Above is the address of an article on us cars makers and their asian competitors. I think that they are good examples of monopolistic competitive firms. Until reciently US auto makers have made alot on pickups now companies like toyota are trying to get in on that market as well. Monopolistic competitive firms make a product that is different but with time people start to copy and take away their competetive edge. In the case of US auto makers I think that if they cant turn things around or come up with a new "different" product they could go under.
I hate to see good people lose jobs, but unprofitable businesses are a drain on our resources and it seems that bankruptcy laws are enabling them to stay afloat long enough to drag their competitors down with them. It's very much like how a drowning person will drag down another in attempt to save their own life, and in doing so, drowns them both.
If the United States government wants to spread democracy it should increase trade. It might be more effective to increase trade than to increase military pressure on most countries. Maybe the saying should be "the dollar is mightier than the sword."
What does this information mean? First of all, shareholders are the owners of the company. The CEO is responsible for providing a return on investment to their shareholders. Ultimately, shareholders want to be paid dividends or have the value of the stock rise. Investors these days are investing in stocks in the short term, which means that dividends are less important, and relying on the value of the stock to rise in order to make money. This is the classic example of buying low and selling high. If a company tries to hide information from shareholders, or acts in their own interest, then the return for the investors will be minimal. If this is the case, it could ultimately hurt investors, consumers and the employees of the organization. Just to show an example is companies such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and others you hear in the news today.
For more read, “The Evolution of Protectionism”
Immigration refers to reforming immigration laws. People from other countries have a lot to offer both culturally and economically. Who knows what innovations that US could produce if people from other countries had a chance to offer their skills. Immunization refers to taking care of the current US population. The article suggests that the government needs to provide more pre and post-natel care. Inspiration refers to inspiring the american people to be innovative and rewarding them for thier innovation. The article's suggestions are interesting. I wonder if this philosophy combined with other solutions would keep America a cultural and economic force.
The article on Externality, is talking about the two different types of externalities which are positive and negative. A positive externality is something that actually benefits the society as a whole; an example of this would be environmental cleanup. A negative externality is a lot more common, an example of this is pollution. There is a problem that is created from this where that companies do not fully measure the economic costs of their actions. Because they don’t subtract these costs from there revenues, so profit is inaccurately portrayed. This is where the government comes into play it is there basic goal to have companies internalize externality costs. For example if a company causes someone to get sick from there pollution then the company will be liable for the medical bills. So this way the company can more accurately compare revenues and expenses and decide if production is profitable. What do you think is this how it should be measured?
In the article Recycling Domestic Waste, it is referring to the two economic factors that limit the amount of recycling that can be done. The first reason is that recyclable materials must be collected, and the costs of these can be high. The second reason is the market for goods created from recycled materials is limited. People say that they can sort out waste before recycling, but they may not have the skills required. This is when it can get expensive because then you have to higher people to do it, and more money is involved. There are also economic benefits if fewer items are thrown away then the governments costs will be lowered in paying for landfills. So what do you feel about recycling is it worth it in the long run, will it save money?
Patents are one method a company can use to protect unique production processes and products and prevent competitors from copying ideas; however, they are also something other companies must recoginze and respect, as Sony failed to do this time.
Neanderthals had to cooperate to some extent, but there is no evidence to show that they understood the concept of division of labor or trade. When modern humans arrived on the scene they established an inter-group trading system, and brought about technological innovations. The trading which took place allowed a division of labor as well as specialization. Exchanges of goods and ideas among different groups helped create "supergroup social mechanisms " which helped the cultures survive and led to new cultural advancements. Because the humans naturally followed this economic principle, they survived. The "self-sufficient" Neanderthals perished because they did not.
Did the early humans survive due to a primitive form of outsourcing? Did they do what they were good at and allow somebody else to do what the other excelled at? If we try to keep all jobs in America, even the ones that others can do better, might we go the way of the Neanderthals? Let us do what we are good at and let others do what they can excell at doing. If we do, we will find new things we can do better than others and continue to advance as a society.
Andrew Chamberlain blogg “Do Deficits Matter,” shows that this is not necessarily the case. “The historical relationship between deficits and interest rates is murky.” Many things in the economy affect the interest rates. It seems that government borrowing and interest rates tend to move in opposite directions altogether.
Deficits are clearly harmful to some extent. The question is to what extent? The average deficit, over the last 42 years, has been 2.1 percent of the GDP. In order for deficit to be considered large it must be 5.9 percent of the GDP or larger.
This year’s deficit is projected to be 3.6 percent of the national income. In the 1980s and 1990s the deficits was 4-5 percent and “hardly cause for panic.”
So basically what is potentially being proposed is to have a 25% tax on all income above $100k (less than that is tax-free), and then there is a secondary federal tax on all consumer goods or a consumption tax. This type of tax is intended to encourage people to save more of their money and allows the government to operate with an extremely efficient tax code.
Opponents to these ideas say it is an unfair tax burden on the poor because a greater percentage of their income is spent on consumer goods. They also point out that it has been difficult for European countries to have restraint when it comes to keeping the consumtion tax at a constant and reasonable rate, since it is so easy to increase by 1% which then cranks up government revenues substantially.
I have a brother-in-law that is currently serving in the armed forces. He and his new wife are struggling to pay the bills, but they have the opportunity to fly, and see the world at not cost to them. In fact, he and his wife are going to Egypt in a couple of weeks. In fact he has seen more of the world than I have, and probably more than most people as well. To my brother-in-law, the opportunity to see the world instead of a heavy paycheck makes him happy; economic vs. accounting profits.
Myself, I would not enjoy serving in the armed forces, because I am not a big flyer. Therefore the benefits from different jobs depend on the individual. What someone calls a benefit, others may call, (for lace of better words) a loss.
President Bush wants to allow illegal immigrants currently working in the
Immigrants fill many jobs that Americans are unwilling to take. Why not allow companies to hire these employees legally. President Bush said, "This new system will be more compassionate. Decent, hardworking people will now be protected by labor laws, with the right to change jobs, earn fair wages and enjoy the same working conditions that the law requires for American workers." These illegal employees will also be required to pay taxes. This would be a great benefit to the
Bush also said, "Our homeland will be more secure when we can better account for those who enter our country," he said. "Instead of the current situation, in which millions of people are unknown ... law enforcement will face few problems with undocumented workers and will be better able to focus on the true threats to our nation from criminals and terrorists," he said.
Terry's parents are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to reinsert the tubes. These petitions had previously been defeated in court numerous times. This latest appeal was dismissed. Florida Governor Jeb Bush tried to have Terry Schiavo put in state custody so her feeding tube could be reinstered. A judge has blocked the Governor from doing so. "The president is saddened by the latest ruling," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday morning.
Why is the government always interfering in matters that don't concern them? Granted, the parents of Terry Schiavo have the right to appeal to the courts. Michael Schiavo claims Terry told him she would never wish to be on life support. The death is painless. No abuse is involved. Because this is the case the government has no leg to stand on. Her husband has a right to remove life support. The doctors, the husband, and the family are the only people with the right to decide her fate. Why is Governor Jeb Bush interfering? He has no right to keep this woman in a vegetative state. The main problem is that the Federal government has become too powerful.
Does this not sound a little bizarre or even worth ones time of going to the hospital only to see the Doctors face on the screen of a robot? Would it be worth the cost you pay to not have human interaction? According to numerous people who have had experience with the new innovation, before they see it, they're resistant to the idea, but once they see that it's just like communicating with a real person, their opinion changes radically.
Will this change the way our healthcare operates as we now know it? It may save some time and allow the doctors to be more than one place at a time, but is this worth the benefit that is lost from communicating personally-human face to human face?
The article that I read was called Free Riders. This article is talking about those people who think that they should have everything for free. Or in other words you benefit from something without paying for a thing. Free riders are known for taking advantage of public goods without contributing anything for them. I really have problems with people like this because I hate it when people think they deserve things for nothing. No, that is not the case step up and takes some responsibility. I personally could never be a free rider because I have had friends throughout my life that I called mooches, or also know as free riders, which drove me crazy when they thought that they did not have to pay for anything. The main problems that free riders create are when they are told not to use certain products where the environment can be harmed. As a whole most of the population listens, but then there are those people who think that they are the exception.
These federal officials believe the US will be okay because of the Retiree Effect and the War Chest Factor. In short, the Retiree Effect says that global saving surplus comes from the rapidly aging societies of Japan and Europe. Workers there need to build up savings for retirement but because of their countries slow growth, they are investing money abroad and much of it is in US Treasury Securities. The War Chest Factor says that China, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Brazil have increased their holding of Treasuries to insulate themselves against the vagaries of international capital market flows, and some countries like China, are even linking their currencies to the dollar.
If these Fed optimists are right, then there is no big rush in cutting the current account deficit. The deficit will some day fall, not with a bang of a dollar crash but slowly, as the rest of the world gathers the rewards of the savings it invested in America. Do you agree with these Federal optimists?
Another interesting point was that diesel fuel has gone up roughly 36% from a year ago, but the trucking industry is still thriving. Why? Some say it is because of fuel surcharges and a strong demand from the retail and manufacturing sectors. This is very good for the trucking industry as long as they can keep covering their fuel costs.
One last bit of information that I thought was interesting was the fact that gas prices would have to climb another $1 per gallon to reach all time highs. For our sake, let’s hope this doesn’t happen!
"As John Kenneth Galbraith once put it: "The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself."
Some may argue that CEO's have top be paid large amounts of money and receive huge bonuses, in order to keep good talent around. I hope they are trying to keep GREAT talent, but the problm is they aren't. When a CEO has earned his due he should be rewarded, but in my opinion he should earn it. That means he must work just as hard and longer if need be than any other employee to earn his reward. Just because he is the guy that calls all the shots doesn't make him so special that they no longer have to work hard for what they earn. I feel that if CEO's shared a little more of the pie with everyone else. Everone else would benefit, and higher levels could be reached by all.
The end of the so called auto bubble may create conditions for a new wave of inexpensive imports as domestic manufacturers weaken and consumers get even more price-conscious. GM's bad first quarter may signal a very rocky road ahead. What do you think? Will car manufacturers continue to decline in their sales and will we start buying cheaper foreign cars in replacement?
Bush feels that the subsidies are lopsided and need to go. It’s about time! As you may well know from previous blogs, I’m not a huge fan of subsidies, as they seem to primarily represent special interest groups.
“Two-thirds of the nation's 2.1 million farmers receive no subsidies, either because the crops they grow are not eligible or because they are too small and marginal to qualify. In the case of cotton, the proportion of federal aid going to large operators is unusually lopsided. One percent of those receiving subsidies collected 28 percent of the money paid out between 1995 and 2003, according to the Environmental Working Group. In Mississippi, seven farms out of 10 receive no subsidies.” – (Bush Administration Challenge to Cotton Subsidies)
Bush is leveling out the playing field! A huge portion of these budget cuts will directly affect the largely republican states of “Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia.”
I see inflation somewhat as a byproduct of greed and our inflated egos. In the working world, isn’t it our goal to get as much money as we can get? People are constantly trying to up their pay and in turn, up their buying power. As people continue to increase their pay, aren’t merchants going to continue to raise their prices because they know there’s more money out there?
Every time we see a minimum pay rate increase, we’re bound to see some inflation as a result of this cash inflow to the buyers. In essence, aren’t we decreasing the value of a dollar every time society gets a pay raise?
“A whole host of leading indicators is pointing towards a slowdown which should/could occur any time now. If the Fed continues to tighten while the economy is decelerating we should stop worrying about inflation right now.” – (Inflation?)
So if inflation is increasing, so is our pay and if pay is increasing so is inflation. I’m not worried about inflation…are you?
All of a sudden seasonal demand makes a little more sense to me. I'm predicting that's what we’ll see with Giro’s new TuneUps ski helmet. According to the article in Businessweek titled, "A Soundtrack for Downhill Racers", the helmet allows you to listen to music while you ski. It comes with a cord that plugs in to a digital-music player to let skiers and snowboarders rock out on the slopes. Sounds like a great idea, especially for those of us who love to rock out on the slopes without music. With helmets becoming more popular on the slopes this will definently increase the demand; however, it will probably be only seasonal demand.
The article continues on about how we as a nation are experiencing free trade with Chile and Singapore, etc. Looking at the above advance, perhaps we are on our way to continue our strong economy rate in America.
By reading this article and knowing a little about free trade, it seems to me that the benefits definitely outweigh the costs, so why are these people protesting against it? Is it that they are afraid of change or do they really think it will hurt their country?
Pet friendly policies, as well as, extra comfortable beds, and high speed internet access have become more common tactics in the hotel marketing wars that are taking place. Do you think this new Pet Friendly market that is emerging will be successful?
A Delta senior vice president said these latest changes might offend travelers from the glamorous days of air travel, but most travelers today are value seekers. Efficiency and value to the customers are two major ways airlines are surviving. In order for Delta to stay afloat they are cutting some of their variable costs and increasing what the customer is demanding, efficiency. Do you think these new managerial decisions will help or hurt Delta in the long run?
So is organic worth the extra money? Research has yet to prove an adverse health effect from consuming the low levels of pesticides commonly found in U.S. food. But for the most vulnerable groups -- children and pregnant women -- going organic whenever possible for fruits and vegetables that carry the heaviest pesticide load makes sense.
Granted, foods that are not treated with such things as pesticides are going to be more healthy, but are they worth the extra costs associated with it?
A minimum wage increase could make it more difficult for employers to hire unskilled workers. How could this minimum wage hike effect firms? Everybody who is paid minimum wage would like an increase, but I think it could possibly cause more negative effects on the economy than positive. What is your opinion? Are the macroeconomics books telling us the truth?
Is Martha Stewart in big trouble? I think that investors are just cautious right now and soon Martha will be on top again.
We have been learning in class about reaching a constrained optimization for profit through hiring employees until their marginal resource cost equals their marginal revenue product. Companies hire employees that, due to the nature of their jobs, do not increase the productivity of the company, such as janitors or grounds maintenance. To use a specific example- a manufacturing company hires an accountant in order to do work created by new tax legislation or accounting regulations which were previously not met by the company. He or she will not increase the output of the company, but serves a supporting function. Does this mean that production is more than just output?
MoveOn made some serious and costly blunders during last year’s election. It looks like they failed to do a cost analysis of what would happen to it when comparing Bush to Hitler. Little political profit was yielded from the thousands of dollars spent on Anti-Bush commercials.
The stock of MoveOn is dangerously overvalued. If its cost persists to outweigh its profits it is going to implode.
One of the more recent discoveries is that the FDA has now issued a warning for naproxen, based on the evidence of some cardiac risk. Naproxen is a heavy duty NSAID more commonly known as the headache medicine Alieve. It is also sold under some other cheap generic brands.
This is just one example of a commonly used drug that we assume is safe and has no risks, but really can pose a threat to our health. What should we do about this problem? One possible solution to help lower the risk is to recall our commonly used medicines a few at a time and re-run them through the several layers of the FDA approval process. Even then, if they missed the risks the first time, can we really depend on them to catch them the second time through?