1) Find a credible source on the internet that connects to last week's reading from Freakonomics or to terms or concepts from this week's classes. Make sure that you are focused on economic concepts.
2) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read? (relevant)
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible? (credible)
- Create a clear, specific argument based on the text. (argument)
- Support the argument with thoughtful analysis, using cause/effect, compare/contrast, problem/solution, part/whole, or other methods of analysis. (analysis)
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 2/28, by 12:00am.
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Monday and Wednesday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
The text I choose to read this week was Patent Reform, System Should Be Abolished, Fed Economists Say, written by Zach Carter. The texts talks about the patent system, which is one of the legal government involvements that limit monopolies and encourage new entrepreneurships. Patent systems also help protect inventions from people, so the entrepreneurs’ ideas won’t get stolen. The article goes on to explain that the patent system sets back innovation instead of progressing it. This article relates to this weeks lesson because, this week we learned about how the patent system works. However, we only learned about the ways the patent system helps the entrepreneurs and not about how it hurts them.The Huffington Post is a credible source because its a large news source. The Huffington Post has also been nominated for many awards such as the Webby Award for best political blog, and has been ranked as “The Most Powerful Blog in the World” by The Observer, a british newspaper founded in 1791. Also, Jon Bekken, a journalism professor at Suffolk University has called The Huffington Post as a perfect example of “advocacy newspaper”. The author of the article, Zach Carter is a senior political economy reporter. One of his previous news reports was included in the Columbia Journalism Review's compilation Best Business Writing 2012. Prior to working in The Huffington Post, Carter worked as a banking reporter for SNL Financial News. Instead of helping, the patent system is hurting innovators. The patent system was created in order to “encourage innovation by granting inventors long-term monopolies on new products.” This entitles the inventor the rights to their invention and prevents other people from stealing your idea. Although this sounds great, the preferred solution is to abolish the patent system entirely. The patent system works with an increase on innovation “with limited side effects.” The patent system increases the number of competition in the market by allowing new entrepreneurs the opportunity to make a new business. This new availability of competition in turn discourages because they will feel under power with the different amount of competitions in the market.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Innovation at War” written by Joe Nocera addresses how he believes that many patents are becoming unnecessary in some cases such as technology products, but for things like drugs and medicines it’s necessary because its easier for someone to steal the idea. This is a credible source because its from a well known news organization called the New York Times who has been around since 1851 and is also the most popular newspaper site in America. The author Joe Nocera has held a variety of positions, including contributing writer, editor-at-large, executive editor, and he was also an editor at The Washington Monthly. Joe Nocera argues that patents should be mostly necessary for drug companies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars bringing a new drug to market which is also a drug that can easily be copied by a competitor. Without the patent system protection it will give less incentive for them to come up with new drugs. Posner states “But patents in fast-moving industries like technology? “When you are dealing with products that have very short lives, you often don’t need patents because by the time competitors wise up, you've moved on”. Technology advances very quickly so if you're wasting your time on one invention, someone else is probably working on a more highly advanced version of it and yours won't last very long. Having a patent for technological inventions in some cases would disencourage new innovations having big industries like for example apple as your competition. Posner states “ Technology companies sue competitors for billions for infringing patents that are nothing short of silly”. Larger companies are basically taking advantage of new entrepreneurs. Having a patent system for drug/medicinal companies is more reasonable because someone who spends even all their life trying to find a cure for a disease or sickness should receive the credit they deserve. For someone to steal your new invention after all the hard work you've put into it just seems like a waste of time and will lead to much less incentive to help come up with new drugs. Technology wise a patent can be necessary in some cases but for the most part technology is just going to keep advancing and will keep leading to much more competition and even more inventions.
ReplyDeleteThe text i chose to read this week was “ Should School Offer Cash Bonuses For Good Test Scores?” by Rebecca Ruiz. This article discuss if the government offer the teachers more money depending on how many students pass the State test. This will encourage the teachers to work extra hard and push the students to read and write harder past there level to get better grades. The article relates to this week’s topic about incentives and institutions, the incentives is motivating the teachers to teach and prep students to pass the test with high grades and in return they will get paid extra. This text is credible because it came from the New York Times a very known website and from a well known reporter Rebecca Ruiz. Rebecca Ruiz was an editor reporter and journalist she graduated from Berkeley College of Journalism and attended University of California. the government shouldn’t set this law in because in my perspective many teachers will cheat and abuse the students in order for them to get the extra money in there pockets. The National Math and Science Initiative even offered to pay the students money if they get a high grade on their AP Exams.” It also paid $100 each to students who scored a 3 or above on an AP Exam”. This will rise competition within the students because if there's money around in their education the students will be more focused on doing their work and getting that money. The more money involved the more students will go head to head to win it. It will also increase the amount of students getting their work done and increase their performance in school. In 2011 308 schools in six states are participating in this law. If this law is put in effect in New York or in all states there has to be many pros and cons because anything involved in money can lead to different point of view and different ways to confront it. for example if teachers are making double their profit they will do anything necessary to get that money if it leads to them cheating and over pushing their students to achieve a goal that's overhead.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZach Carter article “Patent Reform, System Should Be Abolished, Fed Economists Say” is about how the patent system which some might say that it somewhat works and somewhat doesn’t. The patent system is a legal system that protects an entrepreneur and somewhat encourages them to continue to create new things.The Huffington Post is a well known trusted site to look up information on most things which started in 2005. Zach Carter is the senior political economy reporter for the Huffington post he was also part of the best business writing of 2012. The patent system allows the entrepreneur to feel more secure about his idea and not worry about someone with less skills steal his idea. If the entrepreneur feels secure with his idea it would mean that they would continue to develop new inventions. Some people argue by saying that "The historical and international evidence suggests that while weak patent systems may mildly increase innovation with limited side effects, strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side effects," a solution for this would be by making it a less time period and by allowing some companies to become temporary monopolies. Even though a patent provides security for the inventor idea there's that chance that someone else would create a better idea and the patent so becoming a temporary monopoly would just be of no use.
ReplyDeleteThe connection between “Finding Success in a Lifelong Passion for Fighting Monopolies” by Peter Lattman from the New York Times, the this weeks lectures is that they both have to do with monopolies and how the government chooses to handle them. This article is from the New York Times a well known news organization that provides news to the world. Also they got lawyers that fought the case of the AT&T and T-Mobile merger to speak on this article. The U.S government has not been taking the necessary steps in order to keep big businesses from becoming monopolies. “And courts over the last decade have generally cut back on the scope of antitrust liability”(Lattman 1). If companies aren't monitored at all times they will keep on growing until they are stopped. The U.S has currently not been monitoring the businesses or stopping their growth. As a Business expand they do create more jobs, but if they become a monopoly then they will not have to give the people good quality items for a low price. This will also eliminate the choices the people have. With competition it will incentives businesses to give the people choices on good quality items for the lowest prices possible.
ReplyDeleteKirk Condyles article, “Food Prices and Supply” is a clear example of supply and demand because as we learned in class, if there is a limited supply of a product then the demand of that product will increase. Many people are willing and able to buy certain types of food like milk, beef, chicken and pork if there was a limited supply of it. During the summer of 2012, the heat cause a drought on food leading to an increase on their prices. This is how the food market sets the prices for products because if there was a mass amount of for example corn, then the demands will decrease causing the food market to lower the prices on corn in the process of establishing an equilibrium for the consumers.
ReplyDeleteDue to the scorching heat and drought, products in groceries will increase in prices every summer like corn crops. “The drought has affected 88 percent of the corn crop”. This will most likely affect many prices of products sold in groceries because the majority of products in groceries consist of corn. This heat and drought also affects other products like milk, beef, chicken and pork in which their prices would increase as well during summers.
The increase in the dairy products was “spooking consumers and leading to worries about global food costs” meaning the heat during the summer caused an increase in food prices and since many dairy products like milk and eggs are inelastic and “Americans spend just 13 percent of their household budgets on food”. There are no substitute for dairy food products, a high degree of necessity, they have no time to go shopping around to compare prices, and most of consumers budget is spent on them. This article is explaining how in the U.S every summer there’s a drought in food prices because of the heat which most likely affects the consumers that have low income plus “America is a major exporter of a broad variety of agricultural products”.
The article I read was called "Disruptions: Taxi Supply and Demand, Priced by the Mile" written by Nick Bilton. It discusses how supply and demand vary on the consumers which is we the people and society. The article argues that some taxi lines take advantage of the amount of clients they have and raise the price when more people are requesting a taxi through a phone application called Uber. This phone application began to use “surge pricing" which is when a taxi arrives to your locaition and if many individuals request more rides the price for the taxi ride increases. Bilton stated "Although New Year’s Eve was very profitable for Uber, customers were not happy. Many felt the pricing was exorbitant and they took to Twitter and the Web to complain." Here he unleashes how many car running services take advantage of holidays such as New Years to make profit out of the customers. This is a perfect example of supply and demand because since the supply which are the taxes are limited due to many request the demands increase because it is a specific holiday and many people choose to go out which is a big bonus to the taxi companies and drivers.
ReplyDeleteThe article by Nick Bilton is completely credible because it involves a realistic issue that goes on every year. It is also from the New York Times which means it is a valid article and argument because it was posted to be seen and read by american citizens because it was a issue that needed to be discussed. There were various quotes from the victims of the application as well and hyperlinks. It relates to this weeks topic because it discusses how businesses use supply and demand in order to make higher earnings. When companies spark a positive reaction they choose to increase prices.
Many companies take advantage of the consumers by observing how they react to the product and depending how much they demand for it they raise the price. Not only do car service companies do this but also many businesses including free markets. Its what they do in order to make a more profit and benefit themselves. Many companies do this by testing us consumers and giving us a price if there is a fair amount of clients the prices will remain the same. But if many people begin to interact and want the product more the prices will increase because its what companies do in order to make it to the top and beat off competition. Supply and demand is what keeps our economy going and what keeps the united states as a capitalist country because without it our economic position will decrease and many businesses will fail.
Orders Jumps For Key Us Long-lasting Factory Goods by Christopher S. Rugaber . This article discuss the big business of core goods and industrial machinery equipment. Due to this good the monopolies are limiting other core companies competitions. The monopolies are willing to raise their products.
ReplyDelete( Nadine Gomez 6th pd)
ReplyDeleteThe article I found is named “U.S. court Finds IPhone Guilty of Violating 3 Patents” by Pete Pachal and and was published on December 13 2012. This article states some downfalls that the Apple patents face. In the article it speaks about how Apple got sued by MobileMedia for the violation of 20 of its patents. Patents are part of a system that encourages the development of new inventions. These inventions that have been established by entrepreneurs are secret inventions protected by the government. This connects to this week’s topic because patents are one of the main incentives that the government uses to motivate individuals to create new inventions. The more entrepreneurs apply for patents the more money the government receives, so it is in their best interest to get many entrepreneurs to apply for patents. Having patents in your business eliminates competition because your idea is protected, no one else would have rights to your idea and be part of the same business as you and you may be characterized as a monopoly. As stated in one of the excerpts from this week’s class patents could be used to monopolize the market by excluding possible competitors and enforcing their patents. This allows for companies to place high prices on services and products which would led to an increase in profit. This article is credible because the website, Mashable is the largest independent online news site which is dedicated to cover digital culture, social, media and technology. Mashable has a 20 million monthly social media followers. This website was founded in 2005, they are headquartered in New York City , and they have an office in San Francisco. Pete Pachal is a technology journalist who has been covering consumer technology in print and online for decades. He’s originally from Canada. And his first magazine was in 1999 named Sound and Vision. Apple is known as broadly worded patents with their lost of high profile patent litigation. The lost of Samsung, and Motorola resulted in the victory won by Apple who gained $1 billion. MobileMedia sued Apple in March 2010 because of the violation of 20 of its patent and Apple was the one who gained more money than what was expected.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe New York times article “As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Goverment Pay High Price” By louise story serves as a relevant source to this week topics , because we have been previously discussing the aspect of the merging companies(monopolies) and how the governmental interventions is causing a major problem to the many other companies and consumer because these sort of companies eliminate the competition and in the process they are demonizing our variety of choices.Also causing many companies to close because there are not a lot of companies that are willing and able to compete at the government prices.
ReplyDelete“As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Government Pay High Price” also serves as a credible source because this article was published by Louise Story a reporter on the Investigations Desk of The New York Times.Louise also has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Globe, The Hartford Courant, The Orlando Sentinel and The Yale Daily News. She earned a master’s degree in journalism at Columbia University and an M.B.A. and a B.A. in American Studies at Yale University This demonstrating that she has been around many other highly visited websites that if in the case that they have had published any wrongful information the website may lose many of their readers.
Due to the fact that the government is focusing their interest in the major companies and major factories need to grow, its pushing smaller companies into closing and does of whom want to stay open are dumping more and more money into the government.For example, as it is explained in the New York times article “As companies seek Tax Deals, Government pay high prices” publish by louise story . Story state that “When the automaker released a list of factories was closing ... communities that had considered themselves G.M.’s business partners were among the targets.”this states how the closing of the small factories brought out the attention to those big emerging G.M business making them the new target. also “Some officials, desperate to keep G.M., offered more. Ohio was proposing a $56 million deal to save its Moraine plant, and Wisconsin, fighting for its Janesville factory, offered $153 million” this demonstrates a government manipulation of the emerging companies incentivize purpose to keep their business moving forward. The government centering their attention in tending to maintain the big companies grow is due to the fact that the government benefits economically from it.
The text I chose is called “New Jersey Tires New Ways To Bet”. I chose this text because it connects to my last week topic on incentives. I chosed this text because I feel that it helps show me examples of by having casino’s could bring incentive and might help others around. The way casino’s are going to bring incentives to themselves is by “Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill on Tuesday authorizing Internet gambling, which would allow people to play casino games from their mobile phones or laptops”. Casino’s are trying to innovate
ReplyDeletenew stuff to try and boost their company to success and help get motivated. This text also makes me feel like since they are going bankrupt they will not be able to get money from and institution because they will not be able to pay it back .This text is credible because is coming from the New York Times and is a reliable source in which they will not give us false statement because it would make them look bad, and is coming from Kate Zernike who has 10 years in the national correspondent for the new york times and graduated from the university of Toronto and of Columbia University Graduate school of Journalism. Casino’s in New Jersey and Atlantic City will bring a dramatic change in that it will help businesses around them and themselves and attract more people to go. “ Now, with the casino’s themselves ailing — a shimmering $2.6 billion resort built with tax incentives announced last week that it was entering bankruptcy less than a year after it opened — the state is doubling down”. The problem with this is that now casino’s are going bankrupt because they tried to do too much by building a resort. A way to sort this out is by “ New Jersey’s move signals the future of gambling, as states try to tap into the money already flowing to the black market or offshore betting companies, and entice a new generation of gamblers who might graduate from FarmVille to online blackjack, and ideally to an actual casino”. By doing this casino’s are going to be making more money then the usual because by legalizing this it is going to motivate casino’s and are going to get more consumer willing and able to gamble.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Reform/37593
ReplyDeleteThe following article called “Big Incentives Needed for Health Change, Senators Told” by David Pittman discusses the idea of making changes to the health incentives. This article connects to last week’s reading, which is titled “What Do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers Have In Common?” because it describes the idea of incentive, as well. The author of this text states, “An incentive is simply a means of urging people to do more of a good thing and less of a bad thing”. In other words, the class text helps demonstrate a little more understanding of the chosen article based on the idea of incentives. This article is a credible source because below the article, it states that David Pittman is a Washington Correspondent for MedPage Today and hold bachelors’ degrees in journalism and chemistry from the University of Georgia. describes that in order to place a better delivery system for medicines, incentives needed to be changed and strict enough for consumers. Based on the article, Pittman describes that in order to place a better delivery system for medicines, incentives are needed to be change and strict enough for consumers. In other words, Pittman believes that if incentives were to be improved, it can also improve care and efficiency.
The type of incentive that is used in this chosen article is a moral incentive. Without the medicines, unfortunately most individuals won’t be taking care of themselves as it was directed by their doctor. In other words, they’re looking for having poor health conditions, which would be worse. Therefore, regardless whether or not individuals are satisfied with the incentives that is required to follow in order to get their medications, consumers will have to go along with the incentive. The class text states, “...the study of incentives: how people get what they want, or need, especially when other people want or need the same thing”. Similarly, this is stating the fact that using incentives with products that is categorized as a high degree necessity is the only to persuade individuals to actually accept the incentives. Pittman also states, “Get the incentives right; behavior will follow as long as there’s good information, transparent information about performance for consumers and providers alike”. To sum it up, if incentives aren’t established to the delivery system of medications, individuals won’t change their responsibilities towards having their medications with them. Yet, when incentives are finalized as if it has to be obeyed, individuals’ actions towards picking up and receiving medications will definitely change.
The government isn’t doing enough to protect consumers by letting big companies merge into monopolies.Blake Fleetwood’s article “Planes,trains, and car : Cartels Take over the Travel Industry” is an example of how monopolies go thru certain obstacles to stay on top of the competition ,but consumers are affected.This article was taken from the Huffington Post a credible source that has been around for a couple of years created by Arianna Huffington and was rated number 1 on the 15 most popular political cites.Many people depend on this website in order to get there information on politics and other controversial ideas.Big companies merging like “...Delta [taking] over Northwest and United merge with continental “ this was approved by the government .The government approving the led to less competition.Less competition increases the price of the product since you the monopolies would be the only producer with this finite resource.Also these consumers wouldn’t get the same attention as in other flights since there are a lot of other passengers causing disruptions that led to delay.Consumers who are willing and able to pay for these flight wouldn't have variety in choices so they would have to pay making these flugh become an inelastic good,In the recession the Unites States is currently and these type of companies merging harm the United states economy even more because it doesn’t help other companies be part of the market economy because there competition is too high.The government should intervene with the merge of monopolies that have to do with travelling agencies merging because is one of the biggest ways the United States get their money and the lack of variety and competition isn’t good for consumers.Having more variety and competition it would lead to an increase in economy and ill help smaller companies break into the market business.
ReplyDeleteThe legal system should protect entrepreneurs for the encouragement of new innovation. In the article “Apple's motion to reduce damages in VirnetX patent lawsuit denied” clearly demonstrates how the legal system protected the patent over company VirnetX which said the Apple was using their virtual private network technology in the facetime video calling application. Companies like VirnetX which hold internet security patents won lawsuit over Apple Inc in a patent infringement lawsuit, which made Apple pay $368 million to reduce damages. After this lawsuit VirnetX shares rose up 6 percent which made the company more valuable. Patents grant firms being a legal monopoly for a limited period of time in exchange for public disclosure. The legal system guarantees rights over companies innovations in order to encourage more innovations and in increase on the market. If these patents did not exist innovation would stop and people would be creating the same thing over and over. In addition patents are incentives for different companies to innovate since they have the right to protect their ideas while nobody else gets to use it and also have the right to court if someone may try to break the patent. Even though third parties might try to get around the patents by creating other patents around these alternatives innovations. Overall, the legal system and the government are incentivizing entrepreneurs to create new technological ideas while being protected.
ReplyDeleteThe article “Vernon Bowman, Indiana Farmer, Prepares to Take on Monsanto In Seed Patent Case” by Carey Gillam connects to this week’s topic on the Patent System. A Patent is used to protect an individual’s idea of an invention; securing it from others who can and will steal the idea. In the article, Gillam writes about an Indiana farmer taken to the Supreme Court for using the same seeds that Monsanto guards securely with the patent law.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because it was published by the Huffington Post, an American news source that targets politics, business, media, and etc. Carey Gillam is a Reuter’s journalist and her posts are seen on the Huffington Post.
Monsanto, known as the “behemoth” of seed companies, is greedily suing the Indiana farmer, Vernon Bowman, for planting similar biotechnological seeds. Monsanto has sued Bowman in 2010 and was ordered to pay $84,456. In 2013, concerns rise as the case has reached to the Supreme Court. If Monsanto wins the Supreme Court case, then it means that the patent law gives companies especially biotechnology companies too much control. However, if Monsanto were to lose, companies would reduce incentives on research that will lead to farmers continuing their job without fear of getting a lawsuit.
This week I read " Apple's Iphone and Ipod monopolies must go" by David Coursey. It talks abouy how Apple has a high monopoly and it order for oter companies to stand s chance it most be equal with other competition in the market. This connects to this week lesson on the effect of the profit motive on other businesses. Apple has a low competition since they come up with more advance technology , faster browsing and a better way to download music and other Apps then anyother phone/computer business. This article is credible , it was founded in March 1983 and is a electronics magazine for the British retailers. PC world's magazine and website has won mulitple awards from Folio , the American Society of Business Publication Editor , and has many well known writers such as Daniel Tynan , Stewart Alsop and Stephen Maner. David Coursey argruement is that even thought he's a fan of Apple himself he feels that Apple should step back a little and give other companies a chance in the market. I disagree with his statement because if Apple steps back to give others a chance they really ain't going to try their hardest in making other products better then Apples , this wouldnt push other companies in making better phones or computers in the market. Sooner or later other companies will grow tire of watching Apple dominate the competition and would be motivated to create a better and advance product then Apple. This would increase competition and decrease monopolies and the economic market would rise everybody would have a fair game in having consumers buying there products rather then watch those consumers continuing to buy Apple products and making long lines to get the new and advance phones or computers in the market.
ReplyDeleteA text I found which relates to what we've been doing in class is "Kodak to Sell Patents for $525 Million" by Andrew Martin. A patent is the protection of an idea by the federal governments for companies, so that therefore other companies won't steal their ideas or get inspired by it. Patents are regu;ated and strictly enforced so that the companies under the patent stay protected. In the article Martin writes, "This monetization of patents is another major milestone toward successful emergence." In the article Martin goes on and adds that Kodak was nearing bankrupcy and since they had patents to protect their ideas they were able to sell there company for $525 million. This text connects to the weeks topic because patents are meant to protect companies in case of an emergency and thats exactly what happened to Kodak, that led to Kodak selling there patent. This text is credible because it was published by the New York Times a well rounded news organization which was founded in the late 1800's. The New York Times is well known world wide.
ReplyDeleteCommunication companies are arguing about other competitors merging their companies. In th article written by Michael Mercede and Jeffrey cane tittle "U.S moves to block at&t with merge with T-mobile" you could find that if these two companies merge it would be a disaster because it would cause many companies to loss customer and phone bill prices would be at there all time highest. "department filed its lawsuit because we believe the combination of AT&T and T-mobile would result in millions of consumers facing higher prices and less quality". If these two big companies were to merge many of there customer would be in a difficult place because the companie is going to be making so much money that it wont be worrying about having good quality communication because regardless of what they do they still are going to be be making money.
ReplyDeleteMany businesses today use a system called a patent system. A patent system is a system used to protect the ideas of companies and businesses in order for no body else can take their ideas and use them. In an article from the Wall Street Journal, called "Apple v. Samsung: The Patent Trial of the Century" from the date of July 24, 2012, talks about about how apple believes that samsung has taken and stolen certain ideas from apple. Although apple believes it to be true since samsung has rose to the top with their new smartphones and tablets, apple did as well way before samsung did. Although many people and reviews have said that samsung's newest smartphone, the Samsung Galaxy S3 is way better than apple's newest smartphone, the IPhone 5, both have been taken to court. Although samsung denies stealing and using ideas from apple, not much evidence had been found at the time for samsung to be guilty. Although I do believe this because samsung rose to the top way too quickly and many phone featuresare similar towards apples designs. This shows how corrupted the system is because many ideas are being supposedly being stolen and made into better products that sell more and is more better than the original leading competition. Also this shows that patent systems aren't used the right way or efficiently because many company's competition are stealing ideas in which they didn't create themselves and in which are leading to conflicts in the business markets and being taken to court.
ReplyDeleteThe text I found this week is from the New York Times and it is called “Taking Guns to Holy Ground”. In this text, we learn that Mexico has been encountering some major issues regarding violence. Individuals are acquiring mass destructive weapons and crimes already have been drastically increasing over the years. The “Basilica of St. Mary of Guadalupe” took charge and decided to start this sort of exchange where individuals could hand off their weapons with no questions asked in return of money. This strategy in Mexico, clearly relates to this week’s topic: incentives because individuals in Mexico are given the opportunity to hand off their arms just because they know they’ll get money in return, and makes them feel some sort of guilt inside them.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that I have that the text I found is credible is that it is published in a credible news organization. The New York Times has been around since 1851, its over about 160 years old. This is also credible because of the author who wrote it, Elisabeth Malkin. is a widely recognized news reporter who not only reports for the New York Times, but for the recent news in Mexico.
So far, incentives have been known to encourage and even motivate individuals to take a direct course of action. Due to increase in violence in Mexico, there has been many changes. Compared to the United States, Mexico’s constitution states that individuals have the right to bear arms. Unlike the government in the United States, Mexico’s government has taken away that right. Which literally has not done nothing due to the fact that violence continues to assemble. Even though, geographically, Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world today, the community as one stays strong because of the “Basilica of St. Mary of Guadalupe” has been able to acquire a lot of arms. Many individuals like us have many incentives that are willing to work out. Economically wise their incentive for them is when they return the weapons they obtained, they are able to gain money in return. The moral side of this is just gaining the influence on just doing what is right and not doing what is wrong. Because of these morals, this drives everyone and causes them to do things they want to do. This all leads to the social incentive. Socially due to the big idea that there’s violence occurring, they absolutely don’t need to get “protected” with armed weapons. Therefore as more and more people hand off their weapons, the violence will decrease, but makes it much safer to walk in the streets fearlessly.
Karla Arroyo
ReplyDeleteEconomics
Mr. Rochowicz
2/28/13
The text I found this week is “As Companies Seek Tax Deals, Governments Pay High Price”, Louise Story, from the New York Times. The article discusses how companies in the U.S use economic incentives and agree to demands for free buildings, cash rewards and tax breaks. Additionally, Story uses statistics to show how much local governments are incentivized to give to businesses every single year.
This article connects to the concept of “incentives” we have studied in Economics. An incentive is something that motivates you to do something else. For instance, retail workers will persuade you to buy their product (using a charismatic attitude) and then get paid a commission if they sell it. This article also discusses how counties, cities, and states allot $80 billion each year to companies and conglomerates. Conglomerates, very similar to monopolies are very large businesses which eliminate their competition. Without competition, consumers have a scarce amount of options and are virtually obligated to buy these products. In other words, monopolies don’t have many substitute goods. Story states, “In some places, local officials have little choice but to answer the demands of corporations...Local officials can find themselves across the table from conglomerates like Shell Oil...” (1). By fixing prices, monopolies can control the amount they want their consumers to pay; in other words they mainly serve inelastic goods. Monopolies also put smaller companies in an inferior place; they have no incentive to innovate and provide new and improved products, which is why they can potentially harm our economy. If smaller companies use more incentives, consumers won’t have to rely so much on monopoly products.
This text is credible because it is from The New York Times. The New York Times is a well-renowned news organization which has been published since the mid-1800s. The New York Times provides its readers with credible news articles, columns and advertisements. This article is also credible because it is written by Louise Story. Story is a reporter on the Investigations Desk of The New York Times. She also co-hosts the TimeCast video program every Friday, and in 2012, she worked on a project about state and local business subsidies.
Local governments are incentivized to give millions of dollars to businesses because they save companies more money. As stated in the article, “$80 billion= Amount local governments give up to businesses every year” (1). Many states, such as New York spend at least $4.06 billion per year on incentive programs.
With economic incentives, many people are encouraged to give money. For instance, if you give money to a qualified charity, you can generate a tax deduction. On the other hand, businesses use economic incentives to encourage people so they can join their business. With that being said, the government’s agencies use these incentives to encourage certain behaviors in people. With local governments giving money to businesses, they are helping better the economy.
Many company's today use as we know as the patent system to protect their product ideas from being taken by the competition and take credit and profit from their ideas which is stealing in a way, this leads to temporary monopolies that have a 20 year limit before they have to put their idea out so the competition can improve the product. Also in the long wait the competitors are encouraged to innovate so they can create their own ideas. But monopolies are looked down on by the government at points. There have been many debates showing that the combination of at&t and T mobile would lead a catastrophic result as in the price can be put high if the monopoly decides the consumers wont have any other option but to pay the price force on them and they can make a low quality product due to no competition, no competition equals no reason to make good quality goods you will have to buy it ether way. Competition are great for the consumers but bad for business cause they have to keep lowering their price people will by their product which can soon cause a terrible problem of what if they are wasting (the cost of making the good) is higher then the revenue(amount of money coming in) then they are losing money and will have to raise the price back up again any way. So all in all monopoly's are protected by the government when it doesn't endanger the choose for the people, the price of the good or the quality of the good.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurence-j-kotlikoff/social-securitys-huge-incentive_b_2674483.html
ReplyDeleteThe article I found is Social Security's Huge Incentive to Keep Working by Laurence J. Kotlikoff. In the article, Kotlikoff discusses the benefit or the incentive of choosing to work in ones later years in order to receive more benefit from social security. This article is relevant to last week's article because they both revolve around the big idea of Incentives. An incentive is simply a means of urging people to do more of a good thing and less of a bad thing. The incentive here is to appear like a better teacher among all the others. My article is relevant to incentives because Government pays senior citizens more the longer they worked in their life. Last week's article is relevant because incentives give teachers a reason to cheat. This article is credible because it is from the Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is an American news website dounded in 2005,adn was ranked #1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA in 2012. An argument that both texts would support is that positive incentives persuay more than negative incentives. The weeks article would support this argument with the example of teachers cheating to boost student test scores. This incentive is positive because teachers are paid more, the higher their students test scores are. The incentive in my article is that the longer a person works in their life,the more benefit they will receive when retired. In conclusion, Positive incentives motivate more than negative incentives because of the reward
Elmis Rodriguez 3rd Pd
The text I found "Putting A Number On Federal Education Spending" By Jason Delisle, it connects to the class topic in some ways because lately we been talking about profits motive on other business and society. This article pulls out very good facts about profits on society. The article stays about Federal Education Budget Project at the New American Foundation. It explains how the federal government spent money on education and links it to social security and medicare spending. This article is credible because its a nation wide website that is highly trusted and read all over the world by many people. New York Times is a website you could trust and is reliable texts found in the website. Should the federal government reduce the amount of money spent for education that means their not enough money being given for education and other division on the schools. "The federal government spent $107.6 billion on education in fiscal year 2012. As a point of reference, that sum is about one-eighth as much as Social Security spending and about a fifth of Medicare spending". Growing the amount of money spent for education their still spending for money on social security and medicare. Meaning students are being backtrack because their are more money given to the elderly people "social security and medicare" then for students education. What we are seeing here is that investors are trying to make education a top priority for students, meaning they want more money to be given out to students for educations. For example loans for students they should all be able to have that chance of taking a loan and shouldn't be charger for no interest. The federal government makes more money when students take out loans because when its time to pay back they add all these extra chargers and you end up paying way more money then the loan u took out, so it will becoming almost double you have to be paying.
ReplyDeletehttp://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/worlds-postal-services-struggle-lower-demand-18607209
ReplyDeleteWorld's Postal Services Struggle With Lower Demand by Nick Perry relates to what we been learning in economics which is about entrepreneurship. In this text the postal service industry is struggling to keep up with completion of emails and other forms of fast communication but the help of the online shopping is the only thing that is keeping this vintage form of communication alive.
This article was published by ABC a trusted news source, founded in 1948 and provides Americans up to date news through major media platforms such as television, internet,radio and even portable devices. NICK PERRY is an AP (Associated Press) Business Writer who works for a non profit organization. AP was founded in 1846 in New york city during the Mexican American war.
In this text postal mail industry is dying and this is due to entrepreneurship and the invention of the internet. This is a perfect example of free market, people find the old fashioned way of mail too slow to keep up with the fast past modern word. So with the internet people are able to email each other and find himself not having to wait 1-3 days. Free market economy allows for new innovations that kill any old model of the new invention with the help of government and patens which allow protection to entrepreneurs. Unfortunately the internet has everything and makes everything easier and because of this many business are going to end up like the postal service.
.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/barnes-noble-reports-big-falloff-in-nook-unit/?ref=business
DeleteThe article “Barnes & Noble Rethinks Its Strategy for the Nook” provides analysis and reasoning as to the decision of Barnes and Noble to switch their approach to the tablet market. While their Nook department has seen a large profit intake it has now crashed and brought debt. “Over all, the company had a net loss in the quarter of just over $6 million” The company instead of profiting from the innovation was instead losing 6 million dollars in that quarter. Net income is obtained from using the profit equation, (total revenue)-(total cost)=profit/loss which in this case results in a loss. Barnes and Nobles increased production of the Nook because of the “Net income of $52 million a year ago.” Barnes and Noble seemed to have failed to fully use the marginal cost equation, failing to predict the change in total cost by “lower-than-anticipated sales, inventory charges and higher operating expenses because of advertising costs”. This led to the company results of a negative net income. While competing with another problem of reduced revenue which was a problem on the surface only since the stores closed, thus reduced revenue weren’t profitable. The company instead had a profit increase of 212 million dollars in part because of the stores being closed were resulting in negative income. This was also coupled with an increased in the value of stocks due to the company admittance of changing their process of advertisement has led to an overall increase in profit for the Barnes and Noble.
The article is credible since it comes from the New York Times an news organization which has won the most Pulitzer prize in any news organization. Is the third leading United States newspaper and is has the most frequented news website in America.
http://hbr.org/2009/03/when-economic-incentives-backfire/ar/1
ReplyDeleteThe text I read this week was “When Economic Incentives Backfire. This text is credible because it was on Harvard business review, which is a part of Harvard Business punishing “a not-for-profit, wholly-owned subsidiary of Harvard University, reporting into Harvard Business School”. Another reason its is credible is because it was written by Samuel Bowles who is an American economist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. It relates to this week’s reading from Freakonomics because it talks about economic incentives. Economic Incentives can have the opposite effect of what it is attended for when they are get involved with our morals.
In both this text and the freakonomics reading it talks about incentives, which are things, used to motivate or encourage people to do something. In economics there are three types of incentives economics, socially, and morally. The piece I have chosen specifically talks about economic incentives and how they can fail when not used properly. Like freakonomics it uses the same examples of the blood drive and the day care center to show economic incentives that have failed before. Reason for both of these failures is that they went against ones ethical sensibilities. The text states “Dozens of recent experiments show that rewarding self-interest with economic incentives can backfire when they undermine what Adam Smith called ‘the moral sentiments’”. Economic Incentives positive or negative “go wrong when they offend or diminish our ethical sensibilities”. In the case with the blood drive the economic incentive went because the money given for the blood made people feel as if they were no longer giving the blood out of there own kindness instead out of greed, so the amount of blood given went down. This was then undone when they were allowed the donors to give that money to charity. The reason for that was it no longer was undermining the donors’ morals. One can actually make an incentive that promotes self-interest and ethical motivations but they often tend to fail. An example of a successful one was a small tax on plastic grocery bags in Ireland in 2012, which was successful in virtually eliminating of the plastic bags. The text states people still aren’t certain why in this case promoting self-interest and ethical motivations was effect but it is not common and studies are being conducted.
The article I chose this to read is called, “Are We in Danger of a Beer Monopoly?” This article this week’s key vocabulary terms monopoly. Monopolies are just a huge company that has done a lot of work of eliminating their own competition and once there’s no competition than they can control the price of their products. The article mostly talks about how the beer industry isn’t just turning to an industry of a drink but an industry of a monopoly. The industry turning more to a monopoly is the Mexican brand Modelo.
ReplyDeleteThis is a credible source because this article comes from New York Times. New York Times is a new source that gives to the people the top news. The most important news city wide as well worldwide. New York Times has average of over 10 million people in the New York State. The author is also credible because Adam Davidson talks mostly about economics and which is the subject we are studying at the moment. Adam Davidson has been awarded many times but the biggest one is on the documentary on the housing crisis.
Monopolies were seen once before in the past and tries to make a return with a different industry. Monopolies in someone’s views can be seen as the best plan ever, for the owner on the monopoly. But for others like their competition, is like a nightmare they have to face. The beer industry has increase over the past 20 years and is still growing. You might see beer has multiple of different types of beers but now their has been a change because of the product of Modelo. Modelo now controls over 50% of the total sales so far. In the moment we see perfect competition but as is seen with Modelo, this perfect competition is more of a monopolistic competition. In the article mentions prospective of other companies and how their incentive (motivation) for those other companies to start competing against Modelo and make sure there isn’t a monopoly. The reason this is occurring is because of the Industrial Oil Company the article compared. The other companies also mentioned and fear of monopoly not only for themselves but as well they see consumers. They also mention of how Modelo industry is combining with Corona, which contains 7% of the sales and would increase the bales for Modelo to 57%. With incentive the companies aren’t going to give up to Modelo with out a fight. Like in the article they said, “is to gear up for the big beer fight of the 21st century”. Which is most likely to happen and with competition occurring the prices would vary. The government should find a way to decrease the percentage Modelo has or can easy help those other beer industries by helping them in their sales percentage.
The article that I have selected is relevant because it goes into depth on how patents issued by the legal system has affected the technological market and how that effect has skewed market away from innovation to a point where it is discouraged.
ReplyDeleteThis article is credible because it comes from a respectable and prestigious news source, the New York Times. The article was put together by Charles Duhigg, who graduated from Yale and Harvard as well as acquired many journalism awards, and Steve Lohr, a reporter who has written about technology since the early 1990’s and has published different articles in multiple publications. These authors include the opinion of many field specialists and also include the voices of the key people who they are discussing to add on to their credibility.
In the pursuit of modernization, the U.S. government incorporated the use of patents to help stimulate innovation only to cause the opposite of what it set out to do. In class we learned that patents were created to protect the idea and give the innovator a set time where he can monopolize his idea. But in reality this article shines some light on how they are actually useful legal tools to help eliminate current AND future competition. Patents are made to protect the idea, but to the greedy wise man patents are a way to profit off from innovators by suing them for “violating” their patent.
Mr. Rochowicz has told the class that patents help encourage innovators to invent, but this is not the case 100% of the time. In the technological market it does the complete opposite. Innovators should fear patents because just as easily as their ideas can be protected, it can just as easily be stolen by someone else costing them a fortune in legal fees. One example of this cruelty is when the article states that “For three decades, Mr. Phillips had focused on writing software to allow computers to understand human speech…Mr. Phillips’s company, Vlingo, had been contacted by a much larger voice recognition firm called Nuance. ‘I have patents that can prevent you from practicing in this market,’…Mr. Ricci issued an ultimatum: Mr. Phillips could sell his firm to Mr. Ricci or be sued for patent infringements” (The Patent, Used as a Sword). The problem here is that the patent system in this market is too flawed since an idea is something that is broad and can cover a wide range of things. The main cause for this is the government because when issuing patents they don’t ask for specifics about the product in question which can make it seem like one competitor is violating the patent when in reality they are not.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?pagewanted=all
Delete