The economic principle I examined was Scarcity, people choose. All choices have an opportunity cost. There are many situations where this economic principle can be applied to the real world. For instance, while studying the federal budget and military expenses I found many examples of this principle. First, the United states spends a significant amount of money on the military. For instance in 2015. Military spending totaled $598.49 Billion which was 54% of the discretionary budget.  Second,Increasing the military will take money away from other useful national organisations like, the IRS by lowering their budget This demonstrates that Due to the scarcity of tax dollars we must choose wise how to spend the money because all choices have opportunity cost. Third,The US spends the most money on the military than any country in the world. If you were to line up the six militaries with the largest budget the US will still have a bigger budget. This means that some critical programs like education and science  can receive more funding by cutting a little money from the military without denting their budget .Overall, you can see that the US spends a ludicrous amount of taxpayer money on the military, Although without the military many of us if not all would live in fear of global chaos, but is there a possibility the government can take a few 100 million dollars from the military budget and into place where we can see the youth and future of america grow strong.   

Synthesis

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/US_Capitol_west_side.JPG/1200px-US_Capitol_west_side.JPG

The economic principle I examined was institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices. There are many situations where this economic principle can be applied to the real world. For instance, while studying environmental regulations and its effects on the economy I found many examples of this principle. First, the EPA. The EPA is the main environmental institution in the United States, it regulates all industries and directly affects the choices they make and what they are allowed and what they are not allowed to do. Failure to comply with the EPA and their rules and guidelines can result in major consequences such as fines, loss of license or permit, or loss of work. This shows just how powerful a force the environment really is because the government is willing to put its own businesses through so much to ensure its protection. Second, is the European Environmental Agency. This agency is the European equivalent to the EPA but they play by some different rules. This agency is much more proactive in their approach to helping the environment. Instead of waiting until after the damage is done by a product or an industry and then fixing it, if there is even a slight chance that a certain practice may harm the environment it is shut down until it can be proven to be safe of is fixed to be safer. This demonstrates that the institution of European culture and how highly they value a clean environment affects the institution of their agency to protect the environment. Third, is the United States congress. Congress has been responsible for implementing many environmental acts and laws, that in turn have directly affected businesses and how they must adapt. Two of the main things that this institution has done regarding the environment is pass the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. Specifically This means that as the main law making institution of the United States, congress has taken a role in protecting the environment. This shows that even though the U.S. may not prioritize the environment as highly as other nations do, it is still a primary concern that does get attention in our country, but this concern has come at a cost on the local level, causing some job loss and forcing some corporations to move either somewhere locally or somewhere overseas. Overall, you can see that while the economy is very crucial and important to our world, it is in a constant struggle against the environment to gain priority in the eyes of elected officials. In general, one cannot be changed without affecting the other and as a global community it is our responsibility to find a balance that helps foster prosperity among men and among nature.

How Does The Gig Economy Let People Make Money By Trading Voluntarily?

The economic principle I researched was people gain when they trade voluntarily. An example of this is Craigslist, Uber, AirBnB, and Handy. These companies allow people to work voluntarily and have a flexible schedule and still make money. While studying my research topic: How does the gig economy let people make money by trading voluntarily? I found many examples of this principle which connect to people working as freelancers and making money. In my first blog post I researched how the gig economy helps people support their families. It is possible to do this however you would have to work long hours (Uber) or have many properties (Airbnb) to make a decent living. Second, I researched the pros and cons of working for the gig economy. Some of the pros included flexible hours and some of the cons included lack of benefits. Third, I researched how taxes work in the gig economy. Freelancers have to file their own taxes which is tough and might leave you in  the rough with the IRS if you don’t file them correctly. Overall, you can see that there are many steps that you have to take to work for the gig economy which in the end translate to working voluntarily (work when you want) and making money by doing freelance jobs.

Synthesis

Minimum wage rests solely on the idea of opportunity costs, or in other words, something has to give. You can’t raise the minimum wage and keep all of your employees, and you can’t get a job easily because less people are hiring. The debate on minimum wage is about which is more important, the people or the business.

If we were to raise the minimum wage, small businesses would take the hardest hit and it wouldn’t be worth. If the government forced a new, higher minimum wage, small businesses wouldn’t be guaranteed financial stability. This means that they can fire some employees and pay some more, move out of area and likely lose business, or take a loss and go out of business completely. In blog post #2 I said “firing employees would decrease the company's productivity and overall output, while the demand of their products/services would remain constant”, which means the businesses overall profit would decrease and could lead to the demise of said business. Large businesses on the other hand probably would take the minimum wage increase hit lightly or at least lighter than small businesses. Large businesses typically have a larger profit annually and can afford to pay employees a little more, but some would still be laid off. Similarly blog post #5 argued who the minimum wage most serves and why it shouldn’t be raised. It turns out that “most people in poverty don’t have minimum wage jobs, and most people that have minimum wage jobs aren’t in poverty”. This means that the majority of the people in poverty aren’t doing anything to help themselves get out, so many of them don’t have even a part time job or work at all. It is possible to work your way above the poverty line by having any type of job, including minimum wage. Majority of minimum wage workers aren’t the sole breadwinners for their household and have other income because many of these workers are teens and college students. In other words it is not worth it to raise the minimum wage because it would harm businesses and overall economic growth, only to help a very small percent of people who are in poverty that do hold a minimum wage job.

There is another way to help those in poverty, this is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which gives people that don’t make enough money a break. Blog post #4 argues “EITC will in fact ‘reduced current poverty and inequality in at least two ways (1) by supplementing the wages of low-paid poor or near-poor workers; and (2) by encouraging work’”, which I believe will hold true. In order to receive the benefits of the EITC, you must have a job, and knowing that you’ll get to keep more of your money can be motivation for people. Similarly, blog post #3 argues that raising the minimum wage “‘raises the incentive for companies to outsource labor to countries where minimum wage rates are lower’”. This means that higher wages lead to even less jobs because large businesses can afford to outsource their labor. With higher wages there is more competition for less jobs and less motivation for work.

Synthesis

There are many situations where this economic principle can be applied to the real world. For instance, while studying athletes’ incentives (money). I found many examples of this principle. First, there are many athletes that would rather win than go to the team that pays them most. I chose to focus on Warriors’ Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose. With the superstar Durant accepting less money than Andre Iguodala who is the sixth man to keep the team together and Derrick Rose accepting less than 3 million dollars to join the Cavaliers, this displays their desire to win in the league. Contrary to others may think, this shows that some athletes value winning and success more than money.Second, I studied if college athletes should be paid and found some interesting information. There were examples of athletes not being able to provide for themselves. Like former UCONN basketball player who says that scholarships don’t cover enough. This demonstrates that at some point college athletes are going to need some sort of extra accommodation besides their scholarships. Third, I studied how athletes can become bankrupt and how they prevent bankruptcy.  There are athletes like Vince Young who blow their money and those like Rob Gronkowski who live like any other person. There are many factors that affect this. Such as family, people taking advantage of you, etc. This means that the athletes also have to be mentally strong aswell to avid going bankrupt. Overall, you can see that there aren’t as many athletes that don’t really care about the money as much as the sport.

What kind of tax system would benefit the environment and the people the most?

The economic principle I examined was people usually respond to incentives in predictable ways. There are many situations where this economic principle can be applied to the real world. For instance, while studying the effects of taxes on the environment, I found many examples of this principle. First, consumption taxes offer an incentive to those who abuse dwindling or harmful resources to use less. This shows that corrective taxes must be used to change people’s consumption behavior. We can't rely on the goodness of people so action must be taken to fix the problem. Second, the greatest incentive is money. If it cost more to do something that is hurting the environment, many people will stop doing it or do less of it. This demonstrates that an easy way to change behaviors is by offering an essential good, in this case money. Third, in developing countries governments provide no incentive to make long term investments like planting trees or installing energy saving technology. This means that individuals can use any means necessary in order to profit. This allows people in developing countries to especially hurt the environment. With little consequences and an entire population struggling to support themselves, people often overlook harmful effects on the environment. Overall, you can see that in order to change the behavior of a population incentives must be offered, and the people will usually respond accordingly.

The Finale: Does Money Make The Movie? A Look Into Film Budgets Versus Their Achievements

Credit: Pictures of Money @ flickr.com

The economic principle I examined was opportunity and scarcity and how it is seen in the movie industry. There are many situations where this economic principle can be applied to the real world. For instance, while studying budgeting in movies, I found many examples of this principle. First, how directors and producers distribute their budgets. This idea is purely how the react to scarcity of budget, and where to distribute it for the biggest return. Though Disney does this on another level, many independent films aren’t able to make budget breaking movies and instead rely on the little they have and make the most of it. Second, how budgets affect the Oscars. This demonstrates again the use of scarcity in order to get an Oscar, or if it is even worth it to take the extra steps to try for one. Third, how much is an Oscar really worth, and is it worth it to try? It was a justification for using scarcity of budget for an Oscar, because though 300 films are eligible and only 10 are selection for Best Picture nomination, a nomination alone brings a 247% return on investment in the box office. Overall, you can see that  budget should be spent on whatever makes the money.