs of shoes.

The way Wheelan describes both of these different advantages in the market place in very visual and grabable ways.

All This was done at 10 PM at school^

This Explanation makes the understanding of the concepts a lot easier for me.

Jacky Xu,chapter 12,question 6

"Trade is good for poor countries,too."
When we are thinking about the trading with a poor countries we might think that the poor countries will lose what they have and getting unfair trade,but, in fact,trade give poor countries a key to open a bigger world.Many countries in South Africa get much better by trading with the big countries like US,China,and the trade made the people there much happier.Globalization makes the world much more equal,it makes poor richer,at the same time,keep the rich rich.

Chapter 12 question 6

I found that it was kind of funny that India, after they won their independence and were a more isolated economy wanted a spiral on their flag to shows that they were economically sufficient. I think this is a perfect example of how people's pride can get in their way of becoming successful. I'm sure after India was free for Britain, they wanted to show everyone that they were slef sufficant so the best way to display that some may think is closing themselves off from others. However, ironically enough, one India opened up their economy and trade to the resort of the world, it was a even greater booming success! I feel like this is interesting because it can apply to people outside of economics. I lot of times people won't ask for help and want to be independent, but they they do open up, the help of others and help everyone successes more.

Matúš Kočalka, Chapter 12, Question 6

In this chapter, Mr. Wheelan states that the "trade and globalization" are very beneficial to us, because it makes us better off. Moreover, he says that the Asian sweatshops enable us to achieve this profit. "Productivity is what makes us rich. Specialization is what makes us productive."

In other words, by trading with the poor countries, we enable the people who live in the more progressive ones to specialize on their work and to achieve the productivity. Since they don´t need to care about making the clothes, because someone else does it for them, they can fully focus on inventing e.g. flying car (Slovakia), and thus to make all of the people eventually better off.   

And people who make the clothes - e.g. assembly workers in Bangladesh, are specialized in their labour and that´s something what they can provide us. 

Thanks to the productivity, which is accomplished by the specialization, this world can continue growing, and it´s becoming even safer place than it´s nowadays. 

Adam Hano, Chpater 12, Question 6

In Chapter 12 Charles Wheelan explains how trade makes us all richer and why it is a good long term solution to outsource “easy” jobs to third world countries. He explains that by outsourcing the jobs wealthy countries gain, because in the long run it creates new jobs in their countries too.

For the past few months a pizza place in White Bear Lake was trying to open a new pickup place. However, they were unable to find new workers for a long time. Nobody in White Bear Lake wants to hand out pizza anymore. What would happen if third world countries would become richer, and the people would not be willing to have jobs in call centers or clothes manufacturers? 

Jack McGillivray, Chapter 12, Question 3

Something I found extremely interesting was how the problems posed by globalization have such unintuitive answers. For example, if one doesn't like sweatshops the logical thing to do is stop buying products produced in them. However, this will only worsen the conditions for the people employed there. Sweatshops, even though they have awful and sometimes inhumane working conditions, build the wealth and human capital of poor countries. Another issue with similar circumstances is carbon emissions by third world counties, such as China and India. Previously the solution i would propose to this problem was issue an ultimatum to force a cut in emissions or face economic sanctions. However now I see that this may not only be ineffectual, but may actually exacerbate the problem. I think the ideal Wheelan proposes, a universal carbon tax, may work well, but would be extremely difficult to implement. Globalization has many drawbacks that come with it, and it is tempting to resist it in order to avoid these problems. However, when you compared the fear-mongering scare tactics of anti-globalization to the improved future for all of globalization, it is obvious which is the better choice.

Lily Bjorlin, Chapter 12, Question 5

The passage in this chapter that stood out to me the most was when Wheelan mentioned possible solutions to US (or any country's) workers losing their jobs to outsourcing. Displaced workers should be offered training for other types of work with that company so they are able to start another job soon without having to head out and search for one. Most of all though our education system should shift to teaching useful skills for a variety of jobs so students (who will shortly become the labor force) will be more adaptable to different types of jobs instead of being confined to one certain type of job. If workers have more versatile skills they will be more prepared for various jobs.

I just happen to be listening to Christmas while writing this (because I listen to nothing else at this time of year) and the song In A Bleak Midwinter started playing. One verse says:

What can I give Him, poor as I am? 
If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb; 
If I were a Wise Man, I would do my part; 
Yet what I can I give Him... give my heart.

Get it? Its like how each nation has certain things they are good at making or doing that they can bring to the table for trade. Imagine a developing country is singing this song. They're poor with little goods they are able to bring to the trade table. If they were Canada they could bring maple syrup or if they were Slovakia they could bring sheep but what do they have? Their most important resource is their work force (like we were talking about in class the other day) so that is what they can offer. 

Laura Bartz, Chapter 12, question 5

I found it particularly interesting when Wheelan was talking about how trade helps developing or third world countries. Politicians like to go on and on about how we need to get our industry back and cut off foreign trade. But those are also the same people that talk about how we need to fundraiser money to help those poorer third world countries grow. What they don't seem to realize or what they don't talk about is that to be able to help those third world countries grow, we need to have a lot of foreign trade. It's the idea of give a man to fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a life time. Expect in this case if you give a man to fish it will get caught up in red tape and the man will never get to eat anything. Foreign trade boosts economies and encouraging foreign trade will help to change the climate of how the general public seems to feel about trade.

Nathan Rowley, Chapter 12, Question 6

I was reading the section about trade and pollution, and how London's worst air pollution occurred in the 1890s. The Industrial Revolution was past, the revolutionary becoming the normal. It reminded me of the conditions that industrial workers of the time dealt with: dangerous machinery, long hours, low pay. Rather like a sweatshop. . .

It was then that I realized that there is a pattern to societal progression. After the introduction of industry, societies enter a period of rapid industrial growth at the expense of workers. Eventually, society moves out of this stage into one of gradually greater-skilled workers, until a country reaches what would be considered developed by today's standards. It has been roughly 175 years since the Industrial Revolution. And the thing is, the U.S., Britain, and other similar countries had to do it by themselves. If that took only 175 years, a tiny blip of time, countries that have sweatshops now should reach today's level of development even faster; they don't have to invent all of a developed nation's technology from scratch.

Sweatshops are not only good for the people working in them, comparatively. They are an indicator that rapid development is on the horizon.

Bennett Pope, Chapter 12, Question 5

A passage I found particularly apt to make the argument that trade is good is found on 280. Wheelan is talking about the use of blockades in wartime when he says, "Cutting off trade leaves a country poorer and less productive—which is why we tend to do it to our enemies." This is a fabulous argument in favor of trade because it is recognized very widely that a blockade is a very useful weapon in war. If a lack of trade issn't harmful to to a nation, why would we do it to our opponents in times of war? Another interesting connection I made in this chapter is that Lincoln didn't want to engage in trade with England for the railroad tracks, but Lincoln also played a major factor in deciding to set up the blockade against the south during the Civil War, which contradicts itself. It looks like Honest Abe could have built his railroad more efficiently if he had Naked Economics to help him.

Eleanor Oakman. Chapter 12, Question 2

Wheelan brought up through out the chapter that globalization is good for both poor and rich countries, I agree. Though I still don't understand why anyone wouldn't. Especially about the sweatshops, as Wheelan explained that if all those hippies in the richer countries keep protesting against sweatshop products, the Asian sweatshop workers would "end up in even worse jobs, or on the streets - and that a significant number [would be] forced into prostitution."  I thought to myself that what would happen to the sweatshop-focused countries when they are strong enough for people to not have to work in such cheap conditions, and don't want to make our stuff anymore! I'm not saying we should stop with sweatshops for our own economic future, because I know that we are stil winning economically with the other countries making our stuff for a cheep price. But I am interested to see when or if the time comes when the working countries don't want to work for us anymore because they are finiancially stable enough.

Caroline Paulsen, Chapter 12, Question 5

One passage in Chapter 12 the stuck out to me was about the redistribution of income. Charles Wheelan gave an illustration of angry people carrying pitchforks outside the factory of a successful capitalist and advised the factory owner to "throw these people some food (and maybe some movie tickets and beer) before we all end up worse off". I found this illustration amusing (though accurate), since it reminded me that the concept of the redistribution of wealth/stuff in order to satisfy the people is millennia old. The Latin phrase "panem et circenses" (bread and circuses) came to mind when I read this passage. During the Roman Empire, those in power discovered the need to keep the plebeians satisfied and happy (so that they were able to stay in power). This lead to the distribution of free food and the staging of public entertainment.

Lauren Stevens, Chapter 12, Question 6

The opening of this chapter made me think about something that I have never thought about in such depth before. Wheelan talks about a crazy machine that creates one thing into something else on the completely opposite end of the spectrum. As I was reading this I was thinking "wow that'd be so awesome, but knowing this book, its gonna turn around and be like.. 'OH WAIT!! This already exists!!''' and it did. I've never thought of trade in this way, I've always thought of it as "if I give someone this, they will give me something else in return." Never as an innovator that creates something from nothing.

The other part of the opening to this chapter that made me think about how privileged my life really is, is when he talks about how life would be without trade. Waking up in a shoddy house built with my uncoordinated hands, with clothes also made by my uncoordinated hands, and making my own coffee from scratch. It made me realize how essential trade is to every day life. Myself and many others do not or did not realize this and its very important that more people do.

Jack Bexell, Chapter 13, Question 3

In my book, someone had written this.

Someone had written this into the book for probably a lot of different reasons, but I took it this way: It was to help me with this blog post, and that is what I'm going to use it for. So...

What is the chapter about? It is about the poverty in countries, and what Wheelan thinks we should do about it. He gives examples such as Property Rights, Geography, and Human Capital.

The writing in my book was saying that there is a cycle of poverty in these countries, and explains why. Wealth creates opportunity to learn which creates human talent, but when there is a country with most of the population that is poor, (the writer of these notes called Poor Economics) the economy does not have a solution to mend countries in poverty.