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.

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.

Euvolutionary Exchange (November 25th, 2011)

The Duke should have never allowed the lottery system to pass if they would have gotten angry by students exchanging money. They should have just kept the monetary system in the beginning since it has been working for student dorming since they couldn't allow the system to work. The Duke should have also allowed for it to continue to happen because they know that people are subjective to where they would like to live on campus sometimes. Then and there, that is when the students worked together in order to fix on their goals to where they would like to live on campus.

Pictures and their Significant meaning (November 18th, 2011)

The first image could be described as a way for Americans to not spend products if they are going to be wasteful. This is actually something that I disagree with because whatever it bought in the market will always benefit the economy. But in the poster it is almost saying that if you run with buying items to be wasteful than your only helping the enemy because they're are being less wasteful and using that to benefit their production and economy. The enemy perhaps was discussing the Soviet Union.

The second image describes a poster demonstrating to society should not buy cars because they would be riding with Hitler. It decreases the demand for cars and demonstrates that they would rather not have so many people using cars at the money where they could all share passenger seats. This could also be due to the supply of the cars in the United States.

The last one is pretty simple. It basically tells others to be honest to one another and try to depend themselves as reliable sources.

The Theory in Leizure Class ( November 8th, 2011)

The reading discussed the perspectives of two different types of classes, one that was superior and the other was inferior. The inferior class saw the opportunity to work as a way to be happy to have an income come to his family and a privilege to be doing something with his life rather than being a wasted life entity. The other one sees that if you work under someone, it almost seems like your almost being a slave to them. They have to act to everything that they ask for without a sense of an option because it is the only way they could retain money from working there. It is almost as if they have no freedom in the work that they are stationed. But I mean that can also be a good thing. As mentioned in the book, it can also be that if you work under someone and something happens where you were defective when checking products or doing your job in general, the company suffers from it not you specifically.
The other part of the article discussed how you have a lot of money you are not seen as a rich person because your not spending the money or using it at any expenditure. Unless you buy things with the money that you gain there is no reason to call anyone rich because they are only saving their money, not displaying it or flaunting it.

POW Camp ( November 4th, 2011 )

The article discussed how the economies are starting by selling products like cigarettes and small goods in order to make a transaction at the POW camps. Goods were being traded but there was no amount for that money to be accounted for. It was based on products and what others viewed with as their value of it.The development of the economy was very different from other emerging economies. Since there were normal markets that had developed around the use of money, it was not as necessary in order to become a strong economy. The example was used in the POW camps to explain how there were small materials used in a market economy and build a economy all around it.

Castrating Animals, Long Live Roquefort, and Rolling Cigars

What Mike Rowe in his conference had also got to me as well. Right now, I'm a student studying at a private college for a dream of being a Chemical Engineer. Yet I acknowledge those who are studying liberal arts to be some kind of a joke. Even more so, those who don't even try to attend college. It is not predominately a bad choice to continue getting an education because of the harsh difficulty of getting a job in the United States. But what I also realized is how we under appreciate those who do things that not only make them happy but also allow us to live easier lifestyles. The presumption of living a dream is interesting to me. We all work hard to do what we want to do but never take a step back and allow ourselves to see if that truly brings happiness upon ourselves. Just like the article of rolling cigars, we don't always choose what we want to do with life, we sometimes allow our passion take us to where we want. We allow society to predestine our roles sometimes and never identify for ourselves where we would like to pursue. The same goes for the Roquefort where she said that it would be difficult to get Roquefort for our the customers but it would also be difficult to allow for us to have a choice. We would allow our government to make the choices for us and not allow what we desire to make those choices in the long run. Restrictions and containment; they both suck.

Property Rights

From the notes posted from Rizzo's lecture, I believe Property Rights is a moral enduing system that is based upon others payment for ownership. It's understandable to note that if someone is making a payment for said set of land that they should do anything with hat set of land that will not conflict with illegal activities. It is also understandable that you have the right to remove those who are on your land or disobey the orders placed on that set of land because it is obviously yours. Private property falls into that category. But I also believe it is based on a moral system throughout society. For example, kids would not try to play on people's lawns because they know that the owner would have them get in trouble no matter how much fun they are having. But what I was also thinking about was when someone decides to put their stuff on a chair beside them to save the space for their friends. Their friend did not pay for the chair so why do we feel the need to find another seat when such predicament comes? What if you leave your own bag to try to do something and end up coming back to the seat being taken away? Based on property rights, is it wrong to take the seat or is it wrong to move the bag? If moving the bag is violating private property, is the seat also an extension of the private property?

The Case for Contamination

The idea is that by others living in other countries and helping one another through cultural diffusion will allow the advance of civilization as it is today and the economy driven power that the people have and not any type of single being. He expresses the case that most of the people who live in Ghana are capable of expressing different products, models, and agriculture of structures and goods that help countries expand and understand each other. The idea of preserving the country from the idea or limiting the views from other countries would diminish the country as a whole since there will be a decrease in the innovation and production of the countries. This idea of stepping down on countries that pursue ideas through connectivity of thoughts shall be the end to all types of progression. This kind of reminds me of how the United States allowed immigrants from all types of countries to enter the states which helped improve and progress the country substantially.

Theaters and Fine Arts (October 7th, 2011)

The main idea behind the article is to discuss how to government wants to subsidize art in the economy. The problem with that is two things; there is a fear the government would subsidize the paintings and sculptures in private sectors and gain the money for themselves. But also, if the government was to subsidized it, there would be sadness among the creators of those fine pieces of art. For example, if the government wanted to subsidize central park then people would lose the feeling to spend time walking around with their family at the park. It would be meaningless and sad to see things that used to be an enjoyment to others taken away from the them. I know that I like walking with my friends to the park but if the government were to subsidize that park, I wouldn't walk with the same incentive than I did before.

Economics and Happiness (September 30th, 2011)

Economics is not a derivation towards happiness. Economic growth in the United States has not been spreading towards citizens int he United States. It has been proven to be flat for the past decades due to the equality of economics and wealth towards other people. Absolute income matters with the happiness one obtains but there is no statistical power to say that relative income and positional outcome has not been proven to be stated to be happiness. Adam Smith being part of how the invisible hand will bring the greater good for mankind. There was never good results but there was also not as much competitions in the markets. By making the human beings unhappy and unhappiness will also be brought towards the children that might also have the same idea with discomfort and comfort. Accessibility to schools will bring a vast variety of income which gives success in society whereas others might be going to a bad school and go through a smaller success and gain a small income. If you give money to countries that do not have any type of money, they will immediately have happiness towards the income of getting the money and how it is equally distributed.

What Social Science Does and Doesn't

The article explains by explaining that social sciences are imperfect and always has a plausibility of being false. Sciences such as biology, chemistry or physics, however are always proven with theories and proofs that evidently the science is fact. The problem with social sciences is that although it brings reasonable predictions, there is always a fair chance that there something may go wrong. Social sciences also bring the worst on others as if they place a statement in the public on what is to come to the economy, they're reputation would be on the line if they are right or wrong. If they are right, it will only boost their answers and always state that they were right in any type of situation when they were previously correct. In the world of sciences, this is not a good thing. Theories need to be proven with evidence and background information based on previous theories. If there was a based answer on a social theory on society, it would only make a tree that has a plausibility of truth or false answers, where sciences are always proven to be facts or made to be always be truthful and useful to develop other theories.

Industrial Revolution

People were able to produce more food for the population growth. They never went through a scarcity. Pulled farmers in the city were not able to have agriculture in a fast rate as the technology produced. The people in the industrial also believed that they would lose their jobs because of the machine developed in factories but little did they know that it was a great opportunity to make money.
Technology and medicine made it easier for people to continue living. The Industrial Revolution had a stronger quality of life. People began to migrate over to the cities for the mobility of the capital and labor across the borders.
Overall, the Industrial Revolution was beneficial to the market at the time as it led to the progression of different types of products to the citizens and helped grow the country as a whole.

I, Pencil ( Rizzos, Coffee )

Impresonality

• All the things that were done to produce the pencil had no sole intention to make Rizzo's coffee
• We don't know these people who got Rizzo's coffee completed.

Self-Interest

• The people in the process of making Rizzo's coffee do not go through the process alone to get the cup of coffee. They do it to get another benefit, such as a wage.

Cognitive Issue

• Does anyone know how to do all the processes at once to get the product needed such as growing coffee beans, grinding coffee beans, then blending them to a mixture that is not only drinkable but to the taste you would like it? Would you then do it for $1.59?
• One person would spend thousands of dollars just trying to develop it on their way.

Who gave the orders?

• There was no central office or police officer forcing anyone to do it.
• The resources and people are found all around the world, with different religions and culture to cooperate together for work.
• There is no favoritism or rejection because it's impression to get Rizzo his cup of coffee.