EWOT: E-cow-nomics

If a farmer has two cows in the farm, it would be beneficial to give one of those cows to the neighbor. This will establish socialism which is beneficial in trading with their neighbor or the overall production of the meat and dairy products of the company. By trading or even giving something of that of a value, you can try to get something better from where it was before. Say for example if the farmer had two cows but he needed pigs to continue his meat production at his farm. He could sell the cow for a couple of pigs. By getting a couple of pigs, the farmer could use one for the production of meat products and he can use the other for reproduction and selling them for pigs or even adult chickens to continue producing meat products from the farm.

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.

Adam Smith (1723-1790) (September 30th, 2011)

Laissez faire: People associated with one another so long as they are not harming one another.

• Police and Courts
• National Defense
• Public Works

How can people get fed if the King does not feed them?
Smith said - people who pursue self interest should be allowed to:

• Rights of property
• Vital that the division of labor exists.
• Exchange has to be peaceful and mutually agreed upon
• No special privaledges

Smith mentions that:

• The source of wealth is the ability to produce and trade with other values.
• Mutually persuade them to trade with you and not stridently. Such that of this week's workshop where people had to trade with one another to get a certain goal of trade.
• You never ask for help no matter where you do it.
• When people need to wake up, they have no intentions of doing it to help everyone but more for the purpose for payment.
• Question those who would like to interfere with our affairs.
• Allows people to adjust in activities without someone telling them to do it. This is part of mercantilism.

Laissez faire for Adam Smith:

1. Parties should buy at any price.
2. Any quantity to control prices in a mobile economy.
3. Trade should be open to everyone in the public.
4. License to do the occupation asked for.

Basically buy and sell to whoever you want, wherever you want, whatever you want.

Spontaneous order and Ferguson of 1767
The elites of the day had privileges due to Corn Laws:

• Grain was large, large imports were made.
• It was a price twice as much of a person's wage.

Anti Corn Laws in 1820
Corn Laws repealed in 1846
All goods produced in England from around the world in 1860
World had the fastest economic goods in 1870.

Relationship between Individuals and Firms (September 28th, 2011)

Insight:
Income=Expenditures

You can't get richer by being self-sufficient.
If you improved innovation and have less and less people in the farm when there are better tools in use for the farms.

Source of wealth int he commerce revolution was production!

Mercantilism Source of Wealth

• Gold in the treasury
• How much wealth the King had
• Positive balance of trade

Good economics is not to be prudent.
David Hume (Philosopher) "Economics is not a social concept, it is a stand alone topic. He also said that it was the productivity of agriculture to gain productivity. He said it was commerce."

Merchants had their idea but it is not correct.
Trade is a zero-sum and wealth was fixed for winners and lowers. The money is wealth and the king should control trade. The king is suppose to make trade positive to get gold in but not allowed to leave England. There was no free trade. There was a restriction of ports. They wanted to promote their exports to other countries.

The Commerce Revolution (September 26, 2011)

Technology of the worker productivity and raised wages on steam power engines and created surplus.

What made this enterprise possible?
Chinese developed gunpowder, floss, toothpaste, toothpicks, ships, and the compass.
New way of life grew from the way of life and it took 400-500 years to get there.

• It slowed decay of religious domestication.
• Nationally and the laws were comfortable around one another. An example would be how the United States does not need to ask for ID every time they cross the borders. 
• Technological advancement and creation of productivity.
• Since made little discovery in the commerce revolution.
• One electricity did elaborate through factories and it helped the inventions of telegraphs.
• Connected to groups of small people stole ideas of the art industry and innovated it.
• Technology of defense outweighted the technology of offense.
• Boiling the state is extremely difficult to balance so it can protect the merchant but not overwhelm it with power.
• Christianity was good for ideology and helped pass the laws towards it's citizens.

Mercantilism

• Reign with the Feudal system till 1800's, or progressive corporatism.
• Where kinds oversea and plan all of the economic duties
• Heavy restraints due to the state
• Crafted guilds
• Licensing
• Government granted monopolies
• Import and export regulations
• Indoor and outdoor restrictions
• Limits on domestic productions
• Extensive price control
• Wage controls
• People who were caught not doing these kind of things were not fined or sent to jail. It was a lot worst.

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.

EWOT: Danforth

With meals being served at a surplus with it's mediocre taste and petite portions each plate, Danforth's buffet has become the last resort to anyone dinner on the University of Rochester. However, one may argue that if you take too many dishes, you are wasting food that can be used to feed others in different countries. The problem is that statement was always false. To begin with, the food is sent to the University and then cooked for students. The food that was cooked will be given to students to either eat or thrown away due to the expiration dates. But would it be economically beneficial to leave the dishes out instead of trying them out? The answer is no. The dishes left behind would serve a purpose for others not to take the food. The food would look more and more cold and unappetizing. Moreso, if the food is untouched, the people working for Danforth either use that as their meal or thrown out. If anything the economy of food marketing would decrease since the workers get the food as their meals and they don't use part of their paycheck to spend on lunch or dinner. Overall, the students should be allowed to take the food that they desire and if they ultimately don't like it, it would not affect the economy. The statement would still be false and the food that was not used would never be used to feed others in different parts of the globe.