Collis Mckenzie, Chapter 2, Question 5

The passage about how NASA had it easy struck me the most from the chapter. I feel like I've heard plenty of comments like his about how America still has people sleeping on the streets but is sending people to space for large amounts of time. I've never really thought about how these two concepts are so vastly different and it is almost impossible to compare the two. We have exact formulas and numbers to calculate when the sun is going to go down or the next time an eclipse will happen, but there aren't any hard and fast rules about human behavior. Humans can change constantly, and while predictions based on psychology and other factors can be made, we can not say for certain how someone would react to a product or situation or movement.

Laura Bartz, Chapter 2, Question 1

In chapter 5, Wheelan talks about how bad of an issue pollution is in Mexico City and one of the ways that Mexico has tried to combat it. Similarly, Los Angeles has a great issue with pollution and traffic. One way that they have tried to combat this issue is to heavily tax gas. When a gallon of gas is $2.30 here in Minnesota, it is likely to be in the $6.30-$6.45 range. The other way has only been proposed, but shows great promise of helping. It is a commonly known fact that darker colored cars get hotter than lighter colored cars. It has been proposed to ban residents of L.A. and the surrounding suburbs from owning black cars. At first it makes little sense, but L.A. is a very hot place and a black car will just absorb even more of that heat. With a hotter car people are going to blast their air conditioning, using more gas, creating more pollution. This is an a ample of using markets for good.

Bennett Pope, Chapter 2, question 1

One of the issues that Charles Wheelan describes in chapter 2 is how the education system pushes away the best teachers. There is almost nothing, in my opinion, as tragic as removing the best teachers from the schooling system because of bad economic systems. I have had classes that I am not very interested in become interesting due to good teachers, as well as classes I ordinarily love that become boring due to a bad teacher. Teachers are highly responsible for a student's experience with a class, and good teachers encourage kids to stay in school and keep learning. 

Many people see problems in our education system, and they want reform in our schools. Incentivizing teachers could be a fabulous way to improve them because it will draw better teachers into schools, which will prepare students better for higher education. we are highly privileged to have the teachers we do at Minnehaha, and I think they are a large part of our academic success. By incentivizing teachers to be better, we increase the quality of education exponentially in the future.

Caroline Paulsen, Chapter 2, Question 5

Chapter 2 opened by discussing incentives involved in poaching (or not poaching) endangered species. If residents of a country are able to make money from tourism involving wildlife, they are more likely to protect those attractions (endangered species, rainforests, etc.) from threats such as poachers or loggers who wish to kill the wildlife for their own profits. Thus, people typically need incentives so that keeping the wildlife around is more beneficial to them than destroying it.

However, people don't want to protect species that are considered pests or threats. When I lived in Kenya, it was pretty common to see poisonous snakes that would be considered attractions at American zoos: green and black mambas, cobras, and pythons all roamed freely through the college campus where my family and I were staying. One day, a large cobra was slithering around the building where my family and other guest teachers lived. I spotted it, some campus guards beat it with a stick until it was "probably" dead, and my neighbor beheaded it with his machete. This was not a tragedy from our perspective— it was ridding ourselves of a pest.

Nathan Rowley, Chapter 2, Question 2

Chapter two presents some interesting implications for the future. The most important of those is the ownership of resources, which up to this point have been largely public. The fishing industry is the example Charles Wheelan gives. Currently, fish are considered a public resource in most parts of the world; anyone can go out and catch fish, as they are not owned by anyone. There isn't a limit to the number of, say, tuna that companies may catch, so overfishing results. Charles Wheelan made the implication that a future of privatized natural resources may solve over-harvesting problems.

Another implication is the destruction of outdated jobs as new, more efficient methods of production are created. The example of the dwindling number of farmers provides an excellent illustration. As farming techniques have become more efficient, fewer and fewer farmers have been needed for the same level of output. Some farmers lose their jobs, but farming becomes better overall. We are currently in a wave of technological advancement, which means that some jobs will become outmoded as better alternatives are invented.

Eleanor Oakman, Chapter 2: Question 7

Reading chapter 2 I learned that  many people in the world are too used to living a life of luxury. On pg. 37-38 Wheelan gives an example about how sometimes when the government tries to do so,ethic good for the economy or earth, it can lead to bad endings. Like when the Mexican government put the law on driving only 6 days a week. They did this so people would drive less, hoping that the air pollution would clear up and they would get more tourists (helping the economy). This didn't work out and people began buying more cars and driving even more making the air pollution worse. The point that I was most annoyed with was the fact that too many people don't want to sacrifice anything and are stuck in the world of luxury, even if  it costs more in the future.

Lauren Stevens, Chapter 2, Question 5

The passage that struck me as profound is the example about the prisoners. Its a great example for many real life scenarios, some of which Wheelan gave in the book. It really shows how humans don't trust each other in any situation. The way most of us live, without even realizing it, is an "every man for himself" mentality. The situation with the prisoners encompasses this perfectly, since both of them know they will only have a 5 year sentence if they don't confess anything, yet they still confess to the murder in order to avoid the life sentence. Our own self interest is in our frame of mind without even realizing it which goes along with rational self-interest.

Jack McGillivray, Chapter 7, Question 6

After reading this chapter I've learned that becoming wealthy isn't so much just making a lot of money, but is how you manage your money and what risks you take with it. In the past I wasn't aware of the many many details of the financial markets. I though people mostly made money just by buying and selling things.  I had no clue that most of the things discused in this chapter could even be traded. I also learned that wealth is not a process that ends once a person reaches a certain dollar amount, it is an ongoing process. I learned how the rich spend their money, almost paradoxically, to protect their money. I also was unaware how once one reaches a certain wealth they can make money only by using their money. This seems to me that once someone reaches this amount of wealth it would be dramatically easier to grow in wealth.

Adam Hano, Chapter 7, Question 5

Charels Wheelan argues that there are lots of people buying and selling stocks to get rich quickly. He also argues that those people are wrong. He explains how the market works and why those people aren’t likely to become very rich in a day. In his eyes, the long term savings are the best way how to fight the “biggest thief – the inflation”. The interesting and horrified thing about inflation, is the fact that even though you work hard and earn lots of money, your work value devalues over the time. My friend once told me a story about his brother. His brother was 10. He was saving money to pay someone to write his bachelor paper at university. He has saved 2000 SK. However, since Slovakian Economy was getting better, the value of SK was higher. He lost over 100 SK on savings per year only because of inflation. He was horrified, when his brother told him so.

               However, there are lots of stories of people becoming very rich over a few days in the stock market. Is it luck? Wheelan argues that the role of information might also play a huge role in trading in stocks. If I know something more than someone else, than I can buy and sell stocks at more accurate price. However he also mentions that it is against the law.

               In general Charels Wheelan expresses his concern about quick speculation brokers, who want to become rich quickly. 

Lily Bjorlin, Chapter 7, Question 1

This chapter affects us (and will affect us in the somewhat near future) because as seniors we are about to head off to college and need to know how to handle our money on our own. After college we will start our careers and start earning more substantial income that we will need to know how to manage. The concept from this chapter that will be hardest for our generation to do will be the "save. Invest. Repeat." because we we are very impulsive with our purchases and want immediate gratification for our investments. However it is also the most important concept because if you invest your money badly or don't save any of it and just spend it all you are in for a bad time.

Jack Bexell, Chapter 7 question 5

"A college degree is an excellent investment, but it is not something that can be repossessed in the event of default."

Essentially this is saying that even though investing money in getting a college degree is good, and something that people should do, you can't just get a refund and get all your money back that you spent investing in your education.

This stuck out to me because being a senior, anything with the word college kind of sticks out to me, either in fear or shear interest.

Matúš Kočalka, Chapter 7, Question 5

I really liked the part where the author described the basic principles of the stock market. He gave us a great example built on buying stuff in a store, in order to approach us how it works.                                        

Why it´s not possible to get markedly better price than the others? His comparison was based on a shopping line. Usually, after you get everything what you need, you want to get away from the store as fast as you can - you are looking for the shortest shopping line, but, this is not just your interest – everyone wants to find the shortest shopping line. Therefore, when you get there, everything is equally full – in one line there´s a guy with two trolleys full of various stuff, and the other line (that seems to be faster) is already full of five people with equal load, so you´ll wait for the same amount time in the first, and also in the second line.                                                                                          Or if you see 100 dollars lying on the ground, it wouldn´t be there for a long time – others will immediately recognize what´s going on, and they will copy the strategy, and therefore slower the whole process.                                                                                                                                      The author also mentioned that the other important aspect is the coincidence. No one could predict, that after you´ve chosen the shortest shopping line, the man in front of you will have problem with getting the price of an avocado, because it wouldn´t be in the register. The shopping line is now stuck, but who could know that?                                                                                                                As the author said: “Market is just a collection of individuals and if they get things wrong, market does that as well.”   

Eleanor Oakman: Chapter 7, Question 6

Reading about the example of investing in the long run (near the end of the chapter) made me think about more examples of investing in the long run. In chapter 7, Wheelan uses the examples of casinos and winning big money, it is a set back for the workers in the moment, but in the long run more and more people come and play to try to win big only to lose and increase the workers pay check. There might be setbacks at first but in the long run it will help. Reading this I thought of how paying for college is almost like an investment  for the long run. Sure, college costs a ton of money, and you will be in debt for a while, but because you pay for college and go and get degrees, you have a better change in making more money in the future. If you didn't go to college, there is a bigger chance that you will have less money in the future. Investing in college hopefully will help in the long run.

Chapter 7, Question 5

When I began to read the insuring against risk, imminently it brought me back to a conversation that I had had with some girls on my cross country team about Taylor Swift, and how she had gotten her legs insured for $40 million. We were talking about how ridiculous that was, and if music production is her business, then why does it matter if her legs are both broken? She can still sing right? I liked what it said in the book, as humans, we are irrational and "You are not worried about the average outcomes; you are worried about the worst things that could possibly happen to you." I think is a way this line is true. Because we think the worst, we will be willing to pay more. This shows how much human emotion can come into play and draw out our irrational side. Then the passage went on to talk about how pretty much anything could be insured from pirates to terrorism to clothing and shoe company on a person, and this brought me back to Taylor's $40 million legs. She must really be expecting the worse.

Collis McKenzie, Chapter 7, Question 6

This chapter reinforces the theme of this book that the average person has little knowledge of economics and its applications in everyday life. It seems like all you hear are stories about how Mike Jones invested a large amount of money in a small company and became a millionaire because of it, or how Bob Johnson sold his Apple stock 15 years ago for $20 that is worth $2000000 today. In reality these occurrences are a very small portion of the world of stocks, but the more mundane trading of stocks doesn't make for a very good story. I gained a much deeper understanding of stocks from the chapter, but even more so I learned more about how far reaching economics goes into other aspects of life, such as dieting and entertainment.

Lauren Stevens Chapter 7 Question 1

In this chapter, there is a section that addresses futures contracts. This affects everyones lives directly, but most people don't even know. In specific, it affects what we buy and how we buy. Using futures contracts, the price of a good is "locked in" as Wheelan puts it. Little do most people know that the price of the green beans they just bought have been set at that price for months, and it could've been higher or lower, but the farmer puts it at that price in order to have certainty that he or she will be able to pay the electricity bill. It affects how we buy in the terms of choosing the most resonable price point for the individual purchasing the good. Whoever is farming this good has to take into account where the food they have grown is going and that will affect their price point. If the green beans are organically grown and they're being sent to Whole Foods, they price will be much higher than traditionally grown green beans that are being sent to Target or Rainbow.

Bennett Pope, Chapter 7, question 5

My dad works for World Vision, and Wheelan's mention of microfinance reminded me of World Visions microfinance programs. Vision Fund is essentially a bank that World Vision owns that gives loans as a lump sum to a group of 12-18 people. These groups of people receive a loan that they all get a part of. The members of the group agree to cross garuntee loans, meaning that if one person in the group is unable to repay their part of the loan, then the other members of the group will pay it for them. This makes the loan safer to lend, and it puts positive pressure on the members to repay the loans so the others don't have to bail them out. The groups meet every other week to discuss what is working well, what isn't working so well, and what they can do better. Loans are typically repaid with interest in about 10 months, and the group is then able to apply for another, possibly larger, loan. Once Vision Fund receives the loan back, they are able to send the money back into the system, giving out even more loans than before. People in third-world countries are able to do incredible things with the money they get from these loans and they can repay their loans very consistently. For more information, you can go to visionfund.org

Caroline Paulsen, Chapter 7, Question 5

One passage that I found interesting in this chapter was about neuroeconomics. Charles Wheelan wrote about an experiment in which people whose brains are damaged such that they cannot control emotions and a control group of people are both asked to make investment decisions. The investors with brain damage ended up with 13 percent more money than those without brain damage. Although I would have assumed that being able to experience fear and anxiety would make people less likely to make risky investment decisions that would likely go very poorly, it was interesting to me that it also decreased the likelihood of them making investment decisions with high potential payoffs, in part because they were less fearful of losses and upset when losses occurred.

Laura Bartz, Chapter 7, Question 5

Get rich quick plans have always baffled me. I mean, if you can get rich as quickly and as easily as the books claim, then wouldn't everyone be doing that? Wheelan actually explains how get rich quick plans are actually not just impractical, but improbable. Wheelan uses the example of a Chicago brownstone. If you found this beautiful brownstone that should be worth $500,000, but is listed for only $250,000, which you could own for six months and then sell for $500,000 doubling your profits. There has to be something wrong with this picture. There could be shoddy construction, your real estate agent would have to be an idiot for not snapping it up themselves, and also how has no one else discovered this steal of a deal brownstone? If this all still managed to align itself for you, then you would be cackling away to yourself, in your bargain home about the wonderful deal you got and the $250,000 you saved. But the reality of life is that it is unlikely that you are going to be able to find a steal of a house that doesn't have tinfoil connecting the electrical wires. This explained to me 1) what a get rich quick plan was (how it was supposed to theoretically work), and why they don't actually work, beyond just the fact that if they did work everyone would be doing them and then there would no longer be anymore opportunities for get rich quick plans. 

Nathan Rowley, Chapter 7, Question 6

Reading about financial markets has made me realize that markets, despite being entirely contrived by humanity, mirror systems in nature in interesting ways. The section about financial markets correcting themselves in the event of an anomaly reminded me of the common side-blotched lizard. The lizard comes in three colors: orange, yellow, and blue. The orange lizards are big and can guard large groups of females. The blue lizards are of medium size and typically guard only a single female. The yellow lizards are the smallest and don't guard a territory; they pretend to be females to get into the territories of other lizards. When there are a lot of orange lizards, the yellow ones will have more success, because it is easier to sneak into large territories. When there are a lot of yellow lizards, the larger blues can keep them away from their mates. When there are a lot of blues, the oranges can use their strength to steal mates. The system self-corrects as the populations of each color change.

So it is in financial markets, according to the efficient market theory. Perhaps the study of nature and evolution could lend itself to solving some of our economic issues.

Lauren Stevens, Question 1, Chapter 5

My family isn't necessarily full of chronic illness, but so many surgeries have occurred in our family for the past 17 years I've been alive. My dad had surgery on his broken leg, my sister has had surgery on a torn tendon in her finger, my mom has had multiple surgeries to cure a twisted version of carpal tunnel, and fix a lazy eye, and lastly, I've had a whopping 7 surgeries on my mouth, and a broken broken collar bone. That said, insurance companies have assisted us a lot and my parents have had to make the choice between high premium and low deductible and vice versa. This may effect me in the future again, however I think as of now, we have been healthy as a family which makes us have a low premium and high deductible.

Yaphet May, Chapter 5 q#4

Prior to taking this class, I never thought of discrimination taking place in economics. When Wheelan   talks about "rational discrimination" which "takes place when an individual makes an inference that is defensible on a broad statistical pattern" shows how economics can use so many different aspects in life.

Adam Hano, chapter 5, question 1

If Life is giving incentive for students to go to a good school just because later on in their lives they can show and present the information of their quality, then many Students are trying to get in to the school not to learn but simply because of their CV. What I am saying, is that there are a lot of students that have the capacity to be very educated people, however, they try to get into the school like Harvard because they later on want a better paid job. The problem with this is that a person that might be a better student, with more experience but didn’t attend Harvard will not be accepted to the job(who would you choose? a student from Harvard or Univerzita Komenského in Bratislava?). This creates incentive for students to get to a good school, rather to learn and explore the world.

In Slovakia this affects many young ambitious students. There are several scholarships to study abroad during high school. There are approximately 10 – 15 scholarships every year and hundreds of students applying to them. There are rigorous application processes. The scholarships are really lucrative for students, because if you want to experience a year or two abroad and don’t want to pay for it (or don’t have money to do so) than those are the best options. The problem however is to select the 10 best students. On what basis do you choose? The NGO’s that are giving out the scholarships have developed their own strategy. They want smart leaders that are doing a lot for their community. What if person that isn’t this type of person still wants to get the scholarship? However not only those people. Even the smart leaders still try to be better than other smart leaders. So what they do, is that they try to get involved in as many as possible NGO’s, student organizations as possible. They don’t want to do it because they are good and willing to help people, but just because of their own self interest.

Jack McGillivray, Chapter 5, Question 6

This chapter taught me that programs which sound viable can be economic disasters. One example of this is the hope scholarships. In theory they sound great, everyone gets a loan that they will be able to afford. When I read this section in the book I personally couldn't think of any reason why they wouldn't work. But i hadn't considered the fact that the borrower wild have such an imbalance of information and would be able to pick the loan program that would cost them the least. Until reading this I never realized how much of a role information plays in transactions. It is amazing to me how such a small imbalance of information can drastically impact markets like insurance and used car sales. This chapter also helped me to understand the reasons why the Affordable Care Act was passed and what it actually does.

Matúš Kočalka, Chapter 5, Question 6

The part that I found most interesting was the one with the insurance companies. There were two things that captivated me.                                                                                                                                                             Until now, I didn´t really understand why is the insurance in the USA obligatory to everyone, but this chapter explained it to me. I was also introduced to the paradox of gathering information in economics.                                                                                                                                                                                   Since the price of the insurance is calculated by an average expenses of all of the clients, (and after getting the final price the companies raise it a little bit), it ended up to be unbeneficial to those that are healthy, and very frugal to those that need some medical treatment – which would be covered by the insurance. So the logical conclusion was, that the ones who consider themselves to live healthy lifestyle, weren´t open to pay such a lot of money for the insurance. The companies therefore had to calculate and raise the average price again, and those who considered themselves to be still less sick comparing to the others, didn´t want to pay for the insurance anymore. This would throughout the time lead straight into the damnation of insurance, since no one will be willing to pay for it in the end. The obligatory insurance makes sense – everyone has to pay equal part in order to provide health care to those who need it.                                                                                                                                                                   The other striking part was the one that focused on the reasonable, but immoral practises of insurance companies. The fact that they gather an immense amount of information about your personal life, in order to prevent giving the insurance to people with high probability of getting sick and thus in need of future expensive health treatment paid by the insurance company, is creating serious issue: The ones that really need insurance are usually in trouble of getting it. I understand that the insurance companies don´t want to go into the minuses, so they need to decide to whom is it beneficial to provide the insurance, but doesn´t it miss the overall point? Wasn´t the obligatory insurance established mainly because otherwise the sick wouldn´t be able to get health care?                I thought that the idea of establishing it was that in the sake of humanity everyone will contribute by his part of money and indirectly provide health care to those in need. But at the same time, those in need usually don´t get the insurance. Eh?

Jack Bexell, Chapter 5 Question 5

"Some doctors are willing to do battle with the insurance companies on behalf of their patients. Others simply break the rules by disguising treatments that are not covered by insurance as treatments that are."

This passage is an example of the controversial nature of this chapter, although it is not the only controversial aspect of economics in the chapter. Although I had a grip on the fact that some doctors may discuss the treatments not covered by insurance companies, I thought that it was a rare occurrence and not a thing that would be discussed economically. Wheelan discusses earlier in the page this: "The person who knows most about your medical condition may have an economic incentive to deny you care." This stood out to me along with the first passage because most doctors I thought,(not all but most) would start being a doctor who help people, not to gain economic growth at the cost of her or his patients.

Chapter 5 Question 4

This chapter so far I believe might be one of the more controversial ones because it talks about stereotyping and racial profiling. This is something that has become so potent in today's society and can seriously offend people. However, after reading this chapter I can understand why people do it and how it might be seen as necessary in a society. It all goes back to branding. To making a reputation. Based on numbers and research, people will brand other people to a title or reputation off on how they look or what they do. This can become extremely controversial is many ways because it discriminates against or limits those who may have a reputation brought upon them that they do not correlate with. This really is a difficult issue because how do we go about it? Part of the problem is breaking down a reputation that has been built up overtime. Something like that just doesn't go away over night. It's impossible to gather all the information you need to know if you should trust a person or not. Especially if it's someone that you encounter from a distance for about five seconds. It's even hard to know all the secrets and information about a person you see and talk to or sit by every day. Racial profiling may not be fair or just or right, but a lot of times it can be a rational and natural instinct for people make.

Collis Mckenzie, Chapter 5, Question 1

I was most interested by the concept of premiums on insurance. People with secure conditions take an educated gamble based on how likely they are to have something unfortunate happen to them. I heard the term "premium" earlier this week but didn't really understand what it meant. It was a strange coincidence that a concept was presented in my life just a few days before reading about it. Mr. Stromberg is my advisor and he told us about how he had a crappy week because his car was broken into and his computer stolen, and it was made even worse by the fact that he just changed his insurance to lower his premium.  This highlights many aspects of economics because Stromberg did the cost-benefit analysis of all the factors he had knowledge of and decided to lower his premium , but the thief did the cost-benefit analysis of stealing his stuff and decided to go for it. Stromberg did not have the information about his impending theft, and thus, unfortunately,was put into a bad situation.

Ingrid Snook, Chapter 5, Question 1

After reading chapter 5, I realize the big ripple effect that individuals choices based off their knowledge create. The issues brought up in this chapter including healthcare and racial/sex profiling are all looked at in a really realistic way from multiple points of view. I think both of these things are issues everyone can run into when they're at an age for personal health care or a serious career. We may have limited health care options, or be turned down for a job just because I'm a woman and may have to take maternity leave. This whole concept was very corrupt to me. But companies walk the fine line of not enough information and too much information to base their decisions off of. It doesn't really seem like there's a happy medium. But since these issues are so common, I'm sure some of us in the distant future will run into it whether we know it or not. Hopefully we can be better informed as people to make rational decisions that are based off of humanization rather than off of profit and greed!

Eleanor Oakman: Chapter 5, Question 5.

Many people often recognize racial profiling, but what about economic profiling? When Wheelan brought that up in the end of the chapter using his personal experience, it cought me by surprise that the woman was actually right about her assumptions with him going to the bulls game. It would make sense if he was wearing a bulls shirt, it would be fairly easy to figure that he was going to a bulls game, but Wheelan specifically said he was wearing a suit. That is what I found sad but interesting. The woman profiled him by what he seemed like economically, and she was right! That made me think that do people actually get it right more often then wrong when profiling by economic status instead of by race, maybe so. Though there are people in the world who try to act a certain economic class when they really aren't. For example, there is this lady I know who is very materialistic, but doesn't have the money for it. I knew her well enough to know that she would act like she spent all this money on something but actually bought it on amazon. If someone glanced at her they wouldn't be correct about her economic status. This is what I find so interesting, on the news and in articles everyone is talking about how racial profiling has ruined us, and yes of course it's a major topic, but no one really has ever brought up profiling on what they are wearing or how they act, or even by their economic profiling, it's funny how that happens everyday but no one ever brings it up.

Nathan Rowley, Chapter 5, Question 6

Chapter five dealt a lot with the economics of discrimination. It got me thinking about a lot more than just that (what numbers are, how human thought and computer thought differs, to name a couple). It especially got me thinking about the way humans reason. There are two primary kinds of reasoning: inductive and deductive. The difference between the two is that deductive reasoning produces conclusions that are necessarily true, provided the starting assumptions are true. Inductive reasoning does not produce necessarily true conclusions.

Now, you might be thinking, "If deductive reasoning is always right as long as the start is true, it must be better." And you are mostly correct. In many cases, it is better to deductively reason than inductively reason. Deductive reasoning is basically critical thinking. But it is not the be all and end all of logic. Humans are really good at inductive reasoning, and we do it all the time. It's how we make useful generalizations about the universe, and, you guessed it, it's how we make stereotypes and discriminations. Yes, individual cases are better served by deductive reasoning, as Charles Wheelan mentions. But don't write off inductive reasoning just because it creates unfair discrimination; it is a powerful tool for abstracting patterns.

This is absolutely not an endorsement for discriminatory practices; there are ways that business can, and should, avoid it. This is merely an exploration of the underlying mechanics of discrimination: human reasoning.

Caroline Paulsen, Chapter 5, Question 3

One problem that was brought up in this chapter was maternity leave. Although I knew that maternity leave can lead to discrimination against women when they are being hired, I didn't realize that some women take advantage of it by taking the paid maternity leave and then quitting their jobs. Also, because some women take advantage of maternity leave, other women who wouldn't are negatively impacted by it during the hiring process. Charles Wheelan presents a solution to this problem, which is that employers would offer a refundable maternity package that women could keep if they came back to work or return if they decided to quit their jobs. This solution seems like it would be successful, since it would keep women from taking advantage of maternity leave benefits and it would prevent other women from being discriminated against (to the same extent) in the hiring process.

Laura Bartz, Chapter 5, Question 1

Mental illness has always been a pretty prominent aspect of my life. Many people in my family, including myself, are currently dealing with it and I asll have a long family history of mental illness. One of my family members has had to deal with having to pay for extraordinarily expensive health insurance solely because the have depression. I always though that it was really unfair and out of pure greed for insurance companies to charge so much more for health insurance just because of having depression. But Wheelan makes the point that if they don't charge these much higher premiums because of preexisting conditions, that they could easily go bankrupt. There are so many more health risks associated with depression from obesity to osteoporosis. So, rationally it makes sense for insurance companies to charge much higher amounts for health insurance with these health issues that are often associated with depression.

Bennett Pope, Chapter 5, question 5

While discussing branding, Charles Wheelan said something that made me the concept click. "Coca-Cola is not soda; it's coke." I instantly thought about how true this statement is. Coke doesn't taste all that different than Pepsi, but if a restaurant only carries Pepsi products, I will actually change my drink order because I think Coke is better. I have been, in a way, brainwashed to believe that Coca-Cola makes better soda than any other brand.

Herein lies the brilliance of Branding. If large brands like Coca-Cola and Pepsi can make equally cheap sugar water and sell it for the same price, then they need to convince the population that their product is superior to the other. Coca-Cola has done that more successfully in my life because I religiously believe Coke to be superior to Pepsi. Coke doesn't have to be any better than Pepsi, they just have to make me think it is.

Jacky Xu,Introduction,question 5

"Economics should not be accessible only to the experts."

Economics is a class about household,how to manage your life,it's not a big thing for experts,it's for everyone.For example paying taxes,buying the things you want,give up the worse one.
Also it's about how to use the thing we have to make more progress,it teach us how to save our energy,because it's about everyone,treasure the things we have,everyone born to be different.This reminds the saying that Mr.Horner said to us in the first economics class--I want you to be a good economist.

Adam Hano, Chapter 1, Question 5

Mr. Wheelan writes that according to the demand curve when the price goes down more people want the product. When I read the sentence I remembered walking in la Fayette in Paris and just out of curiosity I wanted to see the most expensive clocks that they were selling. I found one for 150 000 euros. They were all filled up with Diamonds. You could not even properly see the second hand. One then wonders where is the utility from such a clock. However people are still buying these expensive products. Some people are even buying them just because they are expensive. A Slovakian marketing guru Mr. Brosman, said a story of a person selling glasses. He bought normal price sun glasses from Italy and tried reselling them in Slovakia. However, after two months he sold one item. He thought that the business is over, because no one wants to buy his glasses. But the problem wasn’t in the glasses, it was in the price of the glasses. Slovaks were willing to pay for glasses in 3 price ranges: 1. Cheap (100-500 SK), 2. Middle (500-2000 SK) and 3. Expensive (7000+ SK). His price for glasses was 3000. It was out of each range. It was in a gap, where people would buy it because it wasn’t luxuries neither in the range for normal middle glasses. After the failed two months, he called to every store and told them to raise the price to 7000 SK. The glasses were sold in 2 weeks. 

Jack McGillivray, Chapter 1, Question 3

A specific issue that Wheelan brings up is the deforestation of the rainforests.  To the people who are actually doing the deforestation they don't see the rainforest as some great fragile ecosystem that they are ruining, they see it as there only way to make a paycheck. In the western world it is often easy to focus only on what is happening and forget about the plight of the people who live there. For these people the rainforest is the only way to put food on the table. Wheelan proposes that we pay the these locals or the government of the country so that the deforestation can stop. I think that this is a good idea, I am unsure as to how well it will work, but I can't think of anything better myself.  Considering the corruptness of many third world countries any money sent to stop deforestation has a better chance of ending up in government coffers than getting to the people it was intended for.

Jack Bexell, Chapter 1, Question 5

"If there are more potential pet owners than dogs available, then the price of dogs will go up." (Wheelan 16)

Charles Wheelan makes an interesting "analogy" with the use of dogs. If there are more consumers than there are of the product, then prices will raise. This will be because the cost of keeping the product, the dogs, in the store is more than the amount of people buying the product. They raise the prices, and some people end up buying another product, like Wheelan said of ferrets, and some people need that product, so they accept the price they were offered and get the dog of their dreams. This is an interesting way to shift the pricing of things so that each product in the market gets changed. In this example of the prices of dogs increase, there is a change in the ferret market. I never knew that one thing could influence others in such a large complex scale.

Lily Bjorlin, Chapter 1, Question 6

After reading this chapter I learned how interconnected different aspects of a market economy are. Before making any decisions about the Economy you have to think about what the further consequences will be, like how reducing oil production will lead to more motorcycle deaths. Also, I learned that even if something seems like a bad idea at first it could end up being extremely beneficial, like when Coca-cola gave out free bottles and coolers to East Germany which made them lose money at first but once East Germany established themselves more after the Soviet Union their brand was already there and people wanted it.

Matúš Kočalka, Chapter 1, Question 1

The most significant and memorable part of the first chapter was the one, where the author focused on the different prices that you pay for the same service. For example, flying ticket costs someone less than the other one, even though they fly to the same location, obtain the same cashews and use the same services.

Or there´s another example that compares the prices you pay for the dog drugs and human drugs. Drugs for the dogs are cheaper than the same ones that are provided to humans, just because of the price discrimination. It´s based on the idea which says that I am willing to pay bigger cost for the same drug, because I evaluate my life more, therefore the pharmacy companies use this opportunity and charge me more expansive and irrational price.                 

Why is this fact disturbing and sad? Because it is sick. How can we charge the drugs for humans more expensive than the drugs for our pets? It´s sad to imagine those who don´t have money and need treatment – they get healthy harder than their pets.

The author truly remarks, that if we wanted to control the market and set stable, equal and fair prices, it wouldn´t be called free market anymore. It would be a system based on oppression; therefore we must also deal with the sad reality that comes with some aspects of the free market.   

Christen Majors, Chapter 1, Question 6

Through chapter one I was brought to a better understanding of maximizing  "utility" which is a broader form of happiness. Utility is not something that makes you particularly happy, it is something that makes you better off. Wheelan mentions that it is not always the case where "maximizing utility" is "synonymous with acting selfishly." He provides examples of how one acts to maximize their utility with what we have. I open the door or choose a job because it will bring me the most utility (and that does not necessarily mean money or material gifts.) Wheelan brings a conclusion to an age-old question "why did the chicken cross the road? Because it maximized his utility." While individuals as consumers strive to maximize their utility, Firms or businesses strive to maximize their profit in hopes that consumers will choose their products. In South Africa, where the gas prices are fixed, Wheelan saw that the service was extremely friendly and dressed up. He realized that this was impart the only way that could make business through the service they provided not through the low prices the provided. The firms seek to maximize their profit through what they see will maximize the consumers utility.

Eleanor Oakman: chapter one, question #5

What I found most interesting while reading chapter one was when the author explains to the readers of what we thought we already knew, but only to a certain level. "The market does not provide goods that we need; it provides the goods that we want to buy."  At first I thought "well of course that's the market everyone knows that," but when Wheelen used  the example with the comparison of the importance of water verses diamonds. It got me thinking, if we didn't have diamonds we would still survive not knowing what it was like being in awe of some shiny rock, but if we didn't have water we would all be dead! I thought it was interesting how that example brought the market logic to a whole different level. In a way it makes sense, because everything needs water and that's why it's cheaper than diamonds . Though not everyone needs diamonds to survive, they are a luxury that people are greedy for and that's why they are more expensive. The market only wants people to spend more money than survive, they focus on the things that we want but sometimes can't have.

Collis McKenzie, Chapter 1, Question #4

The book points out a few examples of things that, in the western world, are portrayed as heinous practices set up to take advantage of the weak or poor, such as the cutting down of rainforests or sweatshop labor. I've seen tons of posts online from concerned individuals to "save the rainforest" or "stop Nike from paying their workers $0.30 for making a soccer ball that they charge $80 for," but I've always thought that there had to be another side to the issues. It seemed incredibly unlikely that someone just woke up one day and said "I'm going to go cut down hundreds of trees today for no reason and money will just appear in my pockets," or "I'm going to go take an arduous job that makes me little money rather than twenty easier opportunities that make me more money." It's easy for us that don't have to cut down the rainforest or make soccer balls to say that these things shouldn't happen, but those workers need to make a living. I don't necessarily disagree that the rainforests should be preserved or that sweatshop labor should be changed or reformed, but I do believe that they are deeply complicated and to present them as absolute evils is misrepresentation.

Caroline Paulsen, Chapter 1, Question #5

A passage from Chapter 1 that I found particularly interesting was about how firms find ways to compete even when prices are fixed. I have wondered before why airlines changed from trying to make flying comfortable and enjoyable to letting it be crowded and unpleasant. Although I knew that this change had something to do with lowering prices, I hadn't previously realized that the prices were initially fixed and the change came about when they were no longer fixed. I also didn't realize just how much the prices dropped once the airlines started competing to lower prices rather than to make the flight more comfortable (the average airline ticket (adjusted for inflation) fell by almost half when price became the distinguishing factor between tickets rather than the quality of the flight). The idea of competition over the quality of a good once its price is fixed was an idea that I hadn't thought about much before. However, although I do wish that flights were generally more pleasant, I would rather there be competition over price and be able to get a cheaper ticket.

Laura Bartz, Chapter 1, Question 5

One part of the book that really stuck with me was when Wheelan was discussing the idea of luxury goods. Lately, I have  been thinking about how snobby some people will get about eating organic foods and foods that are not non-GMO. I recently saw a tweet from someone who is now a wealthy musician who was criticizing people for eating GMO foods. At first I was mostly annoyed that someone could be that upset about other people's eating habits, but then I started thinking about the amount of privilege that came with that series of tweets. He could sit there and criticize others for being so blind as to what they were putting in their body, but what he couldn't see was that the reason he cared so much about this topic was because he could afford to. Non-GMO certified foods are significantly more expensive making them a luxury good. He was so angry about this topic because he could afford to. This goes along with what Wheelan was saying about how first world countries care more about the Bengal tiger dying out because they could afford to. There is less concern with poorer countries because that's not where they can realistically, in a right state of mind, put their limited resources.

Chapter 1- Question 6

A few weeks ago, at my work, I approched a man amd asked him if he needed any help because he had been searching through the clothing section clearly on a mission. He responded asking  me if we had any clothes that were made in America. I was slightly taken aback by this, and also unsure. I too then began feverishly looking through clothes so to not appear  as totally clueless as I actually was. I'm pretty sure we searched the entire men's section before I darted off to find a co-worker who might know more. He couldn't think of any brand either.  I finally had to turn to the man and say "No I'm sorry." This clearly was the wrong answer because the next thing I knew, he started critizing me about sweatshops and child labor. " You guys really shouldn't be selling these kind of clothes. Do you know what the conditions are like for those people ?" I was so taken aback and flustered that  I just stood there and made some strange noise and felt guilty.
 However, after reading this chapter, I feel that I am more enlightened about the subject, and I also feel less guilty. I wish I had read this sooner so that my response to him would have gone more like this: " Well, you see sir, Nike pays their workers $600 annually. This may not seem like anything to you or me, but to him it's actually double the annual income of a Vietnam worker. If we also refused to buy their products, we would just have those workers loose their jobs and not give them another way to find a source of income. You're right, the working conditions might be bad, but those people choose to work there and to take that choice away from them isn't our call." I mean I wish I had said this, but at the same time I probably wouldn't have even if I knew this because I wouldn't want to offend him or loose my job or come across that I am "gun-ho" for child labor and sweatshops. It's just interesting to see a different view point of the subject and to gather more information on the matter.

Bennett Pope, chapter 1, question 6

An idea in the text that was intriguing to me was price discrimination. The general idea behind price discrimination is that different people are willing to pay different amounts of money for goods and services, so businesses often charge different prices. If the business charges a uniformly higher rate, they miss out on the business of those who only would have payed at a lower rate. However, if they charge the lower rate, they miss out on the money some people would have been willing to pay. The solution is to offer different prices to different customers.

I was not aware of this concept before I read the chapter, and my first thought was that it seemed a bit underhanded. It is one thing for somebody to seek out a better plane ticket than me (to use the same example as the book), but another thing completely for the airline to charge me more because they know I'll pay for it, giving me no other choice. While I stand by my opinion that price discrimination is a little unfair, I cannot deny that it is a brilliant way of maximizing profits. Bussinesses need the business of both types of customers, and price discrimination allows them to make as much money as possible from each customer assuming they work the system correctly. I also found the psychology of price discrimination interesting because the businesses have to analyze buying habits to determine how much they can charge certain types of customers just by the way they buy goods and services.

Lauren Stevens, Chapter 1, Question 1

The issue posed in this chapter that has effected my life in the past, is the point Wheelan makes about how children are becoming more expensive. Not because buying them the necessities of life is expensive, but because moms and dads are leaving their high income jobs to care for children. My mom has been a nurse her whole adult life, and has gone back to work and left work many times for the sake of me and my sister, Natalie. Its not that my dad never cared for us "less" than my mom did, it was just easier for her to come and go from work, and the most logical reason was that she was making less money than my dad was. Many changes were made in our lives in order for our lives to work around getting my sister and I to and from school and extra-curricular actives. One of the major changes was sending us to Minnehaha because my mom did want to go back to work, and the South Campus was just a few blocks away. Although this doesn't affect me as prevalently anymore, it was a major factor in my upbringing, and I've seen it happen to many people around me as well.

Nathan Rowley, Chapter 1, Question 6

Chapter one helped expand my understanding of how economic decisions are made from a local standpoint. I had never considered that different circumstances could lead to economic decisions like cutting down rainforest, even though it is clearly a bad choice from a global perspective. The experiences of those doing the cutting, like all of our experiences, are compartmentalized; they don't know the global repercussions of their actions, because their experience is compartmentalized to that small area of the planet. So too is my experience compartmentalized; my prior lack of understanding of their decisions is proof of that.

The idea of the market as amoral is also a new concept to me. Although it makes logical sense now that I think about it, I had never considered it before. I like the comparison to evolution made on page 21. I just wish there was a certain degree of morality incorporated into the market. Just like a democracy of murderers and rapists is no good, a market lacking in moral values is no good.

Adam Hano, Introduction, Question 5

I am going to write about the incentives of Brookers. Wheelan argues that Brookers were incentivized to sell as many loans as they can, because they were receiving commissions from them. I argue that the incentives of brokers affect my everyday life. Firstly, they are trading currencies, commodities, and shares. This everything affects you. The price of Oil is based on the actual price on the market. What if the brokers with oil are wrongly incentivized (such as in the example with selling mortgages) to sell the oil. The price would probably go down, because no one would like to buy it anymore. Lower price of oil = cheaper gas. Also in the long run, if a broker is badly incentivized to sell stocks of a company, the company would be evaluated poorly, which can result in bad season for the company. Less money for the company probably means less jobs for me. It is scary to think how much of your life is actually influenced by people with simply bad incentives. 

Jack McGillivray, Intro, Question #5

I have always heard about the housing bubble that caused the recession, but I never knew what it was or how it could cause such a severe economic downturn. The way it was explained in the chapter made it very easy to understand. I never knew that it could be beneficial for bankers to give loans they knew were risky or even sure to default.  I was also unaware that a debt or loan could be sold off. To me it seems strange that a debt can be transferred with no input for the debtor.  I am curious as to why economists did not anticipate this crass, when in the book it seems very clear that this was inevitable due to the loaning/borrowing practices.

Jack Bexell, Introduction, Question 5

On page XXI Charles Wheelan said something that stook out to me, considering that my dad works for an insurance company. "If insurance companies are forced to offer this benefit (or any other new benefit mandated by law), then they will recover their extra costs by raising premiums. And when premiums go up, some people on the margin will no longer be able to afford any health insurance at all." This is interesting to me because letting one thing like a two day stay at a hospital on the cost of the insurance companies can really impact many people in the long run that may not even need the 2 day stay at a hospital. One small step can cause a chain reaction of hurt for more individuals than the amount of people the action is trying to help. 

Christen Majors, Introduction, Question 1

Charles Wheelan mentions the issue that arises when people live their lives without keeping Economicis is in mind. "Economics is like gravity: ignore it and you will be in for some rude surprises." (xxii) The financial crisis during the Great Depression arose in part by the illiteracy of economics by the America people. We tend to think that the people in power posses the most economic understanding however most Americans don't fully understand the full effects of economic decisions and tend to put bandaids over problems that need full on sutures. The issue of economic ignorance effects all people, in the case of the French the misunderstanding of the full problem that arises with unemployment and the Frenches governments attempt to put a bandaid over the problem led to a policy that did nothing to "fix the unemployment problem." (xix) If we continue to live life without awareness of the the importance of economic influence on everyday life, we will pay for it in the future in more ways than we know. Our economic decisions have social, environmental and and political impacts.

Matúš Kočalka, Introduction, Question #6

After reading the introduction, I´ve certainly broadened my way of seeing the Economics in an everyday life.                                                                                                          

Before reading it, I thought that Economics is mainly about boring numbers and facts, which need to be memorized in order to understand the basis of Economics. This was the reason why I didn´t want to attend the Economics class from the beginning.                                                                                                                                 

The greatest thing is that the author of the book describes his point of view on Economics as an absolutely different and untraditional one. He stated, that for him the numbers, quotes and boring facts don´t mean anything. Firstly you must understand the basic logic and principles of Economics, which are determined mainly by the human behaviour, and then you can process in the studying of it.                                                                                                                                        

He managed to show me, that Economic issues are truly important, and that they literally affect my everyday life. He prompted me to be interested in what´s going on, because after he listed some of the serious Economic issues, I realized that even though I knew about them, I never really tried to find out what was going on “behind the scene.” After reading the introduction I know, that this understanding is important for my self- development in the World itself.  

Lily Bjorlin, Intro, Question 6

I remember an ad for an election a few years ago that just never made sense to me. It talked about how he used to teach Econmics and how he should get elected because Washington could use an Econ 101 lesson. I was always confuse because the people in Washington were all politicians who's whole jobs were economics. Don't they already know everything they need to know about the subject? After reading this chapter I now understand what he meant in that ad. Policing ions often get caught up in the campaigning side of it and do what will please the people most in the short term of the issue instead of what's best for the country in the long term. I also learned that economics isn't as complicated as it seems if you just think logically about it. My brain is not wired to think like an economist and I knew that coming into this class but this chapter taught me you don't have to be a future economist to know and understand economic workings and policies.

Ingrid Snook, Introduction, Q#4

Through what I read in the Introduction, it seems like there will be many controversial topics and concepts brought up in this book. From the passage about nights spent in a hospital for new parents, to talk of the Great Depression, these topics all carry many opinions. Most opinions formed on these issues usually take two sides- a more conservative side and a more liberal side. But both sides are affected by economics. On this scale, I don't think I fall anywhere yet because I'm still forming my opinions. I do like to hear both sides or arguments and this book looks like it will be studying economics from all angles.

Laura Bartz, Introduction, Question 5

In the introduction of Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan talks about how ignoring economics will be detrimental to you in the long run. He talks about how there have been proposals to have a longer required maternity leave. This at face value, as a woman, seems very positive. More time to let your body recover, more time to bond with your baby at the start of its life, and not having to immediately find a daycare option. These all seem wonderful until you realize that even if a woman does not desire to have children anytime soon or ever, she could be less likely to be hired because they employer knows that if she gets pregnant they will have to give paid maternity leave for an extended amount of time.

Yaphet May Intro q#5

A passage that stuck out to me is the one where Charles Wheelan discusses how the book will touch on topics that can be an entire career. It really shows how vast economics is and can be used in every single aspect in our lives. He really wants the reader to comprehend how important it is in our lives and how we shouldn't ignore it.

Caroline Paulsen, Introduction, Question #5

While reading the introduction to Naked Economics, the passage that caught my attention the most was about symphony orchestras’ blind auditions. For the past several years, I have looked forward to auditioning behind the screen myself so that I don’t have to worry about other factors that would inevitably affect judges (many of which are much smaller issues than gender). I knew that the blind audition process was created to avoid discrimination based gender (and race), but I was surprised by just how much the blind auditions have increased the probability of women making it past the first round. Sometimes the screen alone hasn't been enough to eliminate gender bias, since in some settings, the judges are able to determine a musician's gender based on the sound of their shoes. The statistic that women were 50 percent more likely to make it past the first round once auditioning behind a screen became a common practice was both surprising and disturbing, because it shows just how much bias based on things such as race and gender can go into decision making.

Bennett Pope, Introduction, Question 1

In the introduction to his book Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan strives to convince the reader that economics is a subject that is often ignored, but highly relevant to our lives. Wheelan uses several examples of financial disasters to show that the study of economics is mandatory if we are to prevent similar things from happening again. Economics on a small scale affects how we spend money each day, how we divide our budgets, and how we spend our time. On a grander scale, economics is interwoven with our jobs, investments, and standard of living. If we ignore economics, we will not be as aware of how to manage these aspects of our lives. This will affect us now, and the effects of our bad planning now will multiply exponentially in the future. As Wheelan says on page xxii, "Economics is like gravity: ignore it and you will be in for some rude surprises."

Collis McKenzie, Introduction, Question 5

I was most interested in the passage on affirmative action.  I have never thought about how really only the next best candidate is disadvantaged in situations like that. The way the system is set up it's easy for people to give in to their own inclinations to blame factors besides their own shortcomings for their failures. Especially when the deciding factor is something they have no control over.

Marin Fredrickson Question 5

 What line caught my attention the most was right away in the early part of the introduction was when college students would walk out of their Economics 101 class and "wave goodbye to the subject forever." Even before I turned the page I though yeah right. This may have jumped out to me so much because in class we covered that economics will catch up with you in the long run. That memorizing the quadratic formula will only be able to help me solve for "x", while economics will help in the the game of life and know when I am being cheated on or how to avoid being evicted from my home. As I continued reading the introduction, the author would make references or show examples of poor economic thinking, my mind would go back to that line, "wave goodbye to the subject forever." Ha. The French govenment in 2000 should have probably rethought that one instead of quitting their econmomics 101 class.

Eleanor Oakman: Introduction, Question #6

Reading the intro from the author, it seemed clear that that  Charles Wheelan wants the readers to know that the book Naked Economics isn't some light read book for dumb people who want to get to know a little bit more about economics.  The book is meant for smart people to watch him strip down all the lies and myths away from the reader and explaining it step by step for a more complex understanding. Reading the intro I learned that there are more misconceptions about the economy than people are actually willing to explain. What will be so difficult  for me to understand is how deep the structure of our economy really is. Just by reading the introduction I can tell that the way I think now will have to change in order to connect and understand what the author Charles Wheelan is trying to explain. I usually think in the moment and have a hard time thinking for the future or planning about what will happen next, but reading Naked Economics, it's clear that I am going to have to force myself to read and think of the financial decisions  and consequences  for the future to understand the deeper thinking from the book.

Lauren Stevens, Introduction, Question 5

As humans, we're selfish beings. We want what is here, what is now, and most importantly, what is the best. To a point, many people don't care about what the consequences of their actions or the effects their purchases have. Wheelan puts this very well in the example of "The night on the town with Dad's credit card" (xxii) using this to further explain societies use of SUV cars with less than average gas mileage. Individually we're paying for the use of these luxuries with our money, but the environment and the rest of society is paying for the repercussions of the use of gas-guzzling cars mixed with long commutes. This is such a true fact that is avoided by so many people, including myself. This is a good example of how economics crosses paths with ethical decisions. Should we really be using all of these unnecessarily large cars if we know that it will end up hurting everyone in the long run? Probably not, but we do anyways. This idea really caught my attention because I fall a victim to it too and I think many other do too and maybe if other, economically illiterate people were aware of these facts, not only would the environment be in a better position, but we would also be more economically sound as a society.

Nathan Rowley, Preface, Question 4

No doubt about it, economics is a contentious issue. The introduction to Naked Economics more than hints at the causes of controversy in economics: level of literacy and human psychology. The former is perhaps the greatest problem, especially in a market system economy; the market is dependent on each individual in it to run smoothly. When more than half of those individuals can't make rational economic decisions because they were never taught how, that market is going to get shaky. Throw in our clearly irrational decision-making impulses, and you have a right mess. Whether to fix that problem or take it out of most people's hands is another source of controversy: the debate over public versus private ownership and a control versus market economy. If you are for a market economy and private ownership, then it becomes important for individuals to be economically literate. If you are for a control economy with public ownership, then economic literacy in the governing body is most important. Regardless of where you stand on those issues, it remains important to have a good grasp of human psychology. I am currently a socialist (public ownership, market economy), but I expect changes to be made and nuances to be found as I continue through this course.

Jacky Xu,Chapter 1,Question #5

    I always see the communism way to sell stuff which the government decide what to sell and how much to sell as a joke."The price of the cigar is was the same everywhere(5)".I have to admit that this way to run a country is not a bad way,after all,the products that factory produce will not waste,because everyone gets what they need.However,this brings a problem,what if someone wants more.So the "off the book"trade start,and the economy of the country will run into chaos.Marketing is a good way for store,factory because,every people has the chance to decide what to produce,how many should be produced.For example,everyone loves bacon,the meat factory got to produce more,the store got to sell more.This change the perspective of government runs the market,into people run the market.
   Nowadays most people believe that because China is a communism government so they run the market in a communism way.After reading and listening in class I discover that China runs the market in a unique way.It is the combination of communism and capitalism.Everyone can open a factory,everyone can open a store,you can sell everything you want(legal stuff,of cause),everyone can buy the stuff they want.When the market lost control,for example,people need salt,a lot of it,government will buy salt from other country and sell it.In China,the Party runs some big company,which can give them huge amount of resource(money),to benefit people,also people can start a company if they want,which gives people a freedom to participate in the market.
   There is always a invisible hand that control the market,and it's a great thing to learn about it.