Inflation.

http://http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2006/fs061219.cfm
Inflation is going to continue to hurt the economy. Inflation can hurt the us economy far more then the housing market. Interest have not been raised for fear of the impact on the housing market. The housing market was inflated and has to come back down.
Inflation can kill the us economy if nothing is done. The US needs to do something within the country (raise interest rates). To try a help the economy with promoting trade is a difficult tasks as many times other countries benefit when the dollar declines in value. Their currency rises and increases their wealth with in their country.
If we raise interest rates we can stop this problem before it takes a bigger toll on our economy.
The economy may stay slow now, but will be better as we go forward.

Economic impact of a Draft

As I was browsing through the articles online, I noticed an article written about the draft. I have heard about a draft recently and was interested how this would impact society if a draft was pushed through. The military services would definently decrease and change their bonus programs to get the right personnel in the right job. There would still be certain incentives for joining say the Marines over the Air Force, or vice-versa. Would there be a clause that would allow top athletes to pursue sports related goals, meaning recruitment into either the pro's or a college program? Would there be a clause that allows for religious activities, like a mission? Or, what if a young man is married, is he exempt? There would be a different focus for the young men and women if the draft was passed. The economies around training areas such as Fort Sill, and Fort Bragg would increase dramatically due to the large influx of soldiers.
In closing, other countries have a mandatory service period for all young men, and in some cases women. Would America be better off economically and socially by instituting a mandatory service period rather than a draft?

Microloans

I read an article about microloans in the New York Times. Microloans are a hot new topic in economics that allow people in les developed countries to get loans. Typically it is hard to get a loan in these countries because property ownership rights are shady, thus banks don't have very good collateral. Microloans work by using social pressure as a replacement of collateral enabling them to get a loan.

My concern is that the level of success that microloans have will vary greatly on a particular culture. Some cultures are more likely to have social structures that will motivate than others.

Here is the link to the article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/business/worldbusiness/10scene.html?ex=1312862400&en=f61d24534e36d822&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The Sky is the Limit?

Recently I have learned that the sky is no longer the limit. Air (space) is being traded between large companies in New York City. The space above skyscrapers is limited, so particular restrictions have been placed on the height of buildings in that area. Also, with regards also to the pollution rights that are being traded, there is money to be made and lost in new markets. My economic take is that these rights, which on the surface appear to be different, are actually a good thing. I would just like to make one point on the particular subject of selling rights, more especially for small businesses who are barely making it. One example that I read, was a small business who was asked to cut back it's level of pollution production by X amount over the next couple of years. In order to meet these demands the small company will need to invest a large amount of money in scrubbers that will clean up the pollution being released by the company. It could not afford this type of investment on its own; however, because it had extra pollution credits it was able to sell these credits to a larger company that needed more pollution rights. I see these markets as helping the smaller businesses to become more competitive. It helps in this way, to level the playing field a little more and offer more investment opportunities to these smaller companies who would not have the opportunity otherwise.

Utah needs a living wage

I have read several articles and blogs concerning minimum wage propositions, both for a minimum wage increase and against it. Both sides of the table have good reasons for their decision. I would like to introduce a living wage increase for Utah. There are several reasons why employees want to make more money. I will only cite a few that I feel are more relevant. First, we want to make more money,whether this increase is for toys, savings, furnishings, education, or clothinng. Second, there is this little thing called inflation that is knocking on the financial door each year. While Governer Huntsman collects his report that says that less only 19,000 employees in the state earn minimum wage, he then discounts the remainder of the report that tells of the many employees that are working within $1 of minimum wage. The link to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune on this report, which is due out tomorrow, is http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4823586. When a person starts at minimum wage, thier increase after 90 days, or whatever probation period that the company has set, is very minimal. And lastly, there are many people that need to support families.
As far as being against a mimimum wage increase, there are many good supporting reasons as well.
But rather than argue about the minimum wage, I would like to purpose a living wage for Utah. While we argue that the minimum wage should not be increased, many well trained employees have had to pack up and leave our beautiful state due to wages. Before you say that we do not need them here if they cannot "hang," or that it was something they should have known before arriving here; I would first like to point out that these people were teachers, police officers, and firemen. And that is just to name a few of the occupations that are suffering from lack of sufficient income to live, no survive in Utah. Utah needs to focus on a living wage, an income for public servants that will allow them to survive in our burgeoning metropolis-to be. The proponents are simple, review the cost of living for that demographic area and pay the wage that supports the people there. There will be incrimental differences between those who support themselves, and those who have others who depend on them for their support.
In closing, minimum wage is just that, a minimum that employers should pay. If there are some people that think it is fine where it is, or that we do not require it, try living below that "suggested" hourly amount (without food stamps, medicare, and without living at home under mom and dad's roof). You may change your mind.

Kyoto

I would like to bring up a discussion about the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is, as you all know, a treaty to combat global warming from greenhouse gases. The main issues behind this protocol is whether or not the U.S. should be more involved with it. Because of the economics of the protocol it has advantages and disadvantages to actively participating.

One disadvantage I see from joining the Kyoto project would be the increase in costs companies would have to bear. These costs would be passed onto the consumer and could be harmful to the economy.

Benefits from joining would be a decrease in greenhouse emissions because companies would strive to be more efficient in order to reduce costs.

I think greenhouse gas emission is a problem and it should be addressed, but at the same time I would be hesitant joining the Kyoto project because it could have implications on the balance of our economy.

Minimum Wage

Since the elections in November and the news of the Democrats taking the majority I have been particularly aware of more news about the raise in the minimum wage. I hear a lot from people that the minimum wage should be increased and that people are getting taken advantage of. On the other side I hear how bad it would hurt business if the minimum wage is increased. I can see valid arguments to both sides.

However in my opinion I believe that the federal government should leave the minimum wage where it is and let the market decide. In fact I belief that is already happening. In a recent article I read it stated that business are moving more towards a bonus oriented form of wage increases. This does a couple things, first it allows business to be more flexible. Instead of increasing the wage a business can simply give monthly bonuses according to how company profits are. The second thing it accomplishes is an alignment of goals between businesses and it's employees. With aligned goals it will motivate employees to work harder so that their company is successful.

I personally fear for a mandated wage increase because our economy is somewhat delicate right now. I don't know if companies would be able to compete as well on the global market if the minimum wage is increased.