Profits, Entrepreneurs, and the Last Class ( December 12, 2011 )

Profits: Total revenues- total costs
What is the wage? It is just a contract that says what people will excatly be ding? Wage is to eliminate uncertainty
What is interest? It is a price that comes from the supply and demand of the market of bankable funds.
They want something today they would eventually get later. The persuasion is the interest.

Rachel, Professor Rizzo's Wife

• 30,000 usage as a secretary, owns a building $6,000 a year - owns saving cost at bank with $23,000, pays 10% interest.
• She then opens a shop - works it for self, uses for own building, sells her savings, borrows $20,000 for ovens.

Economic Profit: Total revenue-total explicit costs - Total implicit cost = $1,700
If you make the choice of being an entrapeneur, then you'll be $1,7000 richer.
If negative profit, less richer because the decision made to be an entrepreneur is not a good deal.
The change of that quantity of the pizza market has to do with the Zar. Raises the wages of the workers until that number goes away.
Profits for selling, but things change rapidly. Expensive 10 restrict competition. Prevent competition by foreign countries. Loses are key. Make people pay for sucking.
Loses destroys resources.

Curing and the ideals of a Entrepreneaur ( December 9th, 2011 )

In the market who is it who helps the people? The politicians and entreprenaurs? Who gets the profits and how does it help the people or buyers?

Is it bad thing that people are paid for helping others find a cure for a certain type of disease? Well, it would obviously be paid for since society graces the provider of a cure in order to multiply and cure others for the same benefit. Why would people not make money for curing people? Why shouldn't someone make a profit for having to save someone's life? So if you have to cure someone, the distribution to cure others is based on the entrepreneurs.

 

In order to do that and be successful at it, you have to figure out what people have to value and how it will benefit themselves as well as other people. The profitability rate is equal to the rental rate and the appreciate minus the interest rate.

The Sumptuary Manifesto (December 9th, 2011)

 Oh man, this article was interesting. The article in a nutshell for later reference is discussing how there are rules that must be followed in the sumptuary society however they are completely inverse of our own society, such as possessions as stuff in order to serve sharing as a commodity. It is everything base off of what we believe to be very totalitarian and unjust.

If this idea were still to be applied in today's society, is it possible for society to make it morally right by all disobeyed the set of rules? Would the entire idea become the central theme for a rebellion over the government's rules?

The rules were listing things that are against the law, things that should not be over consumed, and demands. There was a deliberate sign where others could not do to others because of the power they possess over a specific location of a city.

EWOT - The end of Mozilla

Earlier this week, I was listening to a podcast discussing the end of Mozilla Firefox, the browser used in many computers to supplement Internet Explorer for it's fast compact interface and high ordinance on traffic when using the Internet. It is also used as a customizable HUB to add the different add-ons that help you personalize and characterizes what you like when experiencing the internet. Earlier this week, there was an article that mentioned that Mozilla might have no revenue for users using their web browser and they might discontinue the web browser due to the changes of Google. You see, Google as I always saw it, is Skynet. The company controls many of our everyday tools such as our smartphones and the way we research. But since the release of Google Chrome, we would have to switch from our beloved Mozilla to Google's new system since the revenue Mozilla gains from Google will not be sued in their search engine anymore or on the interface Firefox provides. Google maintained a company as strong as Firefox, which to me is surprising because now that Google is capable to compete and gain profit for allowing Google Chrome for users on both Mac and Windows computers, the revenue for the companies are not shared and Google will be capitalizing more and more as weeks go on. It's not a bad change but I found it shocking for a company to pull a wild card on systems that they helped provide and are capitalizing with their own products. Hello Skynet.

Economic Incudence and and the Elasticity of Supply and Demand (December 7th, 2011)

Legal Impudence: Sale taxes (Buyers) + Who will say days

Economic Impudence: Who really pays
The Initial Price for buyers is 3.00 and sellers is 3.00.
The Final Price for buyers is 2.75 and sellers is 2.75.
Tax feed is buyers for 1.00 and sellers have none.
The economic burden or the real cost for buyers is .75 due to tax and sellers for 0.25.

Tax rates that are too high and income tax is too low. None of this is being shown in graphs, rather just for the well being. Which side of the marker is effected? Buyers!

price sellers end up keeping and buyers need to give to taxes. Raise taxes and the problem gets worst.
Econmic liability for taxes is completely independent to whom eats it.
Firms and workers split of that tax. There is no share of the burden and if it is all the time.
Elasticity of supply and demand, meaning that it will be by three, so that if there are higher labor and many workers are not sensitive to change to wages. Social security taxes will kill you, not the yearly taxes.

Who legally has to pay, it is the legal elasticity of demand and supply who allocates the pay. Buyers going to get a bigger burden of paying the excess tax. Most taxes however are paid by sellers. Subsidizes by 1.00 of the gasoline from the refiner; supply would shift out and be less for us. Refiners get 3.45 (referring to the graphs on the written paper., oil gets 80%, 20% to buyers. It is the relative supply and demand elasticity, nothing else. Buyers and sellers are better off but not the market.

The Economic Indicence of Supply + Demand Changes

Making something illegal does not get rid of them. Drugs tend to be stranger when illegal. It is costly to make something illegal and it is a waste of time. It is resistant to change as 33 billion get arrested to 1.5million. More people are in prison for drugs than people in prison for other reasons. Prices for cocaine have decreased. Marginal cost of going to jail is dropping to zero after two strikes.
Excise tax - The legal liability for tax is on the seller. But who is baring the burden?
$3.75 to $4.00 costs to buyers is 0.75 on the economic burden.
$3.75 pay money costs to sellers = 3-2.75 = $0.25

Prices does not increase by the amount of the tax. Taxes can be bad because they prevent trascations from happening. Costs of IRS is also costly to monitor, enforce, tax, cheating the taxes is bad, wasting time, and raising taxes.

EWOT - The Act of Freezing

For a college student, every dollar counts. We are surrounded by loans and the food on campus brings us great sadness and temptation to buy from other locations. But would students go their way to spend for three pieces of clothing that are equivalent to the warmth of a coat? Absolutely not, that sounds silly. But wouldn't this be ideal, in terms of saving money? Buying from Walmart would save students money from buying expensive coats and sweaters for the holiday season. But that wouldn't help other companies like J.Crew. More so, students would look generic and not be have a specific flare from each other, ranging from culture to attractive flaunts.

Students, such as I, would be willing to allocate all their resources to keeping themselves warm and having some type of class with their outfits. This not only benefits the market, but it helps us demonstrate to the world who we are and how we keep ourselves warm before the artic reigns over the University in January.

Golf Market ( December 2nd, 2011 )

The Golf course in a nut shell was how if you want tickets, you have to spend more money on them in order to get it. If you want to have the ticket for a cheaper price, then tough luck because the guy who is willing to pay more money will have a better opportunity making a purchase. It is kind of an unfair system that the NY Golf Shuttle uses, since it seems unfair for those who want to purchase tickets to see their pro golfers duke it out. But it also seems good since they are willing to allocate the tickets to someone who is willing to buy it for a higher cost. It would be hard to regulate this system since the general public has a range how much they would pay to watch a game of Golf. This brings up the demand to watch the game higher since the supply of seating can be ranged depending on how much they would allocate to see a game. A very interesting article, indeed.

Price Floor, Income Taxes, and Legalizing Drugs ( December 2nd, 2011 )

Price Floor is a good example for the minimum wage. Since there is more people working for that firm, they would want a certain amount needed to produce the maximum for the job, and the rest of the workers would be a surplus. The next workers that they would have to get would have to become better workers than the previous ones hired due the expectations from workers increasing.

• It allows firms to hire less workers since it costs more and more to hire each one. Workers would then get less employed and more would want to be hired but less would want the opportunity to.

It would result to the same outcomes as the price ceiling.
The better option is to tax workers and earn income tax instead of using the minimum wage for the workers.

Legalizing the drugs would not reduce the drugs produced on a smaller level. It would become multi scaled where markets and firms would try to produce them to buyers in different ways that they can appreciate the drugs. Yes, it would be beneficial for the market as a whole and eliminate the black market of illegal drugs but distribution of harmful drugs can have a dangerous effect on young ones who can be exposed to these drugs.

Rent Control and Outcomes of Price Ceiling ( November 30th, 2011 )

Price Control leads to less apartments that are available.
The problem with that is that there is more of a demand for apartments.

• There is a shortage of apartments and thus more of them have to either be built with allocated resources from sellers or sell them at a higher price in order to catch the surplus of apartments and meet the margin of supply and demand.

The outcomes of price ceilings is to reduce the availability of apartments and make them harder to  acquire. So they either had to lower the quality to make them affordable for others or try to fix it so that it would be dealt with at a regular price to the public.

• The black market emerged and bribes were created because of it. People had bids in order to jeopardize the way to obtain apartments, especially in New York City.

• The problem with that was the rise of mid-allocation. Other neighborhoods that were not controller were effected by this.

Fairness and rights played a strong role in the distribution of selling the apartments. Discrimination was also a strong role, where it provided a social goods to others. It made other apartments available and less people were available from the market due to that.
There was however in need of monitoring and enforcement, which costs money and was bad for society as a whole. Yet it was not available at the time because monitoring would cost money and it would be bad for society a whole.

Reminds me of the article where students worked together to find out where they would live on campus (this was last week's article).

Planners and Meeting the Margin ( November 28th, 2011 )

Last class, only the price he sees in order to make good decisions. What is the difference of the trial and error from the government versus the market? Just hypothetical. We need to get good outcomes that the market was not capable of doing.

30 bucks to pay for making a guitar would be bad. It is better below.
What is the problem making it for S4? Marginal cost of the 25$ dollars. When he makes a guitar the world is poorer by 25.
S2 costs 15 dollars, there is a 10 dollar allocation on the table. S2 and S4 would have to get together and split the cost to make the world richer.
Everyone can do better off if D4 gets his guitar and gives it to D2. The world is not hurt at all. D4 and S2 trading would make the world richer. Lie that you made the bike and I'll give you half the cut from it.

After 15 minutes of story telling,
Planners do not have enough information because it is changing rapidly. They forget what and where we need it. The only way to live in this complex world is to disperse/decentralize ideas the best way possible. Allowing different states would work in a separate ways without the federal governments approval.

Some properties of EQ.
Consider a stylized economy with 5 consumers and 5 selllers, not necessarily distinct.

Rent control, Price ceilings
Once you do a nice thing, you do a moral obligation to do it all the time.
Beat the competition out by checking out the obitenuary from the NY Times.