Summary Analysis Homework George F. Will’s article “Being Green at Ben and Jerry’s” is an interesting case of irony on the American environment and our governments oil crisis. Will uses sarcasm and good cases of evidence to criticize and provoke environmentalists. The reason why Will does this is because the environmentalists would rather deepen the hole in America’s economic wallet rather than take a chance on manufacturing that would save money and improve the economy. George Will’s article is overall very good at proving his point but some things are unclear. He also talks about the current corruption that is occurring between environmentalist and politicians.
Final Exam Answers just a click away BUS 475 Capstone Final Examination Part 1 (100% Accurate) 3. From the point of view of consumer surplus and producer surplus, what problem was created when Thailand subsidized the cost of energy to consumers to help alleviate the burden of higher energy costs? a) It encouraged the consumption of too much fuel at the expense of other goods. b) It has no effect; consumers gained consumer surplus, but taxpayers lost the same amount because they had to finance the subsidy. c) It hurt the poor and benefitted the rich.
However in the long-run, this price raise is not enough to make people quit smoking so since cigarettes are a demerit good, it will have a negative effect on the environment and it will increase the number of health issues from second hand smoke, not to mention the high unemployment rate and less taxes for the government. Work Cited: BusinessDictionary.com. 2013. What is inelastic demand? definition and meaning.
He explains that as the global need for oil grows it puts more money in the pockets of the oil producing countries. He has a great “law” in this chapter that says that as oil prices increases the amount of freedom decreases. I found this very interesting just because the measure of freedom can be very subjective and it depends on what a person’s view of freedom is. He also tries to say that the increase of money in these countries fuels more terrorism. Which is another subjective idea because any country becomes richer would almost everything increase?
While his practices were eventually made illegal in many cases, it is undeniable that his domination of the oil industry increased its efficiency, safety, and stabilized its market price. In my opinion, because of the many companies that were eliminated by Rockefellers practices, laws like the Sherman Act in many ways did serve the public good. While on some levels I respect his business acumen, it was certainly not good for a a you company to make the backroom deals that unfairly drove many entrepreneurs to ruin. Undoubtedly, one must also take into consideration the fact that the growth of industry taking place was unprecedented in human history. Never before had technology, transportation, and communications come together to allow for such exponential growth on a global scale.
Entities such as the Group of Seven, or the G7, and the World Trade Organization, have created programs to lessen the gap between the wealthiest and poorest areas of the world. It has failed to progress the poorer nations of the world economically when “the leaders of the industrial world do make the rules, a power that is exercised in part to ensure the continuing wealth and power of the industrialized world.” (Marks, pg. 44) This hierarchical effect of the wealthy determining the economic fates of the poor has had little effectiveness in narrowing the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Instead, the developing countries are creating several treaties and alliances such as the North American Treaty Organization exclude entrance by the under-developed nations. This further expands the reign and monopoly of the western world by excluding influence from the economic weak.
In Keynesian analysis, a supply shock may reduce output in two ways: (1) a reduction in output, because the supply shock reduces the marginal product of labor, shifting the FE line to the left; and (2) a further reduction in output if the supply shock is something like an oil price shock that is large enough to cause many firms to raise prices, shifting the LM curve up and to the left so much that it intersects the IS curve to the left of the FE line. Supply shocks create problems for stabilization policy because: (1) policy can do nothing to affect the location of the FE line; and (2) using expansionary policy risks worsening the already-high rate of
They argue that illegal aliens are criminals and social and economic burdens to law-abiding Americans. But for the most part those American citizens would never work or be satisfied with the dirty downgraded jobs those illegal immigrants come to happily take. “If illegal immigration came to a standstill, it would disrupt the economy,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “It would lead to higher prices for many goods and services, and some things literally would not get done. It would be a major adjustment for our economy, for
Opponents also typically insist that undocumented immigrants lower wages and labor standards by offering their cheap labor and by being willing to work under very harsh conditions (“Lower wages,” 2008). This, increases unemployment and affects the living conditions of the working class and poor Americans (“Amnesty,” 2009). Thus, according to opponents, a comprehensive immigration reform would reward “criminals” who, not only broke the law, but also exploit the US economy, degenerate society, and compete against natives for work opportunities that are running scarcer as more people continue to come to the US. Legalizing the millions of undocumented immigrants that currently reside in the US would send future immigrants the wrong message that it is acceptable to enter the US illegally and that they will, in the future, be similarly forgiven (“What is wrong,” 2005). Finally opponents complain that legalizing undocumented immigrants would be very unjust for both, those that went through the long, legal process of receiving a visa, and for those that are still waiting to receive one.
One of the key arguments made by immigration critics is the decreasing wages of a particular class of our economy. The economic statistic that immigrants have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the United States, is a key idea that critics use to support their anti-immigration views. However, when these critics focus on this minuscule setback affecting a select group, despite the financial stability or successes of the country's vast majority of people, they illustrate ignorance to the American economy's main goal: to make gains, in economic prosperity and proficiency as a whole. The American perspective isn't to promote economic equality, but rather to produce the maximum amount of wealth, regardless of how this wealth affects a specific class of