Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
66
views

Each of the readings and videos for this part of the class had an actual point of view. They were grounded in particular political values with political norms, assumptions, and goals, some of which are explicit and some of which are not stated. In other words, they were not just objective€ recitations of facts. They picked and chose which facts to present. All writings in the social sciences do just this same thing. But, what did you think of these norms, values, and goals? How did you feel about them? How did you react? Did you agree? Disagree? What is your point of view and value structure? Explain.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
66
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Joshua Stredder
Joshua StredderLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Background When you look at news reports of any kind, there can be a tendency to take them at face value, accepting what they tell us as the truth. This is usually a grave mistake. News typically moves quickly, with tight deadlines to get information and there is almost always a bias at play. Numbers are an easy way to manipulate the truth--and truth itself can be pretty flexible when it comes to human relationships. The value of the truth can also be flexible depending on your point of view. For example, in the second quarter of 2015, the U.S. dollar is strong--meaning it has a high value against foreign currency. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? If you're a consumer, it's generally a good thing in the short-term. It means items imported to the U.S. cost us less to buy. Go us! If you are a growing business that exports, it's a bad thing because your costs make it difficult to compete with locally produced goods in foreign markets. If you're traveling out of the country, it's good because the dollar goes farther. If you have a business that benefits from foreign tourism, it's bad because visitors have less money and may chose to go to other places where their money gives them more buying power.

find an article (you might try MSN Money or CNN Money or something similar) and then write at least 600 words. how strong the position the article takes is. Questions to consider include: What are the weaknesses to the article? How are numbers used effectively? What's missing? How are the numbers being used to disguise something?

ARTIcle

President Obama slapped a stiff 35% tariff on Chinese tires in 2009 after American companies complained about unfair competition. They said China was flooding America with tires at low prices making it tough for U.S. companies to compete. The tire tariff gradually waned, and finally ended in 2012. The tariff saved 1,200 U.S. tire jobs, which had been in sharp decline. And U.S. tire production rose after a major decline. "Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires," Obama said in his 2012 State of the Union address. But a study from the Peterson Institute of International Economics found that the tariffs cost Americans in many other ways. Americans paid more for tires. Some Chinese-made tires cost as much as 26% more -- rising on average to $39 per tire, from about $31. And U.S. tire makers, facing less competition from China, also raised prices on American-made tires 3.2%. According to Peterson's model, higher prices from the tire tariff cost Americans an extra $1.1 billion, which translated to an estimated 3,731 retail jobs lost. Plus, China fought back by imposing penalties on U.S. shipments of chicken parts. The Peterson study estimates that China's retaliation cost American chicken producers $1 billion in sales. "Tire safeguards did not change Chinese policies in a helpful way, nor did they boost U.S. employment," wrote Gary Hufbauer, a trade expert at Peterson, who authored the report. Indeed, the tariffs didn't bring the tire-making jobs back to previous levels -- a similar trend that's played out for the rest of U.S. manufacturing. But they did help to stem the job losses. In 2008, there were about 60,000 American workers making tires. Now, there are about 55,000. That's better than the low point reached in 2010 but not back to pre-tariff levels. Related: Trump's 35% tariff on companies: Easier said than done An Obama administration official, who requested anonymity, disputed some of the calculations and assumptions in the Peterson study. For instance, the official claimed tire prices did not go up by as much as the study claims. Hufbauer said no one until now had contested any of his analysis in the four years since it was published. He noted that the administration official didn't provide an alternative estimate for price changes. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney criticized Obama for the tariffs in his 2010 book "No Apology." "President Obama's action to defend American tire companies from foreign competition may make good politics by repaying unions for their support of his campaign, but it is decidedly bad for the nation and our workers," Romney said. U.S. tire makers still applaud Obama's tariffs. Morry Taylor, CEO of Titan International, a U.S.-based tire company, is one of them. "He did what he should have done and he should have done more of it," says Taylor, who voted for Trump. His company has plants in Ohio, Wisconsin and Illinois (they also have operations in Brazil and Russia). Related: 3 ways Trump can go after China and Mexico Taylor argues that if the tariffs weren't put in place he might not have any business today to speak of. By 2012, Taylor still had 1,800 tire-making workers, about the same amount as before the tariffs. Today, however, his firm only has a little more than 900 workers. His problem today is what he describes as unfair competition from India, where firms make cheap tires and sell in the U.S. at prices he can't afford to sell at. He hopes Trump considers higher tariffs on tires, saying it would save jobs. To be clear, Obama wasn't trying to "bring back jobs" so much as protect the ones already in America, which he accomplished. Trump wants to bring manufacturing jobs back from other countries. Some trade experts believe that would be difficult task, since many of jobs overseas are low-skill positions and many U.S. manufacturing firms now want highly skilled employees. In any case, U.S. tire production recovered but didn't surge. Instead, U.S. tire imports from all other countries excluding China rose dramatically, Hufbauer found. In other words, the Chinese tire jobs didn't come to the U.S. -- they went to the next cheapest countries. In the end, Hufbauer argues the tariffs didn't make a difference. "The best thing about the tire tariffs is that they expire," Hufbauer wrote in 2012. CNNMoney (New York) First published January 3, 2017: 3:41 PM ET

Topic:
How would you explain the finding that people in high-income economies seem happier than people in low-income economies, but, over time, people in high-income economies do not seem to be any happier even if their country grows richer? Briefly discuss.

Optional Reading:

Income and Happiness

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 identified “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” This did not guarantee happiness but did establish the pursuit of happiness as an “unalienable” right, meaning that right cannot be taken away, given away, or sold. Eighteenth century philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham argued that government policy should promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Many people today apparently agree. In recent polls, 77 percent of Australians and 81 percent of Brits believed that a government's prime objective should be promoting the greatest happiness rather than the greatest wealth. The United Nations in 2007 sponsored an international conference on “Happiness and Public Policy.” Thailand now compiles a monthly Gross Domestic Happiness Index. Even China has joined in the fun reporting a happiness index based on polling results about living conditions, income, the environment, social welfare, and employment. Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom are also developing happiness indexes.

Economists have long shied away from asking people how they feel, preferring instead to observe their behavior. But more now see some value in asking questions. In the most extensive of polls, the Gallup organization asked people in 130 countries: “How satisfied are you with your life, on a scale of zero to ten?” The results, reported in 2007, are not surprising. Most people in the high income areas, such as the United States, Europe, and Japan, said they are happy. Most people in the poor areas, especially in Africa, said they are not. Also, within a given country, income and happiness are positively related. After evaluating all the results of the Gallup world poll, Angus Deaton of Princeton concluded: “The very strong international relationship between per capita GDP and life satisfaction suggests that, on average, people have a good idea of how income, or the lack of it, affects their lives.” 8

So these results are no surprise. What does puzzle economists is that other surveys suggest that in affluent countries people do not seem any happier over time even though each generation became richer than the last. For example, in the United States, the proportion of people who say they are happy has stayed about the same despite 60 years of economic growth. In Japan, happiness responses actually declined despite a substantial increase in real income over the last 50 years.

Here are two possible explanations. First, people begin taking for granted those luxuries they most desired. For example, two generations ago color TVs, automobiles, and major appliances were luxuries, but now they are must-items for most households. Computers and flat screen HDTVs will soon move from luxuries to necessities. As each generation attains a higher standard of living, people become less sensitive to the benefits, they take them for granted, and thus they say they are no happier.

Second, research suggests that what matters is not just the absolute level of income but income relative other people in the reference group. Imagine you have a choice between (1) earning $50,000 a year while others in your reference group make $25,000 or (2) earning $100,000 a year while others make $250,000 (suppose, too, that prices remain the same, so $100,000 is double the real income of $50,000). Which would you prefer? Studies show that when people face this hypothetical choice, most pick the $50,000 option. That is, they prefer to make more than others even if that means a lower real income. Thus, if all incomes rise on average over time, this does not affect that aspect of happiness linked to one’s relative standing. As the social critic H. L. Mencken long ago observed, "A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife's sister's husband."

SOURCES: Daniel Gilbert, Stumbling On Happiness, (New York: Knopf, 2006); Marina Kamenev, “Rating Countries for the Happiness Factor,” Business Week, 11 October 2006; Angus Deaton, “Income, Aging, Health, and Wellbeing Around the World: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll,” Princeton Working Paper, (August 2007); and “Where Money Seems to Talk,” Economist, 12 July 200

WRITE a one-sentence summary of each paragraph!

The False Income-Inequality Narrative

BY JASON L. RILEY

Published in the Wall Street Journal on Sept. 29, 2015

An enduring theme of the Democratic presidential race has been income inequality, coupled with an enduring belief that America's affluent reached their status at the expense of the poor and the middle class.

Bernie Sanders speaks of little else on the stump. And when not busy dissembling on her handling of email correspondence at the State Department, Hillary Clinton will tell you that the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. If Joe Biden gets in, expect more of the same. The vice president is said to be contemplating a 2016 bid in large part because struggling middle-income families may have trouble relating to Mrs. Clinton on inequality given her high living since leaving the White House.

This theme, in any case, seems to resonate with voters, which is no huge shock in the sixth year of an economic recovery. Envy and resentment fuel class warfare and lackluster economic growth throughout the Obama presidency have made people less optimistic and more inclined to fault others for their circumstances. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this week reports that four-in-five Americans “were either angry because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power or anxious and uncertain. After all, the economy still feels rocky and unpredictable or both.

Liberals want to address income disparities through wealth redistribution by taking money from more productive people and giving it to the less productive in the name of fairness as the left defines it. They want to raise income taxes, expand the welfare state, lift minimum wages, and strengthen the bargaining power of unions. Mr. Sanders has been the most explicit about this, even going so far as to propose a wealth tax. Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1%, the senator said in July.

In reality, the left has overstated the problem. And all the focus on divvying up existing wealth instead of creating more risks making matters far worse for the people they are trying to help and the country in general. To the extent that the expanding welfare state allows more people to live without working and therefore without earning income or developing their own human capital—supporters of the welfare state are contributing to the very income disparities they so much decry, writes economist Thomas Sowell in his new book, “Wealth, Poverty and Politics.

Mr. Sowell is the author of more than 30 books over the past four decades, many having to do with what drives different social and economic outcomes among different groups in the U.S. and elsewhere. In his latest tome, he draws from this well of research to do what he has done so well for so long: question basic assumptions behind public policy and follow the facts where they lead him.

One common assumption is that proportionate or random outcomes are the natural order of things and that gaps or disparities are evidence of something wrong. In fact, huge disparities are the norm, not the exception, because the demographic, cultural, and political factors that influence the development of the human capital that makes people productive also tend to be unequal.

In 2013, only 9% of U.S. women with college degrees who gave birth were unmarried, versus 61% of women who were high-school dropouts and unmarried. Harvard's Robert Putnam reports that children from professional families will hear 19 million more words than their working-class peers before the first day of kindergarten.

These children don't have the same prospects. Equal opportunity, in the sense of being judged and rewarded by the same standards as others, cannot possibly mean equal life chances for children born and raised in these very different settings,writes Mr. Sowell. The fact that life is unfair is not the same as saying that a particular institution, or a particular society, is unfair.

The argument that social mobility is a thing of the past in the U.S. also is disputable. Longitudinal studies by the IRS and others that measure the progress of individuals over time show that the American dream is alive and well. One such paper, published by the Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, measured whether a person has more or less income, earnings, or wealth than his or her parents did at the same age and concluded that the vast majority of Americans had higher incomes, while 50% had greater wealth.

In other studies, Pew has found generational stagnation but the authors have noted that it didn't apply to immigrants. If low-income immigrants can rise even when the native-born don't, writes Mr. Sowell, that strongly suggests that American society continues to offer opportunities to move up economically, but that not all groups make the same use of these opportunities.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor is the author of Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed (Encounter Books, 2014).

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in