Yay! Thursday!
By: Unknown
I'm starting to fall in to a pattern now with school. Oi, though! People drive like maniacs around here. No accidents yet though.
I don't seem to need to try, though. Once again, I'm drifting. I'm headed in the right direction, obviously, but it's not like I'm being challenged or having all that much fun with school like I used to in AP classes.
I think I need to get back into music, incidentally. I really miss concert band (not marching all that much). I think music is something deep. The creation of music, and, moreso, that intricate melding of music between each musician in a band, the dancing of notes about one another, playing with the nuances of each other, bouncing off one another in a perfect relationship that rings against the ear, touches something in human nature.
Perhaps it's the natural engineer in all humans, or maybe it's the social animal in man, or maybe some combination of both, but being a member of a symphony draws one out of oneself and into a greater nature. I wonder if this is what a religious experience is like, a feeling of being drawn into a larger being...
It makes you feel gooood (gooood)...
Not to mention the fact that I'd really like to see that girl everyday like I used to...
Blogger says I should keep my posts short, because apparently everyone on the internet is from New York and has no time to read long posts. At any rate, IVIC's never really been about keeping readers happy (not that I want to offend you, but I hope the purpose of the blog carries the readers along). This is more important than blogging about what I do for the sake of telling everyone my personal life. No, IVIC is a mental record, a philosophical channel that allows me (and Smith and Snyder, when they're about) to solidify and broadcast the deeper ponderings of our lives. Hopefully, there are people out there who take note of my thoughts, and maybe, just maybe, they change peoples' minds.
Or... the Anti-Metamucil
In economics lab today, we discussed price ceilings and floors. This is why I miss AP though. No discussion of regulatory policy took place, had the time to take place, or was allowed to take place. So, I blog...
The Democratic parties idea of a regulated economy is foolhardy, at best. The idea, of course, is to help special interest groups (i.e., farmers or consumers) by keeping the price high for suppliers in some cases, and low for consumers in others.
In the supply side price floor, we end up with an artificially raised price on a good or service. If a price is raised higher than the "equilibrium price" (that is, the price at which demand for a good or service is equal to the supply of the same), there is a surplus of the good or service (it's how it works), as suppliers try to sell more, but buyers won't buy more.
For instance, the department of agriculture currently pays farmers not to grow crops to keep the price higher on the crops. This is tantamount to forcing a certain price, and buying the unused surplus at market price, wasting taxpayer money, as well as crops which could easily be exported for a very handy profit overseas. This is especially appealing considering the United States' ability to grow incredible quantities of crops compared to other countries. Want to end world hunger? End economic regulation.
Of course, the antithesis to this is a price ceiling. For instance, what we don't seem to realize about gas regulation (to make the price lower on a gallon) is the terrible consequences of it. If Kerry chooses to regulate the price to a lower level, suppliers will not be able to afford as many barrels, and they will not be willing to sell as much gas at the now-lower profit. With the lower price causing increased demand for gas, we would quickly hit a deficit in supply of gas (that's turned out well in the past, right?).
Let me make one more extremely controversial example: minimum wage! Seems like a good idea to regulate at least a "living wage" for workers, right? We all see where I'm going with this. That is WRONG! Why?
Let's think, shall we? If we place a minimum wage law on the books, we raise the price of labor. If we raise the price of labor, demand for labor falls. In this situation, there are more workers who need a job than jobs that need a worker, translating to: unemployment. You want a living wage for everyone? Let's start with a wage for everyone first.
Let's assume we drop minimum wage laws. The assumed result is that those greedy, greedy businessmen will see their opportunity and drop wages to nearly nothing. However, the economy has a built-in failsafe for this: the workers themselves. If business owners make wages too low (meaning the demand is high), laborers will not accept the conditions and move to another business, or out of the market entirely. With a high demand for workers and a small supply, a business would find themselves at a shortfall of laborers. The only viable option is to provide a wage acceptable both to the laborers and to the businessmen, set by each individual business, and maintained based on cost of living and economic conditions automatically. Additionally, this equilibrium price for labor would cause unemployment to drop to near 0%, as all the laborers that need to or wish to work for these wages would be able to find jobs. If you want to end unemployment, end government regulation.
Perhaps you understand now why we should stop trying to regulate the economy. My suggestion to you: take an economics class! Hopefully, an in-depth study of how a free economy causes the best overall results will convert you to the Republican party, or at the very least, the Libertarians.
~Michael Akerman
Well... not yet. But I do have a day off tomorrow (yay!) because both of my classes are classes that can't meet on Labor Day week.
Anyway...
Give Me the Beat, Boys, and Free My Soul
I'm starting to fall in to a pattern now with school. Oi, though! People drive like maniacs around here. No accidents yet though.
I don't seem to need to try, though. Once again, I'm drifting. I'm headed in the right direction, obviously, but it's not like I'm being challenged or having all that much fun with school like I used to in AP classes.
I think I need to get back into music, incidentally. I really miss concert band (not marching all that much). I think music is something deep. The creation of music, and, moreso, that intricate melding of music between each musician in a band, the dancing of notes about one another, playing with the nuances of each other, bouncing off one another in a perfect relationship that rings against the ear, touches something in human nature.
Perhaps it's the natural engineer in all humans, or maybe it's the social animal in man, or maybe some combination of both, but being a member of a symphony draws one out of oneself and into a greater nature. I wonder if this is what a religious experience is like, a feeling of being drawn into a larger being...
It makes you feel gooood (gooood)...
Not to mention the fact that I'd really like to see that girl everyday like I used to...
Screw your advice! And screw you, too, Blogger Knowledge Base!
Blogger says I should keep my posts short, because apparently everyone on the internet is from New York and has no time to read long posts. At any rate, IVIC's never really been about keeping readers happy (not that I want to offend you, but I hope the purpose of the blog carries the readers along). This is more important than blogging about what I do for the sake of telling everyone my personal life. No, IVIC is a mental record, a philosophical channel that allows me (and Smith and Snyder, when they're about) to solidify and broadcast the deeper ponderings of our lives. Hopefully, there are people out there who take note of my thoughts, and maybe, just maybe, they change peoples' minds.
Don't Stay Regular!
Or... the Anti-Metamucil
In economics lab today, we discussed price ceilings and floors. This is why I miss AP though. No discussion of regulatory policy took place, had the time to take place, or was allowed to take place. So, I blog...
The Democratic parties idea of a regulated economy is foolhardy, at best. The idea, of course, is to help special interest groups (i.e., farmers or consumers) by keeping the price high for suppliers in some cases, and low for consumers in others.
In the supply side price floor, we end up with an artificially raised price on a good or service. If a price is raised higher than the "equilibrium price" (that is, the price at which demand for a good or service is equal to the supply of the same), there is a surplus of the good or service (it's how it works), as suppliers try to sell more, but buyers won't buy more.
For instance, the department of agriculture currently pays farmers not to grow crops to keep the price higher on the crops. This is tantamount to forcing a certain price, and buying the unused surplus at market price, wasting taxpayer money, as well as crops which could easily be exported for a very handy profit overseas. This is especially appealing considering the United States' ability to grow incredible quantities of crops compared to other countries. Want to end world hunger? End economic regulation.
Of course, the antithesis to this is a price ceiling. For instance, what we don't seem to realize about gas regulation (to make the price lower on a gallon) is the terrible consequences of it. If Kerry chooses to regulate the price to a lower level, suppliers will not be able to afford as many barrels, and they will not be willing to sell as much gas at the now-lower profit. With the lower price causing increased demand for gas, we would quickly hit a deficit in supply of gas (that's turned out well in the past, right?).
Let me make one more extremely controversial example: minimum wage! Seems like a good idea to regulate at least a "living wage" for workers, right? We all see where I'm going with this. That is WRONG! Why?
Let's think, shall we? If we place a minimum wage law on the books, we raise the price of labor. If we raise the price of labor, demand for labor falls. In this situation, there are more workers who need a job than jobs that need a worker, translating to: unemployment. You want a living wage for everyone? Let's start with a wage for everyone first.
Let's assume we drop minimum wage laws. The assumed result is that those greedy, greedy businessmen will see their opportunity and drop wages to nearly nothing. However, the economy has a built-in failsafe for this: the workers themselves. If business owners make wages too low (meaning the demand is high), laborers will not accept the conditions and move to another business, or out of the market entirely. With a high demand for workers and a small supply, a business would find themselves at a shortfall of laborers. The only viable option is to provide a wage acceptable both to the laborers and to the businessmen, set by each individual business, and maintained based on cost of living and economic conditions automatically. Additionally, this equilibrium price for labor would cause unemployment to drop to near 0%, as all the laborers that need to or wish to work for these wages would be able to find jobs. If you want to end unemployment, end government regulation.
Perhaps you understand now why we should stop trying to regulate the economy. My suggestion to you: take an economics class! Hopefully, an in-depth study of how a free economy causes the best overall results will convert you to the Republican party, or at the very least, the Libertarians.
~Michael Akerman
0 comments:
Post a Comment