New Year, New Taxes.

Grace Adams
Economics Blog Post
New Year, New taxes.

New Year, New Taxes.

On December 22, 2017, President Donald Trump signed the GOPs tax bill into law. One of the biggest new tax credits is the child tax credits. A tax credit is different than a tax deductable, a deductible is a dollar-for-dollar reduction to your tax bill.The tax credit is designed to help parents with an income boost (SmartAsset). So how much is the tax credit? Well this year the tax credit had doubled! The tax credit is going from 1,000 dollars to 2,000 dollars. Therefore families with 1 child will have a $2,000 tax credit, a family of 2 will have a $4,000 tax credit and so on.
An important part of taxes is knowing the difference between refundable and nonrefundable credits. A nonrefundable tax credit can bring the taxpayers bill down to zero dollars. And if you have refundable credit then you can end up with a refund. If your bill is 1,000 dollars and you have 1,500 dollars refundable tax credits then you will have 500 dollars back (The Motley Fool). The $2,000 tax credit is $1,400 refundable for each child. In order to get the credit the dependent must be under 17 years old. They must have a relationship with the taxpayer such as parent, grandparent, adopted child, and so on. Also if you have a child that is over 17 or another dependent, like elderly relatives, then there will be a $500 tax credit.
However the trade-off for the increased tax credit is that the personal exemption (up to $4,050), is being removed. The personal exemption was $4,050 and could have been used for you, your spouse, and your dependents, (Up to a certain amount of course.) The child tax credit is supposed to help with the removal of the personal exemption, now the GOP is not able to take the personal exemption off all the way but instead is suspended until 2025. Taking away the personal exemption could have negative benefits for families with three or more children. The child tax credit is an idea of scarcity, families can only have so much money taken away from them to pay to the government and the government needs more money to run the government for the next year. The government will then take this tax money and decide if they should use it for guns or butter, meaning that the country will decide if they should use the money for military good or produce consumer goods. In the table below, you will see the new tax brackets and new tax rates for the 2018 tax year.
In conclusion there are many different tax changes for the 2018 tax year, one of the highlighted ones is the new child tax credits and the removal of the personal exemption for spouses, dependents, and taxpayers themselves. These changes will not be included for the taxes that are due this year in April, as it will affect the taxes that are due next year in April.

How taxes will change depending on a person's income.









Works Cited
Adamczyk, Alicia. “The Basics of the GOP Tax Plan, Explained.” Two Cents, Twocents.lifehacker.com, 27 Dec. 2017, twocents.lifehacker.com/the-basics-of-the-gop-tax-plan-explained-1821583174.
Adamczyk, Alicia. “The Basics of the GOP Tax Plan, Explained.” Two Cents, Twocents.lifehacker.com, 27 Dec. 2017, twocents.lifehacker.com/the-basics-of-the-gop-tax-plan-explained-1821583174.
Frankel, Matthew. “The 2018 Child Tax Credit Changes: What You Need to Know.” The Motley Fool, The Motley Fool, 9 Jan. 2018, www.fool.com/taxes/2018/01/09/the-2018-child-tax-credit-changes-what-you-need-to.asp.
Josephson, Amelia. “Child Tax Credit Guide (2018): How Much Are You Eligible For?” SmartAsset, SmartAsset, 12 Jan. 2018, smartasset.com/taxes/all-about-child-tax-credits.

Is Chrysler Moving to the USA a Good Thing?

Is Chrysler Moving to the USA a Good Thing?
By:Izzy Bigari


Chrysler is planning to move some of their production of their cars over to the United States from Mexico. However, they are still planning on keeping most of the production in Mexico. On January 28th, President Trump sent out a tweet saying, “Our economy is better than it has been in many decades. Businesses are coming back to America like never before. Chrysler, as an example, is leaving Mexico and coming back to the USA. Unemployment is nearing record lows. We are back on the right track!”  This statement isn’t entirely true, but it is still good for the United States’ GDP.

To calculate GDP, you need to add consumer spending (C) and add that to government spending (G), investment spending (I), and  the net exports (X-IM). The formula, GDP=C+G+I+X-IM, shows everything that is taken into account for GDP. For the net exports, they subtract IM because IM represents items being imported to the country and imports don’t affect a country’s GDP since those items aren’t made in that country. Click here to get more help on how to calculate GDP.

So why does this matter? Well, Chrysler moving some of their production over to the USA will help our country’s GDP. These items would be newly produced and would be made in the USA so they would fall under the investment spending category. All the Chrysler cars made in Mexico would be removed from our country’s GDP as they fall under the imports category and would be subtracted out of the equation.  So with Chrysler having production be in both Mexico and the USA, this will both help our GDP and diminish our GDP as the cars are being produced in 2 different countries. Overall, Chrysler moving some production back to the United States is good and will help our country’s GDP.

Works Cited

ACDCLeadership. “Macro Unit 2.6- GDP Deflator Practice AP Macroeconomics.” YouTube, YouTube, 4 Feb. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqm--7s0Ks4.

Fiat Chrysler has six plants in Mexico. “No, Mr. President, Chrysler Isn't Leaving Mexico.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2018/01/29/news/companies/trump-chrysler-mexico-tweet/index.html?iid=hp-grid-dom.

Trump, Donald J. “Our Economy Is Better than It Has Been in Many Decades. Businesses Are
Coming Back to America like Never before. Chrysler, as an Example, Is Leaving Mexico and Coming Back to the USA. Unemployment Is Nearing Record Lows. We Are on the Right Track!” Twitter, Twitter, 28 Jan. 2018, twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/957603804383465472?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet.

Walmart Against Opioids

Walmart Against Opioids

Written by: Jaden Davantes

As retail stores start to lose customers to much more convenient online stores, retail giants like Walmart are struggling to differentiate their products and compete over diminishing demand.  In order to keep customers coming in the doors, stores like Walmart and Target have began implementing things like grocery stores and pharmacies into their stores in order to make shopping at their stores as efficient as possible.  Now, Walmart is going a step further to differentiate their products by incentivizing shoppers to visit the Walmart pharmacy and taking advantage of one of the determinants of demand: changes in tastes and expectations.

 Walmart is offering a free way to get rid of your extra opioids.  A product called DisposeRX can be used to turn pills into biodegradable gel, giving patients an easy way to get rid of pills that could potentially be dangerous.  While opioids are great as prescription medication, if they fall into the wrong hands they can become very dangerous.  According to Senator John Boozman, a third of all medications never end up being used, and according to cdc.gov there were over 42,000 opioid related deaths in 2016, with 40% of these deaths being prescription related.  Walmart offering an opioid disposal method brings even more attention to these problems; when potential customers see that Walmart is offering this new, state of the art method to dispose of your old prescription medication, they’re more likely to look into why they would want this in the first place.  All in all this results in change in the tastes or preference of consumers as Walmart not only brings more light to the opioid crisis, but also offers an easy and convenient solution.  As the first large store to offer this option, Walmart can use this new feature to differentiate their products.

Walmart is an oligopoly, only competing with other superstores like Target Costco and Meijer, so it’s important for them to differentiate their products as much as possible.  As stores that pride themselves on discounts and low prices, Walmart cannot set itself apart based on its brand name, so instead they’re taking steps to make their other features, like their pharmacy stand out.  By bringing attention to a huge problem and then subsequently offering a free and accessible solution, Walmart is offering huge incentives to use their pharmacy over others.  Moving ahead, it’s likely that Walmart’s competitors will also adopt features similar to this, to a point where consumer tastes change so that features such as opioid disposal are not a specialty, but an expectation, but for now, Walmart can take advantage of it to gain a foot up on its competitors.

Works Cited

Han, Courtney. “Walmart Distributing First-of-Its-Kind Opioid Disposal Product.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/US/walmart-distributing-kind-opioid-disposal-product/story?id=52399156.\

“Opioid Overdose.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 23 Oct. 2017, www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/index.html.
www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/walmart-offers-free-opioid-disposal-product.html..

Human Capital Inflation

Human Capital Inflation

Written by: Chris Johnston

Over the past 200 years the average human capital has greatly increased due to the prevalence of education. Human Capital is the value of one’s skills, knowledge, and experience. This inflation of human capital has decreased the individual person’s value and has caused people to need to work to stand out within the workforce. This inflation has been an indicator of america’s progress. The government should subsidize 4-year public institutions and make college free for the people in order to maintain progress

The Bright Side
The literacy rate of the world has increased greatly in the last 200 years. This prevalence of literacy has increased communicative literacy and the AHC. As you can see in the graph below, in the past 200 years, the literacy rate has fallen below 20% and according to ourworlddata.org, the literacy rate in the US reached above 99% in 1969. People are more useful if they can read and it is a basic requirement for joining the workforce.  America is the world’s symbol of freedom and equality. “We can see that two centuries ago only a small elite of the world population had the ability to read and write – the best estimate is that 12% of the world population was literate(Our World In Data).” Education helps fight against inequality, the US government should value it.

The K-12 enrolment rate has also increased. Receiving a basic education increases your human capital and increases supply because one of the determinants of supply is the availability(and usability) of technology. Education increases technology usage skills. Also, the percent of of people completing 4 years of college has increased greatly. A college education increases one’s human capital greatly. All this human capital increases one’s resource product to each potential company and when companies look for potential workers they will search for the ones who have the greatest resource product to the company. Also having a bachelor’s degree can result in one being paid $21,100 more than people with those who don't have a degree(College Board). This increases their purchasing power. The Private and Social Benefits of college are high.

The Enemy of Good Is Better
The downside of this inflation of human capital is that the average person is devalued. There are only so many good jobs and people who don’t have a 4-year college education in a relevant major are looked over for those who do. This increases the demand for higher education and when demand increases, the price of education increases. To exorberant levels. The average price to attend a 4 year University, according to College Board, can be as high as $23,890! Added to the opportunity costs of going to a 4 year university: missed salary of a potential full-time job, missed salary of a potential full-time job after attending a 2 year university. The Private and Social Benefits of College may be high but the Private Cost is high, so the government must subsidize it so it is more affordable.

It’s often necessary for people to attend a four-year college in order to live the life they want to live, therefor, many people can’t afford the life they’d like to live. People are being separated from their dreams, the government must make education affordable in order to unite people with the lives they want.

Works Cited

“120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait” National Center for Education
 Statistics. 2 Jan, 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
“College Costs.” College Board, 2, Jan 2018.
https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/pay-for-college/college-costs/college-costs-faqs

Ortiz-Ospina, Estaban and Roser, Max. “Literacy.” Our World In Data, 2 Jan, 2018.
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy/

The New GOP Tax Plan and Income Inequality

Ian Reinke
Mrs. Straub
AP Economics
14 January 2018

The New GOP Tax Plan and Income Inequality

While we are just about approaching almost a month from the date that President Donald Trump signed into law the GOP tax plan that both the Senate and House had been working on, the discussion of both the positive and negative consequences of this plan continue to be pertinent to both economic and policy-related debate. Both the more liberal and conservative viewpoints present in mainstream politics have had a whole host of things to say about the new tax plan, and as it is something that will affect the lives of millions of Americans I thought it best that we examine the finalized plan more closely. Specifically I plan to analyze the scrutiny that this bill has generated from those advocating more action to be done on the problem of income inequality.

The new law has come under significant scrutiny by those advocating action on the question of income inequality since the very beginning. This is primarily due to the plan including certain provisions that stipulate tax cuts most substantially benefiting those more well-off in our society. Currently, under the previous tax law in effect for 2018, the threshold for the top tax rate bracket is set at those individually making $426,700 a year, and $480,000 for those filing joint as a married couple, and sets their tax rate at 39.6%. The newly passed tax plan not only increases the threshold for those who qualify to be placed in the top income bracket - making it necessary that one makes $500,000 individually, and $600,000 as a joint filing married couple - but also in the process lowers the percentage amount taxed to 37% on these individuals. While it is fair to say that the tax-plan does include provisions for tax cuts across the income spectrum, many critics have pointed out that this plan is supposedly aimed at helping the richer portion of income earners and corporations more than the average American. As in the opinions of many, those making the most money are often the most capable of paying comparatively larger sums of taxes without there being a very substantial effect on their lifestyle and financial situation, the tax cut on the richer portions of the country seems at the least misguided if any substantial progress is to be made concerning the rampant problem of income inequality.

Aside from criticism regarding the decrease of the tax rate on those more well-off in our country, the new plan has also received denunciation for its augmentation of the amount the super-rich can pass on to their heirs due to reforms in the estate tax. Under the previous law, Americans could pass on up to $5.5 million dollars worth of property and assets to their heirs tax-free. Now under the new plan, that amount was doubled to $11 million. As this only affects a very small and super-rich portion of the population, many view this increase in allowance of the amount of assets that can be passed on tax-free to be simply a give-away to those already extremely well-off financially. This is viewed by many to be another root of the persisting problem of why so much wealth is concentrated into so few people in this nation.

Finally the last major criticism that many have pointed out in this new plan has been the amount that it will raise the national deficit by. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan organization that provides budget and economic information to Congress, under the new tax plan the national deficit will raise by over $1.4 trillion dollars in the years to come. This brings into question just how this rise in national debt will affect certain entitlement programs, specifically those tasked with aiding those in poverty and facing personal financial uncertainty. Programs like Medicaid, a health insurance program for the poor, might face comprehensive reform in how and who it is distributed to. While some might view this in a positive light, as entitlements are viewed by many to be in need of reform, many critics have stated that this might lead to more people in dire need of this health insurance ultimately losing coverage. As those without access to adequate healthcare are often more likely to become sick, and thus unable work because of preventable conditions, this disregard for fiscal responsibility, coupled with the elimination of the individual mandate stipulated under the Affordable Care Act, could possibly lead to making the divide between the richer and poorer sections of the country even larger.

As we have analyzed from taking into consideration the ramifications that this new plan could have on the poorer sections of the country, it should be clear as to why many have voiced concerns on the possibility of this new law amplifying the rampant problem of income inequality in our country. While some might argue that overall this plan might possibly benefit the growth of corporations and businesses, I believe it is vital that more consideration be taken into just how we might see this new law play out with those less fortunate.

Works Cited

Long, Heather. “Analysis | The Final GOP Tax Bill Is Complete. Here’s What Is in It.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 15 Dec. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/15/the-final-gop-tax-bill-is-complete-heres-what-is-in-it/?utm_term=.dee8546ce8bc.

Mercado, Darla. “Find Your New Tax Brackets under the GOP Tax Plan.” CNBC, CNBC, 22 Dec. 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/12/15/find-your-new-tax-brackets-under-the-final-gop-tax-plan.html.

New Year’s Eve Toasts

Payton Wolf
AP Econ

New Year’s Eve Toasts

New Year’s Eve does not require nearly as much spending as Christmas or (depending on the person) Valentine’s Day, but there is still much spending for this day. Many people throw parties or small gatherings to watch the countdown on their TV, but some people do more.  “The vast majority of people spend less than $200 each for the festivities, but 9 percent spend as much as $500 and 3 percent spend as much as $1,000 for New Year’s Eve. One percent spend more than $1,000 on the event,” (Stribling). The final 1% is likely spending so much money on travel, while the vast majority of people buy cheap party hats and some appetizers. The most prominent thing people buy for New Year’s Eve is champagne. Champagne is large in demand because of the tradition and social norms

There are no advertisements for champagne, and very little product differentiation (of course, there are some products that are better than others). There are not very many firms in the industry, it the champagne market is a monopolistically competitive. There are some natural barriers of entry in the champagne market, like availability of land, technology, and other capital resources. Because it is monopolistically competitive, the champagne market will likely not make a profit or loss in the long run, and more firms enter or leave the industries as the profit fluctuates. Normal profit is expected. However, in the short run, the changes in social norms and the holiday seasons increase the amount of demand for champagne.

Hand in hand with champagne is sparkling grape juice, the kid-friendly version. Champagne and sparkling grape juice are complements. When someone buys the former, they will likely buy the latter, especially if they have children attending the party. The same trends for champagne can be observed about sparkling grape juice: demand increases during the holiday season. When the demand for champagne increases, so the that for sparkling grape juice.

Champagne is also a luxury; with an increase in income, there is an increase in demand. The income elasticity of demand is positive.. If people are willing to spend over $1,000 on New Years Eve, they are likely willing to spend a lot of money on a bottle of champagne. At times, the more expensive the bottle is, the more in demand it is. An expensive bottle of champagne can symbolize wealth, power, or luxury, and oftentimes people want to give those impressions. Bottles of champagne can range very heavily in price, and the people with larger incomes tend to buy the more expensive bottles, even if that sacrifices taste or quality.

Works Cited

“Champagne and Sparkling Wines For Your 2018 New Year's Party.” Fortune, fortune.com/2017/12/27/champagne-sparkling-wine-2018-new-years-eve/.
“The Comité Champagne.” Champagne.fr, www.champagne.fr/en/comite-champagne/about-us/the-comite-champagne.
Stribling, Dees. “Economy Watch: The Economics of New Year's Eve.” Commercial Property Executive, Commercial Property Executive, 30 Dec. 2016, www.cpexecutive.com/post/economy-watch-the-economics-of-new-years-eve/.
“Welch's Sparkling | A Kid-Friendly New Year's Eve Tradition.” New England Today, 18 Dec. 2017, newengland.com/today/living/new-england-nostalgia/welchs-sparkling-grape-juice/.

The Lebron Effect

The Lebron Effect

Written by: Drew Retherford 

Lebron James is a maestro on the basketball court and does literally everything one player can do;score, pass, rebound, defense, etc. Lebron’s influence on the NBA is a huge factor and it is referred to as the Lebron Effect, which means most-everything in the NBA is a reaction to an action taken by The King, causing the Lebron Effect to be felt far and wide in the league.

For the city of Cleveland the Lebron Effect has been on display, ever since he left Cleveland for Miami, and then returned home in the summer of 2014. However this type of Lebron Effect is rooted in the economics of Cleveland. Cleveland’s local economy has experienced the positive externalities of the Cavaliers organization resigning Lebron James a few years ago. These positive externalities are felt by establishments like the bars and hotels in and around Cleveland. Lebron’s return  increased revenue for 3rd parties like bars and hotels as his presence on the Cavs instantly increased interest in the team, leading to a packed house on game night for bars and more rooms being booked at hotels for visiting fans who are going to games. Bars in close proximity to the stadium, reportedly experienced a 30%-200% increase in revenue after his return. Other establishments such as sports shops selling Lebron merchandise also experienced significant jumps in revenue during his return.

Also, it was originally estimated that Lebron’s return would result in a $500 million boost to the Cleveland economy, while that number was off by quite a margin, the Lebron Effect still brought a 9 figure revenue increase to Cleveland’s economy. Finally let us not forget the Cavalier’s organization, as after The King’s return the average number of occupied seats at game time jumped upwards of 3,000. Proving that a single person can have a tremendous effect on an economy.

With the demand the fans have for Cavalier basketball at an all-time high due to the change in demand which was set in motion by Lebron, it is wise that the organization retain the main attraction, Lebron James. It would mean that the Lebron Effect would continue to positively impact Cleveland and further endear him to the fans, thus the Lebron benefits everyone; Cavaliers, Cleveland, Fans, and Lebron.

Works Cited

“LeBron James means a lot to Cleveland — and its economy” Vox.com, 11 July. 2017,
https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15724252/lebron-james-economic-impact-cleveland-miami.
“LeConomics: Is the economic impact of LeBron James' return to Cleveland more than a feeling?.”www.cleveland.com, 17 Feb  2015. http://www.cleveland.com/cavs/index.ssf/2015/02/lebron_james_cleveland_economi.html.

Changes in America: The Marijuana Revolution

Changes in America: The Marijuana Revolution

Written by: Adam Immel 

Over the past 20 years, the United States has slowly transitioned into a much more liberal and progressive stance of one particular drug; Marijuana is slowly being reassessed from the once extremely potent and radical gateway drug it was perceived as for decades, and is now in much more positive light, mostly in thanks to the medical benefits that an estimated 1.4 million have utilized. More recently, states are now legalizing Cannabis for recreational use, beginning with Colorado passing Colorado Amendment 64 by vote in 2012 (officially legalized in 2014). After subsequent votes in midterms, odd years, and the recent election date on November 8th, 2016America now has 8 states and Washington D.C. with complete legalization, and there’s only more to come. Obviously, it seems that in order for legalization to occur, more than the consumer will benefit. With the decriminalization of Cannabis on the rise, one might want to review the effects on state economies and revenue generated for local governments.

In similar fashion to Tobacco products, local state governments are benefitting from Cannabis sale thanks to taxation. In this report, we will use Colorado as our exemplified state. This state has imposed a 2.9% sales tax on both medical and recreational Marijuana. Since legalization, the results and revenue generated due to the popularity of the product have been astounding.

In a fiscal period that ended on June 30th, 2015, Marijuana tax revenue was at $70,000,000, which was almost double revenue from Alcohol (42 million dollars in same period). And serving as a reminder, Colorado isn’t the only one reaping the benefits. Washington state has seen extremely similar results, and now that California is completely in the game, their enormous economy is only bound to grow. These states GDP is only bound to grow now that a new industry is rising.

Additionally, it’s important to see what fields of funding state governments are aiding with all this money. In the state of Colorado, the generated revenue is being properly allocated to different departments, but the main focus in this state is to benefit the development of schools and education. As described in a government report issued in July of 2015, the first $40 million in excise tax generated was allocated towards the BEST fund, which was created to renew or replace deteriorating public schools. The combined taxes then go on to impact various departments, including the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, the Department of Human Services, and others.
For Prohibitionists, it’s been hard to find a point to argue the negatives to the Marijuana Revolution. Many argued that crime rate would increase, but in the first 5 years in Colorado, that has not been the case. It’s important to understand that the values of American citizens are changing, and that this change in view of individual liberties must also be seen as a gateway towards economic reliefs for governments. If the felony for Marijuana possession were to be lifted, and the Union became completely in accord with legalization, one can imagine the benefits that could be reaped, based upon the changes experienced by progressive states.

Works Cited

"Colorado Now Reaping More Tax Revenue From Pot Than From Alcohol." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.
Maxfield, John. "These 3 Charts Show Why More States Will Soon Legalize Marijuana." The Motley Fool. N.p., 1970. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.
Sullum, Jacob. "Early Lessons From Marijuana Legalization in Colorado." Reason.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.
"Colorado Council ISSUE BRIEF Staff." N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.

Googan Squad

Cameron Maderski
Econ Blog Post
Straub

Googan Squad

When you think about people who fish for a living the only thing that probably comes to mind is Bass Pro Shops or a big bass boat that is covered in sponsors and depending on how much you like the sport you might even know a few pros. Over the past year, a group of YouTubers has put a whole new spin on what it means to be a full-time fisherman. YouTube has allowed a group of 4 guys to
completely change the game by making fishing videos of their own and making their living off of the views and sponsors they get from each video. Each person involved has their own channel but they call their group the Googan Squad and together they have changed the fishing market.

The demand for fishing videos has exploded for the Googan Squad over the past year and the group now has a combined 2.2 million subscribers. They don’t just make how-to videos and it has taken years to grow but the supply of quality fishing/videos is mostly made up of 4 Youtubers. They do not just make their money off of views due to the recent sponsors from Favorite Fishing and Mystery Tackle Box. These two brands help fund for some of their biggest trips and equipment to help them create good content while the promotion featured in their videos supports the businesses themselves. Favorite Fishing is a brand that makes rods and reels and some small accessories and Mystery Tackle Box is a company that sends you a box full of baits every month and the kinds of lures they send can be catered to your style of fishing. They also have videos on how to use the baits they send and some tips to help you out. There is one true adult in the group who is an Army veteran but the other three guys all dropped out of college to chase their dreams and do what they love. The risk truly paid off with the guys all living in a sponsored mansion and currently just got a new line of their own custom fishing rods into Cabelas.

Aside from sponsors and views from their videos, each member of the Googan Squad has started their own individual business in which they create products to solve issues they find while fishing or hunting as well as creating merchandise for their fans. Some of their products include a custom spinning and baitcast combo, fishing backpacks, waterfowl equipment, and clothes like hats shirts jackets and coats. Youtube is not their only source of profit and the greater they grow the more they can expand their resources to keep their consumers and fans happy.
Together a small group of guys was able to create a new demand for youtube by tapping into the fishing community. They also showed they you don’t need to be a pro to become a full-time angler and the inspiration they use in their videos helps them continue to draw in more and more viewers.

Works Cited

“Fishing's Best.” Mystery Tackle Box, mysterytacklebox.com/.
“GOOGAN SQUAD.” Googan Squad, googansquad.myshopify.com/.
“Googan Squad.” YouTube, YouTube, www.youtube.com/channel/UCCdnua4PSRmgmnLVrzICp_Q.
Pilot. “Googan Squad.” Bass Fishing Forums, 2 Mar. 2017, www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/186904-googan-squad/.
“Rods Casting Spinning.” Home Page, favoriteusa.com/.

Oprah 2020?

Sydney Moncada
Economics
1/9/18
Sunday night at the famous Golden Globes, actor and entertainment executive, Oprah Winfrey gives a #MeTooo speech and there is possible speculation that she could be running for President in 2020. Since saying this it has had an effect on her brand and net worth. In Winfrey’s once and a lifetime speech, she speaks up about sexual harassment and abuse because this tends to have become a major topic in her endorsements and investments. Weight Watchers has increased after Oprah bought %10 of the company back in October 2015. The companies shares went up to 12.2% in trading Monday to end at $52.62 up $5.71.

A lot of people are questioning the political view if she ran for president. Her fame would be the number one reason she would be a presidential front-runner. There is a lot of talk how people would just vote for her for being famous, and not for her political views. Back in the 2017 Election, a lot of people voted for Hillary just because she was a women. Not many people looked at her political views nor Donald Trump's, they just wanted to see a women in office. Although, Winfrey meets all three constitutional tests to be eligible for president. Oprah is over 35 years old, she’s a U.S citizen born in the United States and she lived here for more than 14 years. Oprah’s wealth would be an enormous assets just as Trump. Money can be very handy when running for president and giving you that extra bit of “power”. Winfrey’s net worth is $2.8 billion, according to Forbes. Many people who run know what comes with it. Trump more than some have found this out while running for President. When running for president everyone will try to find things out about you that you thought you never even knew or remembered. With knowledge on her past, there is a high risk of embarrassing leaks to inflict maximum damage on her election. We don’t know her views on the economy or her plans for her first 90 days in office but the real question we should all ask is can she do it?


Works Cited:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/01/08/oprahs-golden-globes-speech-weight-watchers/1012668001/
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-2020-oprah-president-20180108-story.html

Trump says "Goodbye" to more than 200,000 Immigrants

Connor Neuman
Trump says goodbye to more than 200,000 immigrants

Immigrants play a significant role in our economy. In fact, about 17% or 27 million of the 160 million people in the American labor force is made up of immigrants from all over the world. However, what if I told you that more than 200,000 people are going to be taken out of that labor force. That is exactly what happened recently when president Trump abolished the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for more than 200,000 immigrants alone from El Salvador and still many more from other countries. Now the real question is if this is the right move to make on an economic standpoint. Although Trump may believe that this was a good decision to make, the abolishment of the TPS for Salvadorans was an extremely poor choice for the economy.

The Temporary Protected Status was a program that temporarily protected immigrants from Central American countries and some Middle Eastern countries from deportation. However, immigrants from El Salvador benefited from this the most since they have a significant amount of immigrants come into the U.S. due to a substantial earthquake there in 2001. As you can see from the graph, immigrants from El Salvador makes up more than 50% of people benefiting from the TPS. A majority of those immigrants are currently living in Los Angeles, Houston, and New York, which are the most populated cities in America. Unfortunately, now that this luxury for Salvadorans was destroyed, they only have one year to leave the U.S. unless they find a legal way to stay.
The main reason why terminating the TPS was a poor choice is that the labor force will take a large toll which will greatly impact our economy. As I mentioned earlier, immigrants make up a huge part in our labor force so if a large amount of them were to leave, then the economy as well as GDP could see a tremendous decrease. Since most immigrants work in manufacturing or construction, the labor force will see a large decrease in the amount of people working in those fields. This would extremely affect our economy since our largest exports are industry and manufacturing so if we were to lose a large amount of employees in those areas, then you would expect to see a decrease in GDP. Additionally, the economy would go into a recession if there was a high unemployment rate, specifically in  industry and manufacturing areas. This would cause the economy to be more expansionary to try and prevent high unemployment. This would force them to decrease reserves, decreases interest rates, and purchase more bonds into order to increase the money supply.
In sum, the abolishment of the TPS will not benefit the U.S. economy whatsoever. In the end, our GDP will most likely decrease which may lead to a recession in our economy. So why would Trump do this? Is it because he doesn’t know the possible long term effects? Or maybe he just doesn’t care, but that is just one problem we need to deal with since he is the president and the boss of this country. All in all, I wish the best the Salvadorans and other nation affected by the extermination of the TPS.

Works Cited
“Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States.” Migrationpolicy.org, 6 Apr. 2017, www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states.
“White House Says 200,000 Salvadoreans Must Leave the US.” BBC News, BBC, 8 Jan. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-42613178.

The Glory of Movies

The Glory of Movies
Jose de Leon
Who doesn’t love going to the movies the average american goes at least once a month. Movie theaters promote growth in the economy. With huge movies such as Star Wars the Last Jedi that made $220 million domestic landing the second largest opening only beatted by Star Wars the Force Awakens that made $247million. With the flow of money going in and the jobs that it produces help the Economy grow.

In california 142,000 jobs are created, which is more than all the other states combined. With this it helps to know that even with something that provides so much entertainment it also fight something that is a huge problem in the US. In addition movies are in good demand. Just as fans could wait for the new Star Wars movie or for Marvel to release The Black Panther movie. Fans are what helping the economy grow by going to go watch the movie that sometime lead to them buying goods with the logo of the movie of something to do with it. Movies don’t just make money by the audience going to go watch them they are part of a bigger part were the incorrage for them to buy product of the movie.
From my last visit to the movie I spent about $90 alone on buying tickets for my family and another $20 on food this is another thing that some of us do. We are so willing to go and watch a movie that we don’t really care about how much it cost at the time and while we are there we are more will to buy the over priced food. With tickets normally costing $12, and popcorn about $6 and a soda goes for around $5 that is a total of $23 per person.
The movies are a fun place to go and relax to for after a long day who doesn’t just want to sit back relax and enjoy, while helping the economy grow. 
“AMC Concession Prices.” Movie Theater Prices, www.movietheaterprices.com/amc-concession-prices/.
Mpaa.org, www.mpaa.org/u-s-film-and-tv-production-drives-economic-growth-in-every-corner-of-america/.
“The Numbers - Movies Released in 2017.” The Numbers - Where Data and Movies Meet, www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/2017.

A Newborn Idea to Fix Wealth Inequality

Andrew Dempsey 

Econ Blog Post 

A Newborn Idea to Fix Wealth Inequality

It is not an unknown fact that when it comes to wealth in the United States it is not equal but when you look into the statistics, even more, they are staggering. In America, the 1% owns 40% of all of America's wealth and the 1% own half of America’s stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. (politizane). This shows how hard it is for the poor, middle class and even the rich to grow their wealth. In fact, Nearly a third of American households now have $0 in wealth, according to Deutsche Bank. This is the worst it has been since the early 1960s when the US government started to keep this statistic. Many economists have been trying to solve the problem of Wealth Inequality but have not concerned it. However, Darrick Hamilton of The New School and William Darity of Duke University has proposed a start to fix this problem. The idea is that to give every newborn in the country a “Baby Bond” account that would range from $500 to $50,000. Neither the parents or the kids would be able to touch the money until the child turns 18. They could then spend the money on college, buying a house or starting a business. “The key ingredient of how successful you will be in America is how wealthy your family is,” Hamilton says and baby bonds are one way to fix the gap. The proposal would give families who are extremely wealthy $500 and families who are extremely poor would receive $50,000. Hamilton says the average middle-class family will receive $20,000. If Baby Bonds were to go through it would not fix the wealth inequality in this country but it could be a good start. 

Many people would be concerned with how the US would fund this program but  Hamilton has an answer for that. Hamilton estimates that Baby Bonds would cost $80 billion a year which is about 2% of America’s $4 trillion in annual federal government spending. If the plan was to go through Hamilton says it will not be implemented for 18 years so that there could be time to build up a budget for Baby Bonds. 

People of color have also struggled to decrease the gap in wealth inequality in that past years. The median net worth for white family households is 10 times greater than a family of color. Hamilton says “People like to argue if only poor black and Latino families were more responsible and made better decisions than inequality could be dramatically reduced,”   but Hamilton shows examples that do not support this. Most college-educated African Americans have less net wealth than whites who dropped out of high school. Having Baby Bonds would help these people do something with their degree out of college. 

Baby Bonds will not fix all of the problems in wealth inequality but it is worth looking into. With people who are under 55 having less wealth than in past generations, it shows how the middle class is falling behind today and needs a change. This could be one of many solutions to get back on track.  

Works Cited 

Long, Heather. “Economist Proposes Giving Every US Baby $20,000 or More.” Economist Proposes Giving Every US Baby $20,000 or More, 8 Jan. 2018, www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/economist-proposes-giving-every-us-baby-dollar20000-or-more/ar-BBI7yhb.

politizane. “Wealth Inequality in America.” YouTube, YouTube, 20 Nov. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM.

 

New Years Extravaganza

Sammy Lee
Economics
Mr. Reuter
1/2/2018

New Years Extravaganza

Ever since the New Year’s ball drop tradition started in 1907 in Times Square, New Years festivities have not only gained a bigger crowd, earned more profits, and provided more employment, but it has also become a greater part of our culture. The ball has dropped 107 times except for 1942 and 1943 when the ceremony was suspended due to WWII “dimout” lighting restrictions in New York City. The number of people that watch the ball drop from a tv is over one billion across the globe, and 1,000,000+ are expected to be in Times Square on New Year’s Eve this year. Ever since the beginning New Years is a very influential day for our economy because of the profit, employment, and attendance that takes place annually.

Times Square is universally known as a high population area and when people picture Times Square they see bright lights and advertisements all around them. Advertising is one of the main money incomes for that area all year. “It costs between $1.1 and $4 million a year to buy advertising space in Times Square, and many of the electronic billboards feature flashy lights, high-definition LED displays and catchy graphics in order to capture the attention of the people walking below” (Investopedia). Those who purchase the billboard spaces not only get to show their ads to about 50,000 people every day, but to over 1 million on New Years eve night. This is a very large cost but the profit that is made it outweighs that cost. This advertising payment isn’t the only large payment in New York. It is said, but not confirmed, that if there was a number value on it the annual ball drop costs over $1 million each year alone.

Because of the world renowned New Years celebration over a hundred jobs are created just to keep the event running; therefore, boosting employment. It takes people to build the ball. It takes people to clean up the 3,000+ pounds of confetti throughout the city, and the 48 tons of garbage left on the streets. Even with hundreds of people working to clean the city it takes an average of 7 hours to reopen the streets. There were “178 sanitation workers using 26 mechanical sweepers, 25 collection trucks, 38 blows and 40 hand brooms to tidy up Times Square” (6sqft). These are the obvious economic benefits, but there are 2,688 Waterford crystals in the ball, and they’re made in Ireland and then shipped into the US. This creates imports and connections between other countries.

All in all, New Years celebrations may be a lot of fun, but New Years is a very worthwhile event for our economy due to the profit, employment, and attendance. With all the jobs it’s created and the profit being made at this time, it has a positive impact on our economy.



Works Cited

Pham, Diane. “New Year's Eve in numbers: Facts for the Times Square ball drop.” 6sqft, 26 Dec. 2017, www.6sqft.com/new-years-eve-in-numbers-fun-facts-about-the-times-square-ball-drop/.
“Times Square Ball.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 31 Dec. 2017,
“The Times Square Ball Drop and the Story Behind this New Year's Eve Tradition.” America Comes Alive, 27 Dec. 2017, americacomesalive.com/2013/12/29/the-times-square-ball-drop-and-the-story-behind-this-new-years-eve-tradition/.
CBS/AP. “New Year's Eve revelers flock to see Times Square ball drop.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 31 Dec. 2017, www.cbsnews.com/news/new-years-eve-revelers-flock-to-see-times-square-ball-drop-mariah-carey/.

Post-Christmas Sales

Post-Christmas Sales
Lexi Blaser

After Christmas is the time for retailers to quickly exchange their holiday decor for sale signs to advertise the new big sales to wrap up the december necessities. Retail stores are seeking to increase the demand for the remaining products they have in stock in hopes to clean out the supply, and then be able to restock for the new sale seasons in the future. Also, 38% of Americans agree this is a time for all holiday shoppers to return or purchase items they may have or did not received over the holidays. Overall, the days following Christmas are known for the determined shoppers that are seeking to obtain the items they desire, and with the help of post holiday sales, it is deceivingly believed that these products may be obtained.

What most consumers that shop on the few days after Christmas do not understand is that these sale opportunities come with opportunity cost; by anxiously needing to purchase an item you did not receive on Christmas, reality is that by purchasing this item, you are not receiving the quality you paid for. Sales presented by companies can be deceiving due to the advertisements of the cheap quality purchases that can be made, but the trade-offs can be significant. When purchasing sale products, these products are not of the quality they are believed to be; most companies trick you into purchasing items that may be old, overstock, soon on the clearance list, turnaround gift return/exchanges, items not in the correct size or products not in the best shape (lifewire.com). But once purchases are made, there is no going back to return because most items are considered “final sales”. The crazed holiday spirit is used against consumers, supporting the total amount per American to be spent on December 26th to be near $186, rather than conserving the money the have gotten on Christmas, they are drawn into spending it because an item was “on sale”.

Companies rely on the few days after christmas to increase december sales and create a larger profit. It is looked upon as a competitive time between companies to see who can get rid of the most sale items, and then quickly transfer into their next sales season. This attraction has been proven to be similar to Black Friday. As shown in the graph, sales present on December 26th are slightly greater than sales present on Black Friday. As explained by forbes.com, compared to the 45% of Americans to shop on Black Friday, 66% are predicted to shop on December 26th. Proving the effect these manipulative post-Christmas sales have on consumers.

Next time you're seeking those post holiday sale, take the time to analyze the products you're purchasing and the quality of the sale. In the end, retail companies are using these sales to their benefit, and tricking consumers to use their money to help support their efforts to become a primary company of consumption.


Leinbach-Reyhle, Nicole. “The Day After Christmas May Surpass Black Friday In Sales And Success This Holiday Season.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Dec. 2015, www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleleinbachreyhle/2015/12/18/new-black-friday/#23d44ef22054.

Montaldo, Donna L. “Score Deep Discounts at After-Christmas Sales.” The Balance, www.thebalance.com/after-christmas-sales-rush-4120601.

Silva, Robert. “After-Christmas Sales and Clearance Shopping Tips.” Lifewire, www.lifewire.com/clearance-after-christmas-sales-1845695.

How Trump’s Tax Plan Affects The Economy

Patrick Cullen

Mrs. Straub 

AP Economics

1 January 2018

How Trump’s Tax Plan Affects The Economy

Just over a week ago, President Trump signed off on a new tax plan for the nation. The two main impacts of the bill are that the income tax on the average consumer will fall and standard deduction will double. Though the income tax will be falling and inevitably enhance consumer confidence, the doubling of standard deduction will negatively impact other markets such as the real estate industry. So does the new tax plan negatively affect the market or will it help improve it? There are clearly both benefits and drawbacks to this new plan, so let’s review them more closely. 

The first of the two main impacts is the cut on the income tax rates. Every employed working class american contributes to the income tax. It is probably one of the most bitter taxes that americans pay considering it takes away from our well earned money, so many of America’s consumers will be quite excited to see that they will acquire a bit more revenue due to the bill. This is not only good for the individual consumers, but also for the market as a whole. In an article about consumer confidence during holiday shopping, Mark Tepper wrote, “So far, holiday spending has been strong, which bodes well for the strength of the consumer. In November alone, retail sales were up 5.8 percent year over year, and Mastercard is projecting that we'll see the strongest holiday season sales growth since 2010, which should surpass 5 percent year-over-year growth”(Tepper). This shows that the lowered income tax instilled on consumers will give them more of an incentive to buy and bring more money into certain markets. This is a prime example of how the tax bill will benefit the overall economy.

Though the income tax will be falling and inevitably enhance consumer confidence, the doubling of standard deduction will negatively impact other markets such as the real estate industry. Most everyone has budget no matter how high or low for annual necessities and expenses. When the price goes up for something then the opportunity cost of purchasing it is that you have less money to spend on something else that you may need. What this does is hurts the market of that other potential product that you could have bought because it takes revenue away. The doubling of standard deduction does just this. In an article about the effects of the new plan, Kimberly Amadeo wrote, “The National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors opposed this. As more taxpayers take a standard deduction, fewer would take advantage of the mortgage interest deduction”(Amadeo). This shows a negative impact because the doubling of the standard deduction will cause consumers to not take advantage of other deductions in markets such as real estate. The doubling of deduction is a negative externality to the real-estate market.

Overall the plan is supposed to benefit our overall economy, but you can’t make progress without drawbacks. The plan will benefit your average consumer because it will give the consumers more incentive to buy due to the income tax cuts. On the other hand there will also be a drawback to the increase in deductions. So even though it is going to benefit the average consumer, it negatively affects certain industries.

Works Cited

Amadeo, Kimberly. “What to Do Now to Prepare for Tax Changes”. The Balance. Web. 1 Jan. 2017. https://www.thebalance.com/trump-s-tax-plan-how-it-affects-you-4113968

Tepper, Mark. “The consumer has never been stronger, and this could just be the beginning”.CNBC.Web1 Jan. 2017. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/the-consumer-has-never-been-stronger-and-this-could-just-be-the-beginning.html

Charging into LA

Michael Miosi
Mrs. Straub
AP Econ
1/3/18

Charging into LA

Going into the 2016 season the Chargers future was an uncertain one. Qualcomm Stadium, the teams home at the time, was one of the oldest and most outdated stadiums in the league and its location 15 minutes outside the city of San Diego was less than ideal. For these reasons, the team was in a standoff with the local government to try and build a downtown stadium to host the team for the future. Though many proposals made it to a vote, they failed to convince the citizens of San Diego that it was worth. The largest factor leading to the failed vote was, of course, the tax increase that would have befallen local citizens. See, when new stadiums are being built the team will contribute large sums of money but a large portion of it falls to the consumers almost as if the stadium itself is a tax and through Tax Incidence, the supplier (the team) picks up a portion and the consumers (local citizens) do as well. These many failed attempts at trying to strike a deal with San Diego eventually began to cause the Chargers organization to feel as though the city did not value or appreciate their presence. The proposal that fell through in mid-2016 was the straw that broke the camel's back. In January 2017 team owner Dean Spanos announced that the team had exhausted their time in San Diego and were to move to Los Angeles the following season where they would piggyback on the Rams new stadium deal and share the Carson city stadium set to be completed in 2019. While LA is a huge market with tons of potential, the move has raised many questions as to if it was the right decision. The divorce with San Diego was a bitter one which turned off a large portion of the team's pre-move fan base. Further, while in San Diego, the team controlled a Natural Monopoly over professional football the team will have to split that market with the Los Angeles Rams for as long as the teams remain in the city resulting in an Oligopoly. This will lead to whatever team is superior at the time to gain a majority control over the LA football market. Throughout the 2017 season, this proved to be very true. The Rams, who had a breakout year and are one of the hottest teams in the NFL boasted a fairly run of the mill total attendance at home games of 507,136 total attendees. The Chargers, on the other hand, had an average season which caused attendance to be way down, the lowest in the league, in fact, coming in at a total home attendance of 202,687 total attendees, this number is over 220,000 less than the next lowest attended home team the Cincinnati Bengals. While of course, this being the teams first season in LA and they’re in a temporary stadium are strongly contributing to this extremely low number the concern simply cannot be ignored despite the massive potential of the LA market. Reasons stated in this post as well as many others lead all of us to question. Was the charge into LA really the right direction for the franchise?

Works Cited

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/attendance.htm