City for Champions: Colorado Springs

Being from Colorado Springs my entire life, I wanted to find something that was close to home to focus on when dealing with issues in today's society. This city has always been a breeding ground for stubborn people it seems; I say that in somewhat of a good way. It takes something big in order for the citizens of Colorado Springs to approve measures or give the "ok" for big time infrastructure changes. If you're from the Springs, you know how many Republicans are here compared to how many Democrats there are in places like Denver and Pueblo. Political differences like this greatly effect changes in our society. One of the major goals of the city lately is to create this tourist destination known as the "City of Champions". In this proposal, they would create an Olympic museum downtown, a new sports and event center, a new Air Force Academy visitors center, a sports and medicine performance center integrated with the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, and a few improvements to parking garages and bridges downtown near the America the Beautiful Park. 

Knowing this city and the people who live here, this proposal has been quite controversial. Back before I was born, it was a massive deal in this city to create the airport out east. Looking at the City of Champions project, it would cost around the ballpark of 250 million dollars. They expect things like the Regional Tourism Act and donations from private donors to help pay for some of the cost along with issuing bonds and increased sales tax. Considering the Springs is fairly conservative, any mention of taxes frightens people and creates anger among the masses. After reading the One Lesson by Hazlitt, I try to look at this issue differently. The immediate reaction people have is "I don't want to pay more taxes." The problem though is that people here expect things to get better magically. If we want better roads or anything improved it takes money that must be collected from taxes. When the founds are finally reached, people will still complain and want laws and taxes changed. Using the example of the broken window in Hazlitt's book, we see the use of money changing because of a certain action. Money that is supposed to go to one thing is instead sent to another location. The citizens here do not look at taxes or other things in this sort of light. All they see is maybe a few more cents gone and that makes them grumpy. That money that is collected to create things like the City of Champions has greater impacts then they could ever imagine. The new jobs that would be created spur growth in the city. The increase in tourism would lead to a stronger economy which would lead to improvements in smaller things like roads and maybe even donations from the new business that were created due to the increase in tourism. All of these things could be effected positively if the city comes together and looks at the big picture. 

I use the broken window example from Hazlett's One Lesson because it stood out to me. I hadn't looked at the big picture when it came to what happens economically in society from the action of using money on something else compared to what you initially wanted to use it on. Hazlett also focuses somewhat on the "need" for things in order to create job growth or economic growth. Money that is used to create things that people want compared to what they need may be inefficiently used.  I think when talking about the City of Champions this is the main focus of what the citizens of Colorado Springs focus on; want versus need. All in all, Colorado Springs will always be an issue driven city that looks to find a common interest whether it makes economic sense or not. 

http://gazette.com/closer-look-at-city-for-champions-part-1-colorado-springs-might-back-it-if-there-is-a-very-well-defined-investment/article/1514774

Obama's Action on Higher Education Debt: Throwing Gas on the Fire

Recently President Obama passed an executive order aimed at aiding some of the millions of Americans struggling under the burden of student loan debt.  Ultimately, however, the actions taken by the President fail to address what is ultimately the primary problem with this issue, and, in fact, only make the issue worse.  As the President and so many in the media see the issue, the problem is that there are too many graduates unable to pay off their student loans due to a lack of jobs during this period of economic recovery.  The solution, from this view, is to offer relief in the form of reduced interest rates, reductions in the size of accepted payments, and administrative oversight efforts by the Department of Education to encourage loan servicing companies to endeavour to work with loan-holders in default.  This view, unfortunately, suffers from the crippling malady of only focusing on the immediately seen results of recent events while missing entirely the fact that the unseen causes of those events are of the same variety of the sort that the President has proposed, thereby ensuring the perpetuation of the problem, rather than the solution.

The problem is not, as the President has suggested, the fact that so many now suffer under student loan debt, but rather the fact that economic incentives are such that students feel compelled to accept such loans in the first place.  Ultimately, the problem stems back to the sky-high costs of higher education, but where from can we derive the reason for that price?  From the exact set of federally-guaranteed loan programs designed to "increase access" to higher education.  In the face of such guaranteed revenue, what incentives have colleges to lower prices?  With the assurance of future loan-rate reductions, what incentives have borrowers to spend years working to save up the funds to pay for their education outright?  All the while, the initial problem of access to higher education due to the cost of attending continues to worsen.  As well as any issue, that of higher education should hold clear lessons on the consequences of government attempts to intervene in the market.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/student-borrowers-and-the-economy.html?hpw&rref=opinion 

Unemployment in America

Jobs have become difficult to come by in the past years. Many people are losing jobs, there are people who are unable to find a job, and as for someone like me putting in applications I hear things such as: " You need experience to be employed at this job" or " 5 years experience needed." Honestly how can you gain this experience when you cannot get into the job in the first place! That is one thing that infuriates me in the job market these days. There are middle aged people who were let go from their previous jobs because of a price cut so now they will work anything to make ends meet. It's a cruel world and it is very harsh to say the least but there is some who are trying to mend the wound.

     

Employers Add 192,000 Jobs in March, Unemployment Rate Unchanged

Job growth slightly lower than hoped for as winter finally subsides.

There are new jobs that were created to help those in need of an occupation. Thus new jobs are made for nurses, loggers and miners, part-time retail, etc. There was a hope that this will help decrease the amount of the unemployment but there was little to no change. Yes it did give some people jobs but some were part time or they were only seasonal. There are companies out there that are trying to help create more spots to bring in more employees but with the economy going the route that it is, there is no telling what could happen to the unemployment rate. As for criticism on this article Henry Hazlitt talks about people looking to the future and missing the unseen. I think years back people thought they were safe at the job they were at and didn't make plans for the future. As a result we have problems such as this where people are struggling to find jobs and companies are trying to make more room for people to work. 

              There is the thought also that Hazlitt brought up was that people would be unemployed because they are primitive to "The Curse of Machinery". Unemployment was brought on because it could be that machines do take part and then there are budget cuts, the company cannot afford to pay for the services of the person. Some compare now to the Great Depression in 1932. This article claims that they want to "fix" the rate of unemployment and so they hire new people but what if they cannot afford the new people they bring in? Hazlitt explains labor-saving devices that help companies save their money, and maybe letting 5 out of 10 people go is the way to do it. If these people don't work, how will they be able to be taxed? This is a new problem that occurs in a web of problems the US faces with unemployment. This is why new job opportunities are created. This article leads into other articles such as home owners, growth in the economy today slowing, etc. This article is troubling because it claims it gives that many people jobs, but then there isn't a change in the unemployment rate. There are some people who are picky about the job they want to preform, this is something that economists like to point out. Hazlitt brings another point up that finds flaws in this article: The consumer makes or breaks a deal with the company. If there are people making coats for 30 an hour and they sell the coats for 50, but if there isn't anyone to buy the coat that will make no difference in the production and the employment of the person. In other words, if there is no one to buy the product made then how will the employee get paid. The major flaw in this article is there are jobs made for people but that may not affect the amount of consumers that are coming in, so what good is to hire someone and give them a job when there is no income coming in? 

       On a final note,  this has been a problem for the economy for awhile and this will continue to be a problem until there is a major break through somewhere. Hazlitt does make a statement on Pg. 41 that machinery could make more jobs for people, the production, the guy who fixes the machine when it goes down, the woman who feeds the guy on his lunch break, a web of different possibilities of jobs that can come forth. There hasn't been a big chain like that to give thousands of people their jobs back or the one's that they could perform; sooner or later there will be something that sparks and brings out those jobs and this article claimed that there was an effort in doing so, it just wasn't successful. Unemployment is a problem and hopefully soon it is a problem we can fix. 

Immigration in America

I think one of the most ironic things an American can say is that they are against immigration.  Yes, while none of us should really support illegal immigration, there are people who are against even legal immigration.
I don't quite understand how people can do that.  Our country is formed on immigration. While yes, we are American, that is not an ethnicity.  We are all made up of genes from countless other countries. America is a melting pot!
Now what many people against immigration argue, is that immigrants steal American's jobs.  They think that immigrants mooch off our hard work and do absolutely nothing to contribute to our country.  But for the most part, this isn't true.  Immigrants actually boost our economy! They take any job that will have them, that they have the skills for.  Then with that money, they pay rent, they buy groceries, they put the money back into the economy!
Another argument brought up by the anti immigrant supporters in this article is that immigrants, especially those from Mexico are stupid.  This is just an ignorant statement.  It's like when Europeans say all Americans are fat and lazy.  There are always those who fit a stereotype, but nine times out of ten, it is just a small percent of the entire population that were the cause of the creation of the stereotype. 

Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/09/what-the-anti-immigrant-movement-really-believes/

Team "Free Market"

"When consumers and businesses set out to reduce their debt burden, and private spending and investment stall, it is the government’s job to borrow, spend and pick up the slack."
This quote is from an article supporting Keynesain economics.  Keynesian economics thinks that during a recession, people should continue to spend their money freely, which will stimulate the economy and bounce the country back.
I disargee.  Recessions are unavoidable, they happen routienely.  Their purpose is to weed out the companies and ideas that are weakest, with the least support from the public, and open up those goods and resources to a new idea, or to those businesses who have already proven their worth.
When a recession eliminates the weakest links, that recession is ended, in a free market.  Our economy cannot and should not be controlled by Keynesian politicians.   Everyone needs to step back, no rules and regulations, and see what happens. We will see the jobs that we need, we will see where the money goes and does not go, we will see the economy fix itself.


Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/business/despite-keynesians-victory-economic-policy-holds.html?pagewanted=all

Prepare for Big Piece of Health Law

Health insurance experts are saying that now is the time to learn about different health care plans available. The Although, the new health-care law doesn't kick in until next year says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation says if you don't already have insurance don't wait until then to buy it. The new health-care law mandates that insurers sell it to applicants even if they are sick. Avery Johnson says that individuals can go online and view the checklist for getting ready to apply for the new insurance for 2014 online.

The new rules that will go into effect in 2014 are not protecting the liberty of the insurers. The insurers should have the right to decide who they will make exchanges with and the new law requires that insurers must accept applicants even if they are sick. A fair market exchange should allow the two people making the exchange to agree upon the exchange. If one person does not feel as if the benefits and greater than the costs then they should have the right to not make the exchange. The government may be protecting the liberty of certain individuals by giving them the opportunity to receive health-care, but during this process they are not protecting the liberty of the group of individuals who own the health-care insurance companies. A way to fix this problem would be to not make a new law that requires insurers to accept people they would not like to, but to create a government run health insurance company that has to accept everyone that applies regardless of their health.

Are Employee Recognition Programs good or bad?

Many companies today use Employee Recognition Programs in order to motivate their employees into working their very best. According to brighthub.org, Employee Recognition Programs are not beneficial and can actually make a working environment worse. This is because when companies use these programs, the employee that was recognized will start to get a worse work record and will eventually become an inadequate employee. Reasons why this happens is because management selection of employees leads to allegations (or actual cases) of favoritism. An employee nomination system may lead to the creation of discord and factions within the workforce. Limiting recognition of an employee to only one occurrence per calendar year stifles the continued willingness of the worker to excel. A lack of funds makes an employee rewards program unproductive. For example, a worker who just invented a way to prevent thousands of dollars’ worth of warehouse shrinkage should get more than merely a computer-generated certificate and a mug with the corporate logo. Not having an employee reward program is better than keeping in place a poorly run or inadequately funded one.

Although Employee Recognition Programs have their downsides, I believe that these programs are beneficial to employees and can help better a company’s way of work. Some reasons why this is true are employee recognition systems reward workers who advance the business’ goals. This opens the door to rewards for hard work, creativity, loss prevention, and initiative by workers at all levels. An employee nomination process motivates other employees to work harder. Finally, leveled employee rewards offer recognition for various forms of worker excellence. People respond to changes in incentives in predictable ways. These workers are being given rewards (the incentive), such as a pay raise or a bonus, for working hard. These workers will respond to this change in the predictable way by working hard for these rewards, which follows this rule of human action. Because this concept of Employee Recognition Programs fit this rule of human action, it is shown that having these programs are beneficial to employees.

Was it right to legalize Marijuana?

With the new law of legalizing marijuana being passed, many individuals are still uneasy as to whether it should have been legalized or not. According to CNBC, marijuana should not have been legalized. This is because they believe that if marijuana were to be legalized, consumption of it would likely increase. Along with that would likely come health and community costs: increase in accidents due to motor impairment, increase in associated illnesses such as cancer, as is the case with cigarette smoking. Marijuana is not harmless, it is addictive, and it does affect the brain. Since legalization of marijuana for medical or general use would increase marijuana use rather than reduce it and it would lead to increased rates of addiction to marijuana among youth and adults. The biggest argument in the article is how the legalization of Marijuana adds taxes. According to the article, "if marijuana was legalized, the only way to eliminate its illegal trade would be to sell marijuana untaxed and unregulated to any willing buyer." because no buyer would be willing to buy taxed Marijuana.

I however disagree. I believe that legalizing marijuana was the right decision. I believe that this is because from an economic standpoint, there would be numerous benefits to legalizing Marijuana.  A new industry could emerge that would allow people to buy and sell marijuana without being sent to jail.  The illegal pot dealer that is currently making their money in the black market could possibly start a profitable business. They would already have a good amount of clients, which is a key to succeed in any business. Since Marijuana is no longer illegal, customers could receive their order from the mail legally since there is no need for drug trafficking anymore. This would create many jobs across the country, which will help the big problem of unemployment as well. Also, prisons are able to save a lot of money from not having to put Marijuana users in jail anymore. Moreover, if a marijuana distribution grew large enough, it could be registered and traded on an exchange which would mean that Marijuana could be taxed so that the government could benefit. Voluntary trade (cooperation) means that both gain. The person who is the buyer is giving up some money in return for the good or service, the seller is giving up to get the money. The exchange allows both parties to benefit from it, which means that they have both gained which suits this rule of human action and why legalizing Marijuana is the best choice because if it was not legalized, these benefits could not exist.

Gas Prices

Oil. It's something we Americans use every day. Be it for our cars or for other purposes, it plays an integral part in our lives. However, it seems there is a monopoly on how to get it. We only seem to want to get it from overseas, which leads to gas prices soaring, as the oil prices per barrel skyrockets. We can't even trade to get this item. The nations that produce it know that since we need oil in our lives, we will pay whatever price it is to get it. They specialize in this market. Is it unjust that they charge such outrageous prices for what they produce? Absolutely. But until we achieve other means of energy that will power not just a few things that are in our lives, but EVERYTHING in our lives, we cannot stop needing oil. Therefore, we will continue paying their ridiculous prices. The oil nations have us in what can be surely described as a stranglehold and we slowly try to find a way out of it, be it other sources of fuel such as E-80, which is made from corn or electric power, which is becoming more and more common. Still, oil is the main source needed to power the majority of things we use and we will still be needing to pay for it for a few more years.

XBOX One

At the E3 convention last week, Microsoft unveiled their new gaming system, XBOX One. However, many consumers and analysts have viewed this new console as a screw-up by Microsoft. Among many questions that arose, mostly about price and backwards compatibility with the old games of the 360, there was one that definitely stood out. This was the fact that the Kinect sensor, in some articles written by said analysts, captured everything about you and held all your personal info. With this talk of the NSA reviewing of our phone records and computer browsing records, it's more than likely a safe bet that these reports about the Kinect are more than likely true. This brings into question the ideal of public good. All these seemingly bad ideas Microsoft has put into their new console begs the question of why does Microsoft want to screw us and themselves over? I mean, at the last console reveal, Playstation did the same thing pricewise and it lead to Microsoft taking over the gaming world for the past 8 years now. To do this, is a question of sanity on Microsoft's part. They know all of the things they talked about at E3 are things consumers are not going to want in a console, so why do it? All I know is Microsoft is going to be taking a beating in revenue of products if they don't change what they made.

Legalization of all drugs

This article discussed that in order to get rid of all the drug problems, you simply make them all legal, sell them at a high price, and label the side effects. They say that by doing this, in the long run people will not use them as frequently. I do not agree with this because by making it legal and available, it is easier to do more of it, hence why there are many addiction problems to alcohol, cigarettes, and tobacco.  I think that what should be done is continue to have them illegal, but have more severe consequences for having them. In class, it was discussed that a government is successful when the consequences of one committing a crime are a greater expense than actually committing the crime. Although, the article does say that the government should allow everyone to do as they please as long as they do not harm others, the government is also there to protect the people. I believe that in this case the government needs to step in and protect its people. You may ask, how does preventing people from doing these drugs protect them? Well I must say that these drugs are not healthy for a person and can cause death. Another way it can be dangerous is to children. Having a friend whose parents suffer from addictions of drugs and alcohol, I can see how that really takes a toll on them. If these drugs were not so easily available, my friend may have had a better childhood and not so much emotional pain. If the governments’ job is to protect, then shouldn’t this apply to protecting the upbringing of children? By making it easier to access it, it makes it easier to abuse it. In the long run, legalizing drugs does not make this problem easier because they will be too easily accessible, leading to a higher risk of abusing the drugs.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/vidal-drugs.html 

Buyers of Fake Designer Goods

This article discusses the buyers of fake designer goods. It states that the people who buy counterfeit goods should be fined up to $1000 and/or imprisoned for doing so. This is a bit absurd considering how many people have committed this crime. As a shopper, I do appreciate the real and authentic fashion items that many name brands have, but at the same time, I have the choice as to what I want to buy. If I see an item that I think is of great benefit to me, I am going to buy it, whether or not it is or isn’t a fake designer good. If it should be illegal to buy these “fake designer goods,” then it should be illegal to sell them in the first place. This is one of those cases where you need to treat the problem at the source. If there were more severe rules/ consequences for the vendors, then, you would not have as many instances of people purchasing fake goods. As for the people who are frustrated because they bought the authentic bag and others did not, it all comes down to a choice, and if you chose to spend on the authentic bag, as oppose to the fake bag, then that is your own problem. This could in a way be considered rent seeking, except in this case, the “rent seeker” is simply benefiting by obtaining their integrity. It is also rent seeking, because if this were to take place, not many people would buy the bags therefore eliminating endless possibilities of a voluntary trade. This would in fact hurt the market, as oppose to help the market. Making this a legal issue is a bit ridiculous considering there are more important things to worry about.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/06/14/new-york-city-considers-jail-fine-for-buyers-of-fake-designer-goods

Immigrants and Education

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/get-schooled/2013/may/14/illegal-immigrants-and-education-still-fighting-dr/

"The federal DACA program allows immigrants to apply to remain in the country if they arrived in the United States as children, have no criminal record and are in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development  certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States. While Georgia  law allows illegal immigrants to attend its public colleges, it has erected barriers, including requiring them to pay out-of-state tuition. They are also barred from the University of  Georgia , Georgia Tech, Georgia State University, Georgia College & State University, the Medical College of Georgia or any other campus that has rejected academically qualified applicants  over the last two years because of space or for other reasons. TheRegents  adopted the ban to address mounting public and political concerns that academically qualified  Georgia  residents could lost spots at premier state colleges to illegal immigrants."

I think it is very nice that the DACA program allows immigrants to stay in the US and obtain a higher education. The only thing I do not agree with is that they have to pay out of state tuition. I do not think that is very fair for the immigrant if they have lived in state most of their life and are trying to succeed and increase their knowledge and attend college. Also, I think it is ridiculous that some of those schools in Georgia rejected perfectly qualified students because they are immigrants because of the fear of natural born citizens potentially losing a spot at the school to illegal immigrants. If they are qualified, and probably better qualified than others, then they should get the privilege to be accepted and attend the college and further their education. They are obviously putting a lot of effort on their education and trying to succeed in this country. Let them have a chance and prove that they can do it.

My uncle was an illegal immigrant and attend high school in the states. He was valedictorian of his school. He was very smart and got excellent grades. He did not go to prom or parties because he was studying. He put everything he had in his studies. He wanted to succeed and further his education. He wanted to attend college. The university he wanted to go to and most of them actually would not let him apply because he was an illegal immigrant. He was left to settle at a community college for many years. This breaks my heart because you could see his dedication and potential. He could have finished his schooling earlier if he was only allowed to attend a university. He did get citizenship and attended a university and graduating with honors and is doing a wonderful job today.

Abortion

http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/impact-on-society-abortion/
In this article, it says, "Abortion was supposed to empower women, free them from the rigours of childbearing and the drudgery of housework, and enable them to achieve an equal place with men in the workforce". Some say that abortion is good for the economy because it reduces the government spending. With abortion, there are less students which means there is a less demand for teachers. This saves the government money by not having to pay so many teachers.

I don't think that abortion is saving the economy from spending. Government spends money no matter what. We are in debt still and there are a lot of abortions still going on. I think that abortions are actually hurting the economy. All those bodies lost are bodies that could have contributing to our economy. They are potential consumers. Even though babies are too young to consume, their parents do it for them. There is demand for a lot of things for babies such as; diapers, wipes, food, toys, etc. Abortions are hurting the economy with not contributing to the consuming of those products.

Abortion is also making the population growth go down. "Population growth is a major source of economic growth. More people create more demand for products and services and supply labour that is need by industry and commerce". With the population decreasing, there is a low supply of teachers, nurses, key professions, etc. "Abortion and more efficient birth control together have wiped out about half of our future human resources".

Washington Legislature Paid $77,000 in Per Diems and Accomplish Nothing

Washington taxpayers get $77,000 bill for most unproductive Legislature gathering in state’s history. You can read the article here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/15/washington-taxpayers-get-77000-bill-for-most-unproductive-legislature-gathering/

Washington Legislature adjourned on Tuesday from a 30-day session after not passing a single bill. Most of the time spent in session was spent squabbling over the budget. Despite being so unproductive many members claimed their daily per diems totaling $77,000 for taxpayers. A per diem is a daily expenses allowance paid to members while in session. This daily allowance is money they are given on top of their regular salary. These politician are now gathering again for another special session to try and come to an agreement on the budget. Meanwhile some state workers may be laid off because there is no agreement on the budget.

Is it just me or does this seem wrong? First of all these politicians need to be a little more mature and quit fighting so much. The article referenced democrats and republican being so disagreeable and blaming the other party for the inability to come to an agreement. While there are many that have claimed their per diems the entire time they were in session there were some that claimed only some or part of what they are allowed. Senator David Frockt a Democrat from Seattle said it best, "We shouldn't be getting paid when we're not doing our work within the time allotted." These politicians are wasting taxpayer money by not being able to come to an agreement. It seems more and more these days there is a sense that democrats and republicans can't seem to come to an agreement in many areas of government for the benefit of the people. State workers may be laid off while the Washington Legislature tries to come to an agreement. These men and women in government need to work together and be more willing to compromise. Why should taxpayers pay more when they are accomplishing nothing? I'm pretty sure in most professions, if you don't do your job, you don't get paid. Politicians should be treated the same. 

Unemployment Based on Skills Gap

The New York Times article referenced can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/dont-blame-the-work-force.html?ref=unitedstateseconomy&_r=0

There is a common belief that most of the unemployment we see today is because of a skills gap. This means that the good jobs that people want to get, nobody can get because they are unqualified or under-educated. Recent research shows that neither is a reliable reason for the unemployment problem. In a good economy there would be many job openings and few that are unemployed. In April there were 3.8 million job opening and unemployment was still at 7.5% or 11.7 million people. Clearly there are not enough job openings for all those needing work. In this weak economy the real problem is not a skills gap but rather that companies can not justify hiring more workers.

I think there are many reasons that there are so many still unemployed. The jobs available may be less than desirable or people are just unwilling to take a low-paying position. Also with so many needing jobs, employers can be choosy in who they decide to employ. In dealing with the recent recession many are still hesitant to spend money. Not putting money into the economy will only hurt it further. Corporate executives want us to think that we need more educated, more highly trained people to have available into the workforce so they can get government aid in programs to help workers. The real problem is not the skills gap but the lack of money going into the economy. If we don't start spending, companies can't rationalize hiring more employers.

Abortion: A Key Economic Factor

According to Mychal Massie there is a real economic toll related to abortion, and it is evident that the majority of congress supports it in an economic standpoint. U.S News and World Report labeled the child as a "high priced consumer item with no warranty." According to these people, less children means less welfare spending, less unemployment and generally more money to go around.

I disagree with these beliefs of abortion being beneficial to the economy. I think abortion plays a key factor in our economy's crisis. If a woman has an abortion, she is simply taking away her chances of consumer spending in the real economic market. Consumer spending is the dominate way the economy operates and functions. Babies are demanding individuals and may not be able to contribute first handedly to the economy, but their mothers can be greater consumers that help in the consumer spending, allowing the economy to thrive. Babies need diapers, toys, blankets, books, cribs, clothing every few months. They have a higher demand for regular spending than any other age group. I think that people with babies are of greater importance in the economy than anyone else. Abortion is not the answer. Getting rid of babies that are born second hand consumers, that grow o be first hand consumers will only harm the economy. Government officials need to realize this and take a stand in order to help a life, and the ever important economy.  

Gas Price Surge Harms Economy

According to Richard Davies, business correspondent with ABC news, the rapid rise in gas prices has become a growing problem for the economic market. The nationwide average for regular gasoline is leveled at $3.70 a gallon, which accounts to a 40 cents increase in the past month. There is a direct correlation to the rise in gasoline prices and less consumer spending, causing the economy to suffer. Higher gas prices means less consumer spending on other goods and services.

Because gas prices are on the continual rise, and because gas has become a key part of our society, it is likely that consumers will make the sacrifice to purchase such gas instead of products that are not of daily use. Every seller in the market in in hopes of earning a profit. It would be impossible for a seller to make a profit if they were not selling, and it would be even more difficult to compete with products that have no similarities; gasoline in this instance. Although high gas prices are increasing and staying that high, the economy always "fixes" itself. If there is a surplus, then the demand will lower, and vice versa with a shortage. Gas prices will not always remain consistently high, and the economy will return to normal after a short period of time. The economy is in constant change, and it is constantly making improvements and adjustments to the world around it.

Supreme Court rules against patenting human genes

Article found at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-dna-patents-20130613,0,4076014.story

This is an interesting article over a recent supreme court ruling, as recent as yesterday, that ruled 9-0 that gene sequences cannot be patented. The argument made by the court is that singling out a gene sequence that occurs in nature is not the same as inventing something. The Corporation in Utah was able to retain patents over two synthetic DNA sequences because this did qualify as an invention. That corporation is Myriad Genetics, and the code they held a patent for was important in identifying the probability of breast and ovarian cancer in women. Now, after this decision, the expected cost of these tests is lower and easier to obtain.

Patents are government sanctioned monopolies over new innovations. They allow the first person to invent a product to secure extra profit from it's production for a specified period of time, without feared of being pushed out by someone else able to recreate it cheaper. This is essentially a subsidy for innovation. The thought behind this is that innovation is a positive externality, that creates benefit for others outside of the market. But, the vast majority of these inventions occur within the market, lowering prices and increasing productivity in other markets. These advances in technology are exceptionally important, but do not qualify as a positive externality. From an efficiency standpoint, no patents should be issued because they create a monopoly (market failure), and they should not be an incentive to invent. Patents hurt the consumer and should not exist, this case should have never been a question. 

Location looms large in pump prices at California gas stations

Article found at:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/01/business/la-fi-zone-pricing-20130102

In this article, the author loosely tries to explain how the price of gas is determined, and why the price will vary from place to place. The example used in the article is in California in 2012, when Michael Denis paid $4.69/gallon and 4 miles away Lupe Alfaro only had to pay $3.89/ gallon. The difference comes, "because fuel refiners charge unequal amounts to service station dealers in separate areas based on a host of closely guarded factors, such as nearby competition, traffic volume and station amenities." The writer essentially calls gasoline pricing a conspiracy designed to hurt consumers in a way that retail stores do not. His example is that sweaters in a chain's stores will always have similar pricing.

Gas stations operate at a level approaching pure competition. The barriers to entry are low, and if they do not function at the market level, then they will not sell and they will go out of business. They are price-takers. The distributor sells to the highest bidder, depending on demand, and then the local gas stations can only put out the product at the market price. These stations might have a chain name, but they are normally independent franchises and are constrained by demand as much as the next. If consumers are willing to shop around and choose cheaper locations, then prices will have to change to accommodate. The market drives these factors, it is not some large business conspiracy that is bent on sucking extra profit out of the consumer.