Module 4 Problem Set

1.

1. 5
2. $800, 4
3. 4

2.

1. More poorly educated immigrants in the country will affect the low-skilled labor market by shifting the supply curve to the right which will lower the equilibrium wage.
2. When we ship low-skilled jobs overseas, the demand curve in the low-skilled labor market will shift left causing the equilibrium wage to decrease.
3. Increasing the availability of training programs will have the effect of shifting the supply curve in the high-skilled labor market to the right, lowering the equilibrium wage.

3.

1. The budget line will shift outward.
2. The budget line will rotate inward from the top, becoming flatter.
3. The budget line will rotate outward from the bottom, becoming flatter.

4.

5.

1. It is not a good idea for Abe to pay Bill a set salary when he doesn't know how much the farm will produce because Bill may not work his hardest knowing that his salary is not tied to his effort. 
2. This economic problem is known as moral hazard.
3. If Abe had a way to monitor Bill's efforts, this would discourage Bill from committing moral hazard. In addition, linking his salary to his effort or production would encourage Bill to work his hardest. I think an incentive bonus at the end of the year dependent on that year's revenue would be the most efficient way for Abe to ensure that Bill works his hardest. 

Reflections on Chapter 22: Frontiers of Microeconomics

This chapter confirmed a lot of concepts that I believed all along should be considered so it was nice to see it included in the book. From the beginning, I though that economists were dismissive of so many aspects of reality that would alter the results of the their models. Human behavior, for one, is largely assumed throughout the text and therefore, by economists as a whole. People are often irrational, they do care about fairness, and most people lack the information to consistently make the "right" decisions. I've often also thought about how different political agendas don't allow the government to make the best decisions from an economic perspective. I'm glad to see that the new direction of microeconomics includes accounting for these aspects of our world that are much harder to measure and predict.

Reflections on Chapter 21: The Theory of Consumer Choice

I actually liked this chapter. I understand all of the applications and they make sense to me. The only part I was slightly confused about was the concept of multiple indifference curves. I didn't understand how a person could have numerous indifference curves for the exact same decision, when they only have one budge constraint curve. Why would there even be an indifference curve for an impossible budget. It's like they're assuming we all sit around thinking about decisions we would make if we had different budget constraints. Looking back I suppose the only reason those curves are present was to show us how changing the budget constraint would change our decisions. I was frustrated that when I tried to draw the graphs from the text, it was very difficult to draw the indifference curves so they lined up with the budget constraint curve in the right way to get the result of decreasing the quantity on the x-axis when the budget constrain curve rotated outward. Basically, I understand the concepts very well but I'd feel more confident if I could duplicate the models.

Reflections on Chapter 20: Income Inequality & Poverty

The poverty line is a level set by the federal government for each family size. The percentage of family incomes falling below that line is called the poverty rate. In the U.S., equality is measure by comparing family incomes. The poverty rate in the U.S. decreased in the '60s when the economic health of the nation improved. It has remained steady since then even though our economic growth has continued. This fact points to increasing national inequality.

There are several problems with the way in which we measure inequality. In-kind transfers (non-cash government supplied benefits), life cycles (people's incomes tend to vary with stages of life), transitory versus permanent income (incomes decline temporarily during transitions), and economic mobility (the "poor" are not the same families year after year) all play a part in skewing the picture of inequality in our country. There are three major political philosophies regarding income redistribution to reduce inequality. Utilitarians and Liberals believe it's necessary but not so much that it distorts work incentives and Libertarians think we should not redistribute incomes at all. Minimum wage laws, welfare, negative income tax, and in-kind transfers are policies created to reduce poverty but all can have negative unintended consequences. Minimum wage laws increase unemployment of the lowest skilled workers and the others policies discourage the poor from earning more as to not lose their benefits. The government faces the difficult balancing act of reducing inequality by assisting the poor without decreasing work incentives.

Reflections on Chapter 19: Earnings & Discrimination

Post three of your "margin notes" from your reading of the chapter to your blog.  Why did you make the comment you made in the margin?  What did you find confusing, useful, or important about the passage you commented on?

Unfortunately, I don't really write "margin notes". One reason is that the book's not mine so I can't write in the margins but mostly it's because I write my notes strictly on what I'm getting from the text. However, I was commenting mentally as I was taking notes on this chapter. 

1. In the microcosm that is Summit County, CO...people with more education don't necessarily get paid more, especially in the human capital way and certainly not at double the pay rate. Unfortunately, staying in school to earn more money is not an incentive here. I believe the number of college educated people is disproportionately high here compared to the national average and that may be one reason for the lack of wage gap. 
2. Education as a signal is the theory that is more widely accepted in Summit County for getting the job you want more than it is a way to earn more money in the same job. I think the reason is that most college grads are not using their specific college education in their current profession since there are many career opportunities here in the ski resort industry and relatively few others. 
3. I agree that it's difficult to measure discrimination between sexes since worker preference plays a large role in career choice. Firms would be smart to customize their structure to a less competitive, more cooperative format to attract the lower waged but just as productive female workers. In theory, they would earn more profits than their competitors who were, possibly unknowingly, discriminating.

Reflections on Chapter 18: The Markets for the Factors of Production

1. What is Value of the Marginal Product and how does it affect the price and demand for the factors of production?
2. List two causes for a shift in the demand for labor and two causes for a shift in the supply of labor.
3. Explain how a change in the supply of one of the factors of production affects the value of the marginal product, the demand, and the price for all the factors of production.

Reflections on Chapter 17: Ogilopoly

1. What do you think about anti-trust laws with respect to the cell-phone industry?  Do you think the cell phone industry could be an oligopoly? Why or why not?

I think cell phone carriers are an example of an oligopoly because there are just a few of them and they are offering very similar products. There are many more cell phone manufacturers so I think they are leaning more towards a competitive monopoly, and since they offer slightly different products. I think anti-trust laws in respect to cell phone service carriers are a good think for consumer since we have reached the point as a society where cell phones are nearly a necessity. If they were to collude and become a cartel, their pricing would no longer be competitive and consumer surplus would decrease considerably. 

        2. Take a few moments to explain how a decision bax works.  What about Oligopolies is most unclear to you?

I'm assuming you want an explanation of a how a decision box works. The decision boxes in our text show the four possible outcomes that result from the two different decision each actor can make. Each outcome depends on what decision each actor makes. I imagine that decision boxes can be much larger depending on how many possible decisions can be made and how many actors are involved. 

I think I have a pretty clear understanding of oligopolies, other than the blurred line, mentioned in the text, that can exist between them and competitive markets when the number of sellers increases. I did find the prisoner's dilemma a very interesting theory that can apply to many aspects of life. I was especially pleased to find out that the "tit for tat" method was the most successful strategy for dealing with the prisoner's dilemma. I've always been a fan and wondered why "tit for tat" got such a bad rap.

Reflections on Chapter 16: Monopolistic Competition

Advertising can make some markets more competitive and others less. I think the determining factor has to do with how similar the product actually is. For example, most consumers would agree that among cola products there are definite and distinct differences. So, when Coca Cola advertises better taste, they are actually providing factual information about their product - it doesn't taste the same as other colas. Likewise for Pepsi. In this way, consumers are encouraged to try many different firm's versions of cola to decide which they like best, increasing competition. On the other hand, when products really are identical - generic vs. name brand medications, advertising can misinform consumers into thinking that the name brand drug is better. Especially when they can't detect a difference, consumers are more likely to trust the advertising and not try the generic, hence making the market less competitive. 

I found it interesting that an economic debate over the benefits of advertising even existed. I took for granted that advertising was a necessary evil in the world of capitalism. I see both sides of the argument but I agree with Galbraith's opinion, that more government regulation could help offset some of the negative effects of advertising. I also agree that public perception is easily manipulated to the financial benefit of firms but to the detriment of unconscious consumers and that the advertising machine is having an overall negative effect on society.

Reflections on Chapter 15: Monopolies

This chapter didn't change my view of monopolies as much as it strengthened it. I've never had a positive view of monopolies and this chapter explained why they are not beneficial for society in general.

I think that the trash removal is sometimes a government monopoly because it's a service that everyone needs. If a private company were to have a monopoly on such a necessary service, they could charge a very high price and make a huge profit. In my neighborhood, there are three trash collecting services to choose from. I chose the company I chose because they offered the same service for a lower price. I am very glad that trash collection is a competitive market in my town since the companies can compete and I can get a lower price.

Reflections on Chapter 14: Firms in Competitive Markets

1. Why does a perfectly competitive firm maximize revenues where P=MC? 

A competitive firm maximizes revenues where the market price equals marginal costs because the market price is a reflection of the firm's marginal revenue. So then it becomes obvious that a firm's marginal revenue shouldn't be less than its marginal costs. If its marginal revenue (or price) is more than its marginal costs, it should increase output to maximize its revenue. If marginal revenue or price (since MR=P) is less than its marginal cost, it should decrease production, to reduce costs and maximize revenues. That is why the only perfect place for output to be is where price meets marginal costs. 

2. Why is P=MR in this market type?

Because in a competitive market, the firm is a price-taker which means every firm in the market must settle for selling their product at the market price. Since the price remains constant, a firm's revenue is proportionate to the quantity produced, or output. So, since total revenue is really only price times quantity, the only thing that changes in a perfect market is quantity. Then since average revenue and marginal revenue divide by quantity, which takes quantity changes out of the equation, the price is the only variable that matters, and again the price remains constant at the market price, regardless of quantity produced.

3. Name a business you think belongs in this category.  Why?

Gas stations are businesses that belong in this category because the products they supply are identical to other gas stations, there are many seller of gasoline and certainly many buyers, and they are free to enter and exit the market for selling gas.

Reflections on Chapter 13: The Costs of Production

1. Why do marginal costs first fall and then begin to rise?

At low levels of production, each additional unit produced increases the marginal product so marginal cost declines initially. As output increases, marginal product diminishes since each additional unit of input no longer produces as much additional output which leads to rising marginal costs. 

2. Why are marginal costs important to a firm when making decisions to increase or decrease production?

Firms are always trying to maximize profit which is total revenue minus total costs. If marginal costs are rising, then profits are less. So firms are trying to find a way to minimize marginal costs and that could mean decreasing production or increasing it.

3. How can you apply these cost concepts to your own life?

The "marginal" concept has been a tough one to grasp - ever since learning that "rational people think at the margins". But I think I finally understand. Last night I was eating dinner with some friends at a Mexican restaurant. I'd had two margaritas and when the waiter came by and asked if I wanted another, I thought about the "marginal" concept. My total margarita consumption was not as important as was the idea of adding one more margarita, the marginal one. I was feeling good and having fun, like my marginal experience was rising but I knew that if I increased my input by one unit (drinking one more marg), my output (fun experience) would not be increased as much as it had been from the unit before (diminishing marginal product) and that my marginal cost (headache in the morning) would increase. I decided to not increase input. 

Reflections on Chapter 12: Designing the Tax System

I was rather pleased to see how the tax burden was distributed in Table 8 from the text, The Burden of Federal Taxes. It looks pretty equitable to me, except that I would like see the top 1% paying more. So I do favor progressive taxes. I'm suspicious of the consumption tax instead of the income tax. First of all, since wealthy people usually spend less of their income than do the poor, a consumption tax would affect the lower class more than the upper class. Secondly, I wonder, wouldn't a consumption tax discourage people from spending and thereby slowing the economy?

I believe that equity and fairness are very important to the tax system. We would all like to see the tax codes become less complex so they were easier to process and understand. However, I understand that they are so complicated because people who knew much more than I are trying make the system more equitable. Or at least I hope that's what they're doing.

Reflections on Chapter 11: Public Goods & Common Resources

Public school are an example of a public good. The costs of providing this good include the cost of building the school, the cost of the property the school is on, and the utility costs of maintaining and operating the building. There are also the salary costs for the teachers and other employees of the school, the cost of transportation and the cost of the materials and equipment. The benefits are that members of the community will be educated, as well as providing jobs for the community. The good could be provided  privately where the parents of children attending the school had to pay for it. However, households without children would be the free-riders, reaping the benefits of an educated community without paying for it.

This chapter did make me think about public goods differently. I never thought about the mechanics of public goods and why the government really needs to pay for these goods. Now I understand that, because of free-riding, it's the most efficient way to allocate the resources for everyone's benefit.

Reflections on Chapter 10: Externalities

When thinking about my favorite example of a negative externality, I tried to think of one that wasn't given in the text book. I chose the fast/processed food market. The problem of obesity has become a health epidemic in our country mostly as a result of the negative externality of the food industry.

I don't believe that this problem can be solved via negotiation (Coase Theorem). Many groups, including government agencies, have launched huge pro-health campaigns over the last decade or so in order to educate and persuade the public to make better decisions in regard to their diet choices. These efforts have made a difference by putting pressure on the food industry to reduce the negative impacts of their actions. However, it seems their efforts have done little to influence individuals to reduce the negative impacts to their bodies.  We still have a very long way to go before we reach optimal quantity for maximizing benefits to society. I believe that market-based policies, namely a corrective tax, are the most effective way to influence people to make healthy diet decisions. The government could use the tax revenue to subsidize health insurance.

Reflections on Chapter 9: Application: International Trade

This is my favorite chapter so far, and one of the most challenging for me, mentally. I like the relevance of the topic to today's social and political issues. When I watched the presidential debate, one candidate would point the finger at the other for sending jobs overseas. It's such an unpopular idea but, according to the author of our text book, it's the economically correct one. There seems to be such a huge gap between how economists view international trade and how non-economists view it. That made me skeptical.

Since I took Macroeconomics last semester, and the test book is identical so far, I had a good understanding about the benefits of free trade. From an economic standpoint, I saw how free trade would increase the economic well-being of every country that allowed it. I remembered the arguments in the text and how economists had an answer for each of them. This time around, I finally see why I'm not totally on board and why most of the county isn't either. Economic well-being for a nation does not translate into economic well-being for individuals. That's the problem. As Paul Krugman pointed out in his article, Trouble with Trade, the upper and upper-middle classes are reaping the benefits from international trade, while the middle and especially lower classes are mostly disadvantaged by it. In our country, manufacturing jobs - usually held by the middle and lower classes are declining while jobs in higher education, usually held by the middle to upper class, are increasing. It all makes sense in broad economic terms but to that person who suddenly lost their manufacturing job at the age of 40, it's completely irrelevant that careers in higher education are on the upswing. In the text, the answer is for those misplaced workers to prepare themselves, via education and training, for a career in a field that is growing. It's just not realistic to expect someone in the latter half of their life to be able to do that, especially now that they have no income! And for the few that can, their chances of getting a job after school and/or training are slim at best. That's why I take issue with Steven E. Landsburg's article, What to Expect When You're Free Trading. I see nothing wrong with expecting those benefiting the most from free trade to use some of their newly acquired resources to help their fellow Americans benefit as well. I'm totally taken aback by people like Landsberg, who have no shame in taking all they can for themselves while declaring that the less fortunate are the morally corrupt portion of our society. GRRRR!

In short, free-trade benefits everyone, but it benefits some much more than others. In order to increase the well-being of a nation, I believe that equality has to become part of the economic equation.

Reflections on Chapter 8: Application: The Costs of Taxation

How important is the concept of deadweight loss to taxation? It's the other side of the taxation coin and it must be considered when deciding what to tax. Policymakers should do their best to minimize it whenever possible by only taxing markets with inelastic demand or supply. The text didn't examine the results of a deadweight tax on a market with both inelastic supply and demand but I assume that would have less of a deadweight loss than any other scenario. If I was employed in an industry that was affected by taxation and deadweight loss then I would probably consider it very important. Just studying the phenomenon, I see it as an unfortunate but unavoidable result of taxation.

I found the concept of the Laffer curve very interesting. I never would have thought that lowering taxes could increase government revenue but it definitely makes sense now. The challenging part for advising economists is knowing where we are (our present tax levels) on that curve, so we can know which way we need to go.

Reflections on Chapter 7: Consumers, Producers and the Efficiency of Markets

1. Economists would describe efficiency, in respect to markets, as maximizing both consumer and producer surplus. In an efficient market, where supply and demand meet at equilibrium price, total surplus is split evenly among producers and consumers.

2. The most difficult concept of this chapter is understanding the significance of total surplus.There are so many aspects to consider simultaneously. For instance, total surplus will always be the same right? Whether it is shared equally - 50/50, or if it's 40/60, 80/20, or even one side has all the surplus and the other has none. Since we're all part of both supply and demand in one way or the other, any type of surplus will be shared by the economy as a whole. I also have a problem making all the assumptions we are asked to make to believe in the the theory of market efficiency and I think equality cannot be left out of the efficiency theory all together. Just because it looks nice and neat on a graph, doesn't mean it applies in the real world. Does it?

Policy Assignment: Should the federal government impose a price ceiling on essential items during emergencies?

 I believe that the federal government should not impose a price ceiling on essential items during emergencies. Price ceilings decrease supply during a time of increased demand. The result is a shortage of supply. Isn't it better to pay more for something you need than to not have the option to buy it at all? 

Consider the economic effects of a price ceiling on hotel rooms during a time of mass evacuations of a nearby area. We'll assume there are more people than hotel rooms (if there weren't, the price ceiling would probably not be binding), the hotel rooms would quickly fill most people could afford the rate and many families would be left without shelter. If hotels could charge higher rates, people would become more resourceful. They may share hotels rooms to divide the cost or find cheaper alternatives like staying with friends or family. Consequently there would be more hotel rooms available to those who most needed to stay and were willing to pay the price. Sadly, there would be families who desperately needed the hotel room but could not afford to pay the raised prices. However, a price ceiling would not guarantee that family a room, and would instead result in many families being left homeless. It does seem worth mentioning that by not imposing a price ceiling, wealthier people will benefit more than the poor. The point is that less people overall will be left without shelter if there is no price ceiling. 

There are ways to maintain fairness without running the high risk of shortages of essential items. Raising prices during emergencies is known as price gouging. At least 28 states in the US have anti-gouging laws (Burr). Though they vary from state to state and are incredibly vague and subjective, they do give pause to suppliers who may have done much worse. Many companies argue that these laws are unfair and too vague to abide by. These companies can, without a doubt still legally make a profit off of those less fortunate but when that profit becomes excessive, the law steps in. If a company is greedy enough to cross that line, they deserve to have some of those profits taken away. 

Price gouging is currently an extremely controversial topic in legal and ethical circles and I believe the laws will continue to evolve as a way to avoid the necessity of price ceilings during emergencies. While it is unfortunate that the victims of natural disaster and similar crisis can be exploited by sellers, by not imposing price controls, additional and unnecessary tragedy can be avoided.




Works cited:


Burr, Michael T. "Getting Gouged." Insidecounsel 16.174 (2006): 32. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.

LLAMONT, JULIAN, and CHRISTI FAVOR. "Price Gouging In Disaster Zones: An Ethical Framework." Social Alternatives 28.1 (2009): 49-54.Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.


Page, Edward J., and Min K. Cho. "Price Gouging 101: A Call To Florida Lawmakers To Perfect Florida's Price Gouging Law." Florida Bar Journal 80.4 (2006): 49-52. Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Sept. 2012.

Reflections on Chapter 6: Supply, Demand, and Government Policies

The New York Times article about price controls in Venezuela causing food shortages relates directly to the concept price of ceilings and their effects. Just as the text predicted, when the government imposes a binding price ceiling, the supply curve shifts left because it's less profitable to produce the good. When this happens, the quantity supplied decreases and since the price is not allowed to increase, the result is a shortage of the good. As is the case in Venezuela.

A similar situation would have occurred if price controls were imposed on bottled water during the post-Katrina crisis. It seems to me that the government must choose between the lesser of two evils when deciding whether to impose price controls. Those two evils being shortage of supplies and speculators profiting from the suffering of others. In a capitalist society, isn't the entire idea of it to make a profit? Speculators are just being resourceful in a culture that encourages that type of ingenuity. In this case especially it seems that a shortage of drinking water would have much worse results than speculators making huge profits.

The theory of price control is all about fairness. However, a capitalist society is all about making a profit, not fairness. Therefore, the task of trying to make a capitalist society a fair one will always be a difficult (if not impossible) balancing act.

Reflections on Chapter 5: Elasticity and Its Application

1. When I think of sales based on price elasticity, I think of cable, phone, and internet carriers. I recently changed carriers because the price of my current carrier was getting too high. It was an easy decision to make since other companies are offering very similar products. I believe demand for such products is becoming more price elastic since there are now so many close substitutes and it's easy to get the same service for less money.

2. I find the fact that a linear demand curve can have varying degrees of elasticity a bit confusing. When using the table of data and doing each equation, I see that indeed the elasticity does change. But I find it difficult to understand the concept on a more abstract level.

Reflections on Chapter 4: The Market Forces of Supply & Demand

1. Yes, I think oil speculators can be responsible for large price hikes in the price of oil, especially when all other factors are held constant. On the other hand, they could also cause prices to fall. They can cause both of these results because they act as the demand portion of the market. As I understand it, oil speculators buy contracts for future deliveries of oil based on what they're expecting to happen in the oil market. If they expect prices for oil contracts to fall, they will wait until they do, then make a purchase. Of course they will be right because by not purchasing the contracts at the given price, the market will respond to the fall in demand by decreasing the price. As speculators begin purchasing these lower priced contracts, the demand will increase and drive the price up. Then the speculators can sell their contracts for a better price and make a profit. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. The bottom line, as I see it, is that oil speculators significantly effect the prices of oil, for better or worse.

2. In the article, A Ban on Oil Speculators?, James Hamilton asserts that most of the transactions I mentioned above are all happening within the course of a day so they are essentially canceling each other out. I agree with his point that Kennedy's interpretation of all the statistics are exaggerated and therefor inaccurate. Even though speculators do play a major role in the prices for oil, banning them would not solve the problem. There is a huge demand for oil so whether speculators are representing that demand or the actual refineries/consumers are, there will still be a demand. Furthermore, as Hamilton suggests, people will always try to find a way to make a profit or "hedge their risks" and banning that type of activity would go against the fabric of our capitalistic society.

Reflections of Chapter 3: Interdependence and the Gains From Trade

1. It surprised me that one person (or country) can be the best at producing a good or goods (by best I mean using fewer inputs to produce than another country -having the absolute advantage) but still benefit by letting another country produce that good, because the other country has the comparative advantage.

2. I believe that international trade is a good thing. If it weren't for international trade, we wouldn't be able to enjoy the variety of goods we have access to now. Much of the produce in the grocery store, for instance, comes from other countries that have different climates and seasons than the US. We couldn't grow some of it no matter what. Some of the items that we could grow in our country would be much more expensive if we supplied them. Since other countries can grow them at a lower opportunity cost, they charge less for them. Some people may complain about the loss of jobs when they get outsourced to foreign countries, but they take for granted all the luxuries provided to them as a result of international trade. You can't have one without the other. As the book says, we're all better off as a result of trade, whether we know it or not.

Reflections on Chapter 2: Thinking Like an Economist

1. The production possibilities frontier makes it easy to understand a concept that in words alone would be difficult for me to really comprehend. When looking at the data in a table form, I can more easily see the opportunity costs but answering questions about efficient, inefficient, and unfeasible points would be very difficult. When looking at the model, those questions are simple to answer. The circular-flow diagram really simplifies the economy in a way that makes it easy to understand. I don't consider myself a visual learner but obviously some concepts are easier to understand when modeled.

 2. Positive statement: Unemployment is up 1% from last year.
     Normative statement: The current administration needs to reduce unemployment by 1% in order to reverse the economic recession.

It is important to know that difference since one statement is based on fact (positive) and the other is based on opinion (normative). When forming your own opinion, when deciding on which candidate to vote for, for instance, it's imperative that you know which statements are fact and which are based on someone's opinion.

Reflections on Chapter 1: Ten Principles of Economics

1. What in this chapter made me think about an economic concept differently than I did before?

I did take macroeconomics last Spring so I'm not reading about these principles for the first time. Knowing nothing about economics before that class, most of the ten principles were enlightening. Basically everything in the book made me think differently. My viewpoints on these economic concepts changed drastically about eight months ago so this chapter is not really making me see things differently. I do remember that after reading about opportunity costs (#2) for the first time, I began noticing that I was making trade-offs all the time in my personal life that I never really noticed.   Principle Number 5 (Trade Can Make Everyone Better Off) definitely changed my way of thinking about trade. I used to buy into the idea that losing jobs to oversees was such a terrible thing. Now I understand about comparative advantages and that, while it's not easy for people, evolving and changing one's skill set to fit the country's economy is sometime necessary. 

2. What new questions do you have now about the US economy based on this chapter?

Now that election season is upon us, I understand the role that policy makers play in relation to the economy much better. From an economics stand point, I see that it's not always in the country's best interest for them to try to offset what they see as negative economic activity. People vote based on short-term economic markers when often, economic cycles happen on their on in the long term. This semester I hope to gain a better understanding of when it's in the country's overall best interest to make fiscal and monetary changes and when it's just for political gain.