Saving our Earth can Better our Economy

Saving our Earth, Can Better our Economy
By: Gabi Natalizio

We talk a lot about how we can save our planet, from following basic recycling procedures, to reducing the use of plastic straws. However, these small steps can’t have as big of an impact if we don’t all work together. For years we have been relying on our government and other environmental groups to pull the weight in saving the Earth, but despite their best efforts we continue to see our environment worsen.

Back in 1972, the first global conference on human environment took place and concluded the economic acceleration has been moving faster than the environment ministers are able to protect our planet (weforum.org). Don’t get me wrong, having a fast past economy is not a total loss, however losing our resources to keep up with the protection of our world does come as a bad thing. The movement since then has been working in attempt to build up our environment protection to match the pace of our economy, and this revolution continues to be in work today. In collaboration with shaping both our economy and environment, the “Sustainable Development Impact Summit” are binding businesses to a common purpose of reaching earth and economy targets by creating smart, clean industrial production throughout companies nationwide.


Through this new development, we boost our economy by creating more technological advanced software for companies that have been creating high pollution and other unfriendly environment factors. These advancements not only create new opportunities for job placement, but also contribute to our GDP growth and increasing our market share with other countries. From an economic standpoint, building new and stronger connections with other countries allows more opportunities for trading of other resources we may not have as accessible. Also, when these developments show a strong environmental increase in our country, we can hopefully continue to expand through to other countries to once again rebuild our Earth as a whole. Yes, these products can help improve the United States but it is even more impactful if we can sell to other countries giving a larger benefit for everyone.

For years we have lived through the misconception that building our economy means killing our planet or vice versa. However, what has recently been recognized is that we are able to improve both factors at the same time. In some economies the internet accounts for 3.4% of overall GDP (weforum.org). Having an advancement in not only our technology but also in a way to improve our environment is projected to boost the GDP substantially. The Sustainable Development Impact Summit says, “by unleashing these new forms of innovation, which are intent on delivering the global targets and unlocking new, sustainable forms of economic value on the way, we can save the Earth by 2030” (weforum.org). Now that is one goal I believe we can all get on board with. Saving our Earth? Yes. While ALSO improving our economy? Absolutely. With that in mind, continue to recycle and reduce your plastic use, but just know there are bigger plans set to make the difference us individuals can’t make alone.



Works Cited
Juniper, Tony. “Why the Economy Needs Nature | Tony Juniper.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Jan. 2013, www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2013/jan/09/economy-nature.

Kvochko, Elena. “Five Ways Technology Can Help the Economy.” World Economic Forum, www.weforum.org/agenda/2013/04/five-ways-technology-can-help-the-economy/.

US Department of Commerce, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “What Can I Do to Protect Coral Reefs?” NOAA's National Ocean Service, 10 Aug. 2009, oceanservice.noaa.gov/ocean/earthday.html.

Waughray, Dominic Kailash Nath, et al. “We Can Save the Earth. Here's How.” World Economic Forum, www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/we-can-save-the-earth-heres-how/.

Should Gas Prices be Lowered?

Should Gas Prices be Lowered?

By Taylor Weisensel

People spend about $2,000 a year to fill up their gas tanks. Not only that, but the price of gas is always changing. For example, one day I passed Kwik Trip and the price  for gas was about $2.75 a gallon and then the next time I passed Kwik Trip, it was about $2.99 a gallon. We also hear our parents talk about how gas was about 50 cents a gallon when they were kids; so, we can see how much the price of gas has varied throughout the years. With that being said, gas prices should be lowered and stay at the same price and not vary between different prices.

One reason gas prices should be lowered is because it affects the supply and demand of the gas company. According to a website called “Eia”, “factors on the supply-side that affect prices include natural gas production, net imports, and underground storage levels. Increases in supply tend to pull prices down, while decreases in supply tend to push prices up.” The reason gas stations up their prices is because of the decrease in supply of gas. there’s so many gas companies there shouldn’t be a problem with being able to supply gas. In order to keep gas at a lower rate, we need to have gas companies keep on supplying gas so that the price of gas doesn’t increase.

From the graph on the right, we can see that gas prices have increased throughout the years and then started to slowly decrease. This is due to the fact that there was a lot of gas supplied in the earlier years because there wasn’t as many drivers out on the roads. We see in 2012 that the prices increased the most and that was because there was a lack of supply in gas, but then they got more supply years after and the prices started to drop again.

Another reason why gas prices should be lowered is because it's something that everyone who drives a car relies on. If they run out of gas and they can’t afford more, how will they get places? According to “Debate.Org”, gas prices should be lowered because as a nation that depend on gas on a daily basis, it's important to keep the cost reasonable. That just ensures that everyone is able to afford gas.

Prices should also be lowered because people feel that they are wasting their money on gas and it isn’t allowing them to be able to pay for other necessities that they need to live. According to “Debate.Org”, someone said that gas should be lowered because people spend too much money on gas, which make it a bit harder for them to buy food and rent. Some families already struggle to put food on the table for their family and provide them with shelter, let alone having to spend 2,000 dollars on gas annually. If gas could be free, that would save so many people money, but it can’t be because then the people working at those gas companies wouldn't earn a profit. However, they can work to make gas a reasonable price so people aren’t spending 2,000 dollars on gas every year.

Overall, gas prices should be lowered because there’s enough gas to be supplied to keep it at a lower price. It also should be lowered because it's something that everyone who has a car needs to use, so it's is a necessity for those who do have cars and people shouldn’t have to pay large amounts for things that are necessities.

Works Cited
Bradford, Harry, and Harry Bradford. “How Much Americans Spend On Gas Every Year [GRAPHIC].” HuffPost, HuffPost, 4 Mar. 2012, www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-prices-infographic_n_1316919.

Folger, Jean. “How Gas Prices Affect The Economy.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 12 Mar. 2019, www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0511/how-gas-prices-affect-the-economy.aspx.

“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” What Are the Major Factors Affecting Natural Gas Prices? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=43&t=8.

“Should Gas Prices Be Lowered?” Should Gas Prices Be Lowered? | Debate.org, www.debate.org/opinions/should-gas-prices-be-lowered.

How will the Notre Dame Cathedral Fire Affect the French Economy?

How Will the Notre Dame Cathedral Fire Affect the French Economy?
By: Rudrani Suttar

 Earlier this week, one of France’s most popular historical destinations, the Notre Dame, caught on fire. After the flames were extinguished, the Notre Dame lost its iconic spire, over 100 meters of original wooden detailing, and hundreds of years of history, architecture, religion, and art. Though it is easy to see the sentimental loss caused by the fire, what will the impact of this tragedy be upon the French economy?

Notre Dame is one of Europe’s most popular tourist destinations, bringing in around twelve million tourists a year. By being such an important tourist attraction, it stood as one of the most important destinations for many small businesses around the cathedral. Due to the fire, the cathedral will most likely be closed to the public, strongly affecting those surrounding small businesses by a decrease in consumer spending at those smaller businesses. There will be a decrease in consumer spending because the effect of the cathedral closing will limit the number of tourists entering the area. Conversely, the change will most likely be minimal as the cathedral is located near various other tourist destinations such as the Sainte-Chapelle.

Though this tragedy may negatively affect the small businesses surrounding the Notre Dame Cathedral, the fire may have positive effects on the fire safety industry as well as industries focusing on structural engineering. Due to the fire, caretakers of historical artifacts will shift their focus to preventing such a tragedy from happening again, affecting innovation regarding fire safety. To further prevent an atrocity such as this from happening again, there will be more of a demand for structural engineers to find ways to reinforce historical landmarks to guard against disasters. Such a demand may increase the job demand for engineers and strengthen job security for currently employed engineers. There will also be a demand for workers in the trades and historians, as the rebuilding of Notre Dame will require many more workers to restore the building to historical accuracy.

Though an increase in jobs may be a positive effect of the fire, the cost of rebuilding will offset it greatly. French president Emmanuel Macron has stated that the Notre Dame will be rebuilt in the next five to six years. This will be a very expensive undertaking, but has already received pledges of aid from various major corporations. “Francois-Henri Pinault, whose Artemis holding company owns a controlling stake in Kering, pledged 100 million euros ($113 million), while Bernard Arnault, chair of LVMH, gave 200 million euros,” (CNBC). Many other corporations such as Disney, Apple, and Air France, have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to help rebuild the famous cathedral. Though tragic, this event has managed to unite the great corporations of France and form a source of societal connection across the world.



Works Cited
Handley, Lucy, and Isabel Soisson. “Apple Joins French Firms in Pledging Millions to Rebuild Notre Dame after Fire.” CNBC, CNBC, 16 Apr. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/04/16/notre-dame-fire-louis-vuitton-and-gucci-owners-give-over-300-million.html.

Hickey, John, and John Hickey. “Notre Dame Fire like the Burning of the Library of Alexandria, Historian Says.” Berkeley News, 17 Apr. 2019, news.berkeley.edu/2019/04/15/notre-dame-fire-a-loss-to-the-french-that-americans-cant-completely-visualize/.

Oliver, David. “Notre Dame Cathedral: What You Need to Know If You're Planning to Visit Paris.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 17 Apr. 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/04/16/notre-dame-cathedral-paris-tourist-information/3482294002/.

“Rebuilding Notre Dame Cathedral: Heart-Breaking Costs of a Catastrophic Fire.” CCN, 16 Apr. 2019, www.ccn.com/cost-rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-catastrophic-fire.

“Travel Industry Reacts to Notre Dame Cathedral Fire.” TravelPulse, www.travelpulse.com/news/destinations/travel-industry-reacts-to-notre-dame-cathedral-fire.html.

Valle, Gaby Del. “Notre Dame Is One of Paris's Most Visited Landmarks. Here's What the Fire Could Mean for the City.” Vox, Vox, 16 Apr. 2019, www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/4/16/18410667/notre-dame-fire-paris-tourism.

Brexit

Brexit
Written by: Tommy M.

The fight over Brexit has cost the Prime minister her job, created intense political divisions within the country, and has undermined Britain's reputation with the E.U. as well as the rest of the world. The U.K. made the decision to leave the E.U. in a referendum held in 2016 and now parliament is trying to figure out the best way to go about the exit without hurting the Economy. Hard brexiteers believe that the U.K. should crash out of the E.U. with no transition period and no cushioning. The evidence is clear however that a hard brexit would devastate the economy and cause massive turmoil.

To understand Brexit we first have to understand what the E.U. is and why the U.K. leaving is such a big deal. The E.U. is an economic and political partnership made up of mostly European countries that formed following WW2. The original goal was to intertwine markets and allow countries to easily trade amongst each other as they would then be less likely to go to war. It has slowly morphed to become a single market which means that goods and services can move around Europe as if it were one Country.

The big concern for the U.K. is that leaving the E.U. without a transition plan would cause tariffs on imports into the U.K., and would disrupt the flow of imports causing shortages of food and medicine. To put it bluntly; a no deal brexit, that is a brexit without a transition plan, would spell disaster for the Country. 

U.K. industries that rely on exports would see a significant loss in business caused by an increase in tariffs on goods being exported to other E.U. countries. The Foreign auto industry, for example, is a large part of the UK's economy however brexit would cause the price of exporting these vehicles to skyrocket leading to a higher price tag.

Imports would also see an increase in tariffs as well as new regulations on goods and services which would mean imports would have to pass more tests and take longer to get into the country. In the short run, the government fears this would cause shortages of food, specifically fresh produce, and medicine. 

To negate these effects, those who oppose a hard brexit have offered to negotiate a permanent customs union with the E.U. after brexit. This would allow the U.K. to regain control of its trade policies while also ensuring that there would be no shortages of food or medicine, and would ensure employment doesn’t significantly decrease.

Moving forward it is impossible to know which route the U.K. will decide to take. However it is very clear which route is the safest bet for their economy. Most experts and economists have endorsed a soft brexit for the simple reason that a hard brexit would clearly devastate the U.K.

Should the Fed Try to Prevent the Next Recession?

Should the Fed Try to Prevent the Next Recession?
Grace Kaderavek

The U.S. economy is continuing to thrive; the unemployment rate remains low at 3.8% while the CPI is a mere 0.4 (“United States”). This means consumers and producers are confident and our economy is growing. However, many economists are predicting that a recession could strike at any time because of where we are in the business cycle. With “the economy on track to grow at its fastest pace since 2005,” the U.S. is clearly in the expansion phase, also shown on the graph to the right; this means we could potentially hit a peak soon, leading to an eventual downturn (Chokshi). With this possibility in mind, should the Fed begin precautionary measures to prevent a future recession? Or should monetary policy be used only when an economic downturn has actually begun?

The first thing to consider when thinking about preventative measures is that just because we are growing now, does not mean that the growth has to end anytime soon. In fact, Dr. Stevenson, an economics expert, claims that expansionary periods have no time limit and recessions only occur when there is a shock to the economy (Chokshi). Therefore, people may simply be crying wolf when it comes to the idea of a recession in the very near future. This is especially true because “the lowest unemployment rate in 50 years has forced companies to boost wages and benefits” over the last few quarters (Bartash). These increases, in turn, lead to increased consumer spending and continued prosperity in the U.S. economy. None of these indicators, time or consumer confidence, therefore point to the economy being on the brink of a downturn.

Even so, the idea of a recession cannot be entirely discounted. Before the last two recessions the household wealth and income ratio greatly increased, as the numbers became a lot closer. As shown in the graph to the left, the distance between the two curves is currently decreasing steadily, which may point to another recession in the near future; however, it must also be acknowledged that there have been times in the past when the curves intersect and no recession occured, as seen in July of 2005 (Elizald). Therefore, it is difficult to determine how much weight this ratio actually holds in predicting recessions, and if it should be used to justify preventative monetary policy.
When taking all of this into account, it becomes very clear that predicting a recession can be nearly impossible. A New York Times Article discussing the possibility of a recession readily admits that, in general, the Fed and legislators are notoriously bad at determining when an economic downturn will hit (Chokshi). While the two can effectively remedy a recession through monetary and fiscal policy respectively, it is nearly impossible to actually prevent one. This difficulty is not only because of lack of awareness however. Preventing a recession is difficult now especially because interest rates have not reached their pre-Great Recession levels; this means that they cannot, at this point, be significantly lowered to stimulate growth. Additionally, if precautions were put into place, consumer confidence will fall. If U.S. citizens feel as if another recession is on the way, it may actually cause a recession or act as a catalyst for one. This is because consumers, as well as companies, will act according to future expectations; therefore, undertaking expansionary policy may be the worst choice for the government or the Fed to make at this point in the business cycle.

Taking all of this into account, I do not believe it is in the economy’s best interest to use preventative monetary or fiscal policy. Once a recession does hit, it is then the Fed’s and the government’s responsibility to step in; until then, the U.S. should continue to enjoy its economic boom without worrying about a downturn that could occur in a matter of months or years.

Watch this video for more information about the next U.S. recession, and when the experts predict it will happen.

Works Cited

Bartash, Jeffry. “Economy Stumbled out of the Gate in Early 2019 but Finished Stronger, GDP to Show.” MarketWatch, 22 Apr. 2019, www.marketwatch.com/story/the-us-economy-wasnt-so-bad-in-the-first-quarter-after-all-gdp-likely-to-show-2019-04-22.

Chokshi, Niraj. “What Is a Recession, and Why Are People Talking About the Next One?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 17 Dec. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/business/economy/what-is-recession-facts-history.html.

Elizalde, Raul. “Another Warning That A 2019 Recession Is Coming.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 18 Dec. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/raulelizalde/2018/12/17/another-warning-that-a-2019-recession-is-coming/#7124694ed8f3.

“United States Economy at a Glance.” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm.

Are Professional Sports Rigged?

Are Professional Sports Rigged?
Patrick Bernauer

Professional sports, whether it’s Baseball, basketball, or even football are known as a huge moneymaker all over the country. Has it ever occurred to you that these highly popular events are rigged or even staged for the money? This is more feasible in both basketball and baseball than football because of the 7 game series playoff schedule where more than one game is needed to decide the winner. When you think back to recent playoffs in both sports it seems that these series always go to the sixth or seventh game, which is why it could quite possibly be rigged. Overall I believe that the NBA and MLB are both rigged in order to help their organizations gain a better following and make as much money as they possibly can.

Now you may be saying, “It’s because the teams are even and they have exactly the same skill”. False. In the NBA the Golden State Warriors have made it to the finals 4 years in a row and every year the series has gone farther than it needs to besides this last year with them being much better than the opposing Cavaliers. This is also seen in the MLB where in the past 5 years the World Series has gone to 7 games 3 out of the last 5 years. Not only would the foundation make much more money by having more games in the series but this also causes there to be more demand to see the sport when it comes down to the last game. This makes ticket prices higher and again increases the revenue. Both the MLB and NBA could be guilty of rigging their organizations.

When you look at these foundations from a business aspect you really realize how much money the teams are losing by limiting the number of games played. According to fortune.com, the NBA is losing about 80 million dollars per finals game they do not play because of a sweep. This is just the amount that the NBA is losing and does not take into account the amount that each team loses along with the additional money that is poured into the venue where it is held. According to stat.UNC.edu, the World Series has gone to a game seven 38 percent of the time the World Series has been held. This is almost 40 percent of the World Series that have occurred and allows for the MLB to take full advantage of as much money as they can make. Just from ticket prices for 1 game they would be losing about 62,000,000 dollars because of a sweep which is an outrageous amount of money.
Not only are these sports organizations losing lots of money, but they are also losing publicity which increases there demand to see the games that they put on. If a series continued to only go to game 4 and game 5 and was a blowout every time, the demand to see these games would diminish and people would no longer want to watch the sport. By continuing to put the game on the line and go until game 7 it creates more attention to each game and the public demands more of it. It also makes the games more entertaining and people are willing to pay more to see them. Not only do more games help drive the prices up for each game but they are also helpful in keeping people entertained and gaining more and more of an audience.
Overall The MLB and NBA are both missing out on more money than most people can think about when there are fewer games played in the playoffs at the end of each season. Thinking that such high caliber organizations would rig or set up their games I sickening and hard to believe but when you look at the numbers it’s hard to believe they would pass up such a large sum of money. In conclusion, I believe both the NBA and MLB are rigged in some way in order to create more publicity and an overall higher revenue for their programs.


Works Cited
“Breaking Down the Cleveland Cavaliers' 5 Best Moments of 2018.” Cavaliers Nation, 31 Dec. 2018, cavaliersnation.com/2018/12/31/cleveland-cavaliers-memories-2018/.

“Here's How Much Money ABC & the NBA Make with an NBA Finals Game 7.” Fortune, fortune.com/2016/06/18/nba-finals-game-7-abc-profit/.

“How Much Does It Cost to Attend a 2018 World Series Game?” Yahoo! Sports, Yahoo!, sports.yahoo.com/much-cost-attend-2018-world-series-game-170811459.html.

“List of NBA Champions.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBA_champions.

“List of World Series Champions.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Series_champions.

Parker, Tim. “The Economics Of Postseason Baseball.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 12 Mar. 2019, www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1012/the-economics-of-postseason-baseball.aspx.

“Spring Training - Los Angeles Dodgers at Texas Rangers.” Vivid Seats, www.vividseats.com/mlb-baseball/los-angeles-dodgers-tickets.html.

How the 2020 Olympics will affect Tokyo's Economy

How the 2020 Olympics will affect Tokyo’s economy
Ariana De La Cerda

The Olympics, as many may know, are international sporting events featuring both summer and winter sports events. They feature thousands of athletes from around the world, and they participate in a variety of competitions ranging from basketball and tennis to swimming and rowing. It’s an amazing spectacle to witness, and trust me when I say MANY people witness this event. According to People, during the last Olympic games held in Rio, 3.6 billion people tuned in worldwide to watch on the television; along with this number, 7.5 million tickets would be sold to accomodate for the large rush of fans and spectators from around the globe. This was just the last Olympics, only 3 short years ago. With the increased social media presence, advertisements through different platforms, and the anticipation of the next games, the Olympics bring in positive influences on a city, along with negative influences as well.

At first, the Olympics will provide some short term excitement and new found revenue. During the time of the games, a lot of income is displayed: People rent out hotel rooms, buy merchandise related to the spectacle, eat and drink in new spots around the city, and engage in different amusement and recreational activities. With the Olympics only lasting a total of 16 days, this is just over 2 weeks of additional income to a country. While this is positive for a short time, it quickly gets followed up with more issues. This large increase in profit is imperative to pay back the $11.5 million it takes to host the Olympics itself. Then, after the games are all over, the city still has long term issues to face. When looking at the long term effects of Rio in 2016, James McBride states how even as long as a year after the games, “the city still struggles with debt incurred, maintenance costs for abandoned facilities, underequipped public services, and rising crime as candidate cities for future games withdraw their bids or scale down their plans.” This leaves possible hosting countries to be careful about deciding whether or not they would want to host this event; yes, it will bring in short-lived and well remembered successes, but the long-term most sustainable developments must not be ignored.

After looking at some statistics from the previous Olympic games, it is now imperative to look at how Tokyo, the next host, may be affected by this event as well. In just over a year, the Olympic games will resume once again in Japan’s capital, and will once again bring in the many spectators and athletes from around the world. While the Olympics in the past have often brought many issues, the projection towards Tokyo looks pretty optimistic as of now. According to Akira Fuse, the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo could very well offer a temporary boost to Japan’s economy as a whole. There are two fields that could see a change for the better: Increase in infrastructure spending and growth in inbound tourism. Due to all the need for repairments and refurbishments in the city, the GDP is expected to rise anywhere from 0.4%-0.6%. This increase in GDP shows the economy is increasing production rates, while also showing an increase in income as well. Along with this comes the general short-term benefits expressed earlier, which are often referred to as the 7 sectors: Construction, Cement, Housing, Transportation, Security, Media, and Electronics. (Matsuura). These elements, overall, will strengthen the Japanese economy, and will show improvement across the board.

While the previously mentioned long term effects may have harmed other host cities in the past, the future for Tokyo looks bright as of now. They will see developmental improvements throughout the city, and will look to build off of the newly obtained revenue. While they will most likely experience some long term negative impacts, the outlook as of now is positive.



Works Cited

Fuse, Akira. “Tokyo 2020: The Olympic effect on Japan equity investors.” The Capital Group Companies Inc. Apr 26, 2018, https://www.capitalgroup.com/europe/capitalideas/article/tokyo-olympic-effect.html

Matsuura, Hisao. “How will hosting the 2020 Olympics affect Japan?” Nomura, Sep. 2018, https://www.nomuraconnects.com/focused-thinking-posts/how-will-hosting-the-2020-olympics-affect-japan/

McBride, James. “The Economics of Hosting the Olympic Games.” Council on Foreign Relations, Jan 19, 2018, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/economics-hosting-olympic-games

Pearl, Diana. “4,900 Medals and 6,000 Hours of TV: The Rio Olympics by the Numbers.” People, Aug 3, 2016, https://people.com/sports/rio-olympics-2016-facts-by-the-numbers/

How did Zion Williamson's Injury affect the Economy?

How did Zion Williamson’s Injury Affect the Economy
Taylor Jilot

Zion Williamson is a very popular name in college basketball, if not the most popular college basketball player.  In one of his most important regular-season games against the University of North Carolina Zion wore Nike Paul George 2.5s.  36 seconds into the game he stepped wrong and blew out his shoe.  This might not sound like a big deal, but Nike, the biggest athletic shoe company in the world, lost 1.6% of their stocks from this injury.  1.01% of this drop came from just the next afternoon following this injury.  For a company that generates over $100 million dollars a day, 1.6% is a lot of money.  The image below is a graph of the stocks of Nike in the past year.  There is one huge drop, this is the day after Zion destroyed his shoe.  Some but very few amounts of people were hesitant to rely on Nike as much as they used to.

Less than a week after this injury occurred stocks for Nike went back up.  The stocks aren’t back to where they used to be before Zion injured himself wearing Nike shoes.  Later in the season, he tried Nikes again using Kyries with extra support.  This also brought the stocks back up.  Everyone needs a second chance even if the first chance had you miss weeks of your sports season.  Giving Nike a second chance gives Nike a chance to create a shoe contract with Zion.  Currently, Nike holds nearly all of the shoe contracts with NBA players, but having Zion sign with them too will only make them more money.  Shoe contracts generate a lot of the profits for Nike’s shoes.  Just for Lebron James contract alone, Nike earns 1 billion dollars in profits a year.

If Zion were to sign a contract with Nike over Adidas or Under Armor Nike’s stocks would most likely go back to where they were before the injury if not higher than before.  People will see Zion signing with Nike as him giving them another chance and that he trusts that it was a mistake with the Paul Geroge 2.5s he wore.  People that are fans of Zion will also give Nike another shot with buying more shoes from Nike along with many of Zion’s shoes he comes out with.

Many people thought that Zion blowing out a Nike shoe wouldn’t hurt Nike’s stocks what so ever.  This is not what happened, stocks are still not back to what they used to be.  This is contradictory to Nike signing with Colin Kaepernick.  Many people thought that stocks would decrease due to the fact of the uproar he brought to the NFL.  The exact opposite thing happened, stocks skyrocketed when Colin Kaepernick was brought onto the Nike team.  All of this shows that the stock market is difficult to make predictions about.  Sometimes one thing that everyone might believe that will make the stocks drop actually raises it, and the same goes for the other way around.  Will a shoe contract with Zion bring Nikes stocks back up, or will it just take time?

Works Cited
ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/Business/nike-sales-booming-kaepernick-ad-invalidating-critics/story?id=59957137.

Badenhausen, Kurt. “LeBron James Is NBA's Top Shoe Salesman, Keeping Nike Firmly In Lead.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 5 June 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2018/04/30/nikes-lebron-james-is-the-nbas-best-selling-shoe-salesman/.

Christian, Scott. “No, Nike Doesn't Sell 25 Pairs of Shoes Per Second.” Esquire, Esquire, 6 Oct. 2017, www.esquire.com/style/news/a49538/nike-sales-numbers/.

“Why Zion Williamson's Knee Injury Sent Nike Shares into a Tailspin.” CCN, 21 Feb. 2019, www.ccn.com/why-zion-williamsons-knee-injury-sent-nike-shares-into-a-tailspin.

Should Private Prisons be Abolished?

Should Private Prisons Be Abolished?
Claudia Mushel

Even though crime rates are dropping yearly, the number of Americans that are incarcerated continues to rise. Even though the United States only makes up 5% of the world’s populations, we account for over 25% of the people locked up behind bars--a staggering number. One main reason for this is private prisons, who profit off of every person incarcerated. To get a more in-depth look into how this works, click here. The US spends a gargantuan 80 billion dollars annually on the prison system, and eleven states even spend more on this than they do on education. When Obama was president, he started a process to phase out the use of private prisons but after his exit from office, the Trump administration has been reversing these efforts. Causing debates about them to resurface.

To give the situation some context, private prisons first started emerging in the 1980s during the “war on drugs” era as as way to combat overcrowding and make room for the influx in prisoners--mainly a result of President Reagan’s Administration overseeing the passing of numerous pieces of legislation, such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, which increased penalties for drug crimes causing a reduced amount of space for new prisoners. By definition, private prisons are nongovernmental organiztions that work on the behalf of the state and have contractual agreements with the government and the state to assign prisoners. For every prisoner, these companies get a profit--which can economically be beneficial to the community as it creates new jobs, lowers taxes etc., but is not beneficial ethically as it encourages prisoners to be assigned longer sentences as well pushing society to incarcerate a larger amount of people in private prisons so that maximum profit can be made.

In my opinion, private prisons really do not have a place in the US and whatever benefits they may have are severely outweighed by the negative aspects associated with them. As it is, it is very difficult for people existing the prison system to restart their lives on a better path. The rise of the private prison system has only made this harder--especially for poor people, people of color, and families. By privatizing something like this, corporations can make boatloads of money off of imprisoning people--with no incentive to release them as every extra day means more money coming in the door. Again, the impacts of this are clearly seen by the number of people behind bars and clearly, private prisons aren’t helping prisoners get their lives back to together as recidivism rates are nearly the same as state and federal prisons.

Because prions want to make as much money as they can, they cut corners economically, paying employees less, causing more turnover and making them more susceptible to corruption and lessened security. Medically speaking, private prisons also fall short as well, and one prison went without a full-time doctor for months, something that went unreported. The lack of adequate security and healthcare unnecessarily endangers the lives of inmates, who are not in a position to do anything about it because they are in prison.

Private prisons mainly operate under the claim that they are saving the government money, but this fact itself is unclear. Research from Arizona found that inmates in the state’s private prisons rarely cost less than those in state-run prisons, and sometimes cost as much as $1,600 more per year. It also showed that private prisons maximize profit and minimize the money spent on inmates by refusing to accept prisoners with severe illnesses or a history of violence (an option not granted to state and federal prisons). This helps them spend less on medical care, security, etc, while these high-cost inmates have no option but to go into state prisons and be paid for by taxpayers. These trends are not only present in Arizona but have been seen in various other states as well.

Conclusively, in today’s world, private prisons do not have a place and are causing more harm than good.




Works Cited
Ayres, Crystal. “14 Advantages and Disadvantages of Private Prisons.” Vittana.org, vittana.org/14-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-private-prisons.

“Economic Impact.” Abolish Private Prisons, www.abolishprivateprisons.org/economic_impact.
Joy, Tara. “The Problem with Private Prisons - Justice Policy Institute.” - Justice Policy Institute, www.justicepolicy.org/news/12006.

“Private Prisons: An Evaluation of Economic and Ethical Implications.” Wharton Public Policy Initiative, publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/2304-private-prisons-an-evaluation-of-economic-and.

Uber’s Rocky Road to Redemption?

Uber’s Rocky Road to Redemption?
Written by: Yash B.

Recently in the news, Uber has decided to unveil its Wall Street debut by issuing an I.P.O to the public. This means that Uber shares in the stock market, which were previously private, will be available for public purchase. The stock is said to be valued up to $100 billion. This is an interesting move by Uber, as their reputation has been tainted and their main competitor, Lyft, unveiled their IPO last month.


Uber has had a rough history. Just last year, the company faced allegations of sexual harassment by one of its employees, stealing Google’s self-driving technology, and other strings of issues with its CEO, Travis Kalanick. In the midst of all this, Lyft, a start-up company (at the time) could try to gain $500 million in its rivalry with Uber. Since 2017, Uber has really been in the shadows, trying to recover from the economic nightmare of last year. Things haven’t been going well with their competitor’s stocks recently either.


Since the release of Lyft’s IPO, their stock has dropped by more than 15% of their original offering price. This is what Kathleen Smith, a IPO fund manager calls, “The Lyft Effect”, in which the company decides to break their IPO stock price, leading to unprofitable gains, and ultimately, a greater loss of money. I believe that Uber’s best move is to not break their IPO stock price and ultimately settle for something that is modest and will ultimately boost their sales.

In the case of Uber, if their IPO is at a lower price, then the investment spending will increase, therefore increasing aggregate demand. To decrease the inflationary gap that was a result, Uber will have to increase the prices of the stock to reduce the aggregate supply of the stock. In Lyft’s case, their IPO debuted at a much higher price, which caused less people to actually buy the stock. This means that investment spending would decrease overall causing aggregate demand to also decrease. Lyft would then have to decrease the price of their stock (something that they should’ve done earlier) to increase the aggregate supply.

I think that Uber made a very tactical decision. It just can’t be a coincidence that Uber makes a filing and investors compare it heavily to Lyft, making it look less attractive. The two companies are rivals in the same industry, and each is trying to gain the upper hand by making decisions that will shift stockholder money into their grasp, add investors to their side, and will sway public opinion and preference.

Overall, I feel that the industry of consumer transportation is rocky in general. Both companies seem to be in the red, and I feel like they need to offer other business ventures in order to make up some of the lost money. Uber has talked about how they have expanded into the food truck business, and how they have expanded their service internationally. While I do think that this is a good move for Uber, both companies have their hands tied. If Lyft’s stock keeps falling, it could foreshadow the fate of Uber.

Works Cited

Carson, Biz. "Uber's Unraveling: The Stunning, 2 Week String of Blows That Has Upended the World's Most Valuable Startup." Business Insider, 4 Mar. 2017, www.businessinsider.com/uber-scandal-recap-2017-3.

"Lyft Shares Hit New Low As Uber IPO Chatter Revs Up." U.S, Reuters, 10 Apr. 2019, www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-lyft/lyft-shares-hit-new-low-as-uber-ipo-chatter-revs-up-idUSKCN1RM2SZ.

Seth Fiegerman and Sara O'Brien, CNN Business. "Uber Readies Its Massive IPO After a Long, Bumpy Road." CNN, CNN, 10 Apr. 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/04/10/tech/uber-ipo/index.html.

"Uber Is Said to Aim for I.P.O. Valuation of Up to $100 Billion." 11 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/technology/uber-ipo.html.

Apple Music and Spotify Feud

Apple Music and Spotify Feud
Written by: Teagan K.

I myself have been using Apple Music for almost two years now. Since I have an Apple iPhone, I never thought twice about getting Apple music. There has always been a debate about whether Spotify or Apple Music is better. Personally, I have never done much exploring on Spotify, since I do not have a subscription, but some people swear by it.

Spotify recently has been more vocal about how Apple Music has put detrimental rules and regulations that do not allow Spotify to compete with Apple Music. Spotify has released statements regarding this issue. This has created a hostile monopolistic situation for the streaming music industry, placing Apple on the top. This can be very dangerous for consumers that rely on music streaming on a day to day bases like myself and many other high school students. Apple soon might have the power to increase the monthly subscription fee, take money away from artists, and pocket all of the extra cash, if there are no longer any competitors left for Apple to compete with.

When Apple users choose to upgrade their Spotify account to a premium subscription, Spotify must give Apple a whopping 30 percent of the subscription fee. This is all because Spotify uses the Apple iTunes store to list their app on their platform. Does that seem fair to you? Spotify is then forced to raise their prices, in order to cover the basic costs of providing music to millions of fans. It would be impossible for Spotify to keep their monthly subscription fee the same or lower than Apple Music fees. IN ADDITION, continue to pay Apple a 30% tax fee, AND still have enough money left over to operate the company and provide streaming music to the world.

Do you see where the problem is here? How is Spotify suppose to compete for customers when it is virtually impossible for them to keep their prices as low as Apple. The statement that Spotify released caused an immense uproar in the music streaming community. Consumers have questioned if Apple is monopolizing the industry. Apple responded with a  formal statement addressing the claims that Spotify made. Throughout their statement, Apple claims that Spotify would not be where they are today without the help of the Apple Store growing the company. Essentially saying that the only reason that Spotify is successful is because of Apple.

Is this just the first step that Apple has taken that could potentially wipe out all competitors? This could result in even more expensive smartphones than ever before. If you look into all of the specific regulations that Apple music has placed on their competitors, it makes me think twice when I go click the play button on my Apple music. How about you?

Works Cited

“Addressing Spotify's Claims.” Apple Newsroom, 6 Apr. 2019, www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/.

“Spotify Files Apple Subscription Cut Complaint to European Commission.” The Drum, www.thedrum.com/news/2019/03/13/spotify-files-apple-subscription-cut-complaint-european-commission.

Steele, Anne, and Tripp Mickle. “Apple Music Overtakes Spotify in U.S. Subscribers.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 5 Apr. 2019, www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-overtakes-spotify-in-u-s-subscribers-11554475924.

The Economics of the NBA Playoffs

The Economics of the NBA Playoffs
Written by: Bennett Grzeszczak

We all know sometimes NBA players don’t try as hard as they potentially could, but when it comes down to the playoffs, you can expect every single player on the court to give their 110%. The complete atmosphere around the players is about as intense and engaging as a bull fight. When springtime rolls around, flowers start to bloom, along with the hopes of every NBA fan across the world and even though there are favorites to win the championship, other teams more than often compete for the Larry O’Brien trophy as well. Lastly, even though the playoffs are an enjoyable experience for all, there is also a tremendous amount of money to be made.

Last year, the Golden State Warriors (the reigning champs) grossed an outstanding $130 million within just 11 games in the playoffs. This includes all of the revenue that was made during this time period, such as ticket sales, concessions, merchandise, etc. So, the aggregate (or total) amount of all economic earnings added up to that $130 million. Although, the Warriors did make an very large sum of money during the 2018 playoffs, they could have made so much more by simply letting the Cleveland Cavaliers win a few games. According to Bleacher Report, “Darren Rovell of ESPN projected last year the Warriors missed out on $11,345,000 net gain for Game 7 in the NBA Finals based on ticket sales as well as food and beverage revenue.” As you can probably see, it pays when games become more pivotal in a series. Additionally, rivalries in the playoffs also lead there to be more ticket sales, which affects the sale of much more merchandise and concessions in the long run.

The complete revenue from each of the teams in the NBA is also a very important topic, because if larger market teams make the playoffs, it is overall more beneficial to the association as a whole due to the larger number of fans that they have. This year is extremely bad for the NBA because the top 3 teams in terms of value aren’t even participating in the playoffs. The New York Knicks (#1), the Los Angeles Lakers (#2) and Chicago Bulls (#3) all are similarly located in the largest 3 cities throughout the 50 states, which gives them a huge leg up on the smaller market teams, like our hometown Milwaukee Bucks, but when they end up at the bottom of the league in the total amount of wins, the National Basketball Association gets a much smaller payout.

In conclusion, the NBA benefits greatly from the playoffs, but they benefit even greater if large market teams were there instead of smaller market ones, for example the bucks. Overall, the playoffs allow for the association to gain both viewers and revenue to keep the league afloat.

Works Cited

Brautigan, Bailey. “Here's How Every NBA Team Makes Its Money, Visualized.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Mar. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/baileybrautigan/2016/03/21/where-all-that-money-comes-from-nba-team-valuations-visualized/#20d0329444fd.

Goldberg, Rob. “Warriors Reportedly Grossed Nearly $130M in 11 2018 Home Playoff Games.” Bleacher Report, Bleacher Report, 11 June 2018, bleacherreport.com/articles/2780589-warriors-reportedly-grossed-nearly-130m-in-11-2018-home-playoff-games.

The Economic Effect of “Dead Zones”

The Economic Effect of “Dead Zones”
Written by: Eva F.

There are areas within our earth’s natural bodies of water that have become referred to as “dead zones”. These zones are known to be regions with a lower concentration of dissolved oxygen due to the harmful effects of pollutants emitted by human activities. Each spring, a large dead zone forms in the Gulf of Mexico and its formation has large, disastrous environmental and economic effects. This dead zone forms because during springtime farmers are fertilizing their land, but as rain falls these nutrient chemicals run-off into streams and rivers that lead to the Gulf. Excessive nutrient run-off causes algae to bloom in the water, and oxygen is depleted by their overwhelming growth and decomposition. So how does this affect the economy?

With harmfully low levels of oxygen dissolved in the water, many organisms that rely on the Gulf of Mexico as a habitat suffocate and die. These declining species make work for fisherman very difficult and cause a strong decline in the fishing industry. Particularly, the shrimp industry, based out of Louisiana feels the drastic effects of the dead zone formation. According to the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, the presence of a dead zone will be especially dramatic in the decline of shrimp population as they cannot easily migrate to a safer region of the ocean. The sharp fall in the supply of shrimp raises its price dramatically during springtime as the market has to adjust to these environmental limitations. Unfortunately, springtime also coincides with an increase in the demand for shrimp as the influx of warm weather brings consumers to crave more seafood to satisfy traditions such as Mardi Gras. Together, the decrease in supply and increase in demand for shrimp creates a shortage that cannot easily be fixed. To meet consumers demands shrimp has to be packaged and shipped from areas unaffected by a dead zone, which implies manufacturing and transportation costs that would undoubtedly be reflected in prices. As our fishing industry feels the effects of a dead zone, our GDP will as well as we seek to import more and more seafood.

On a more individual scale, fisherman located in regions affected by a dead zone feels the stress and pressure of a declining seafood population. Scott, the head of the Golden Meadow fishermen’s association, says, “You get to places where you trawl the bottom of the ocean and there’s nothing there–no fish, no shrimp. It gives you this disgusting hollow feeling. You’ve got to go deeper and deeper out into the Gulf.” However, moving out of the Gulf can be increasingly dangerous for fisherman and increase their production costs as they must pay for more and more fuel. With declining opportunities for work and falling wages due to minimal shrimp caught, these fisherman off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico are facing the effects of all of America’s wrongdoing. Because 40% of America’s land drains through the Mississipi River, the Gulf has been a dumping ground for harmful chemicals and waste that are killing the fish and the livelihoods of the many that depend on this industry.

So what must be done? Currently, the government is providing farmers agricultural subsidies that encourage the use of chemical fertilizers. The overuse and improper management of these fertilizers are what cause the vast amount of nutrient pollution in the Gulf and other bodies of water worldwide. Therefore, it is essential that these subsidies be halted or that subsidies should be granted to organic farmers in order to protect the organisms that inhabit our coasts and to protect the fishing industry that provides work for so many.

Works Cited

“The Dead Zone - How Farming Is Killing the Fishing Industry.” Gulf Hypoxia, gulfhypoxia.net/the-dead-zone-how-farming-is-killing-the-fishing-industry/.

Hendy, Ian. “Gulf of Mexico 'Dead Zone' Is Already a Disaster – but It Could Get Worse.” Phys.org, Phys.org, 14 Aug. 2017, phys.org/news/2017-08-gulf-mexico-dead-zone-disaster.html.

“Price of Shrimp Impacted by Gulf of Mexico ‘Dead Zone.’” NCCOS Coastal Science Website, coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/price-of-shrimp-affected-by-gulf-of-mexico-dead-zone/.

US Department of Commerce, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “'Dead Zone' Is a More Common Term for Hypoxia, Which Refers to a Reduced Level of Oxygen in the Water.” NOAA's National Ocean Service, 1 Aug. 2014, oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html.

The Economic Impact of Last Year’s WIAA State Track and Field Championships

The Economic Impact of Last Year’s 

WIAA State Track and Field Championships

By: Justin Krause

ON YOUR MARKS...SET...BANG!!!! Just like that, the 2019 track and field season has started for the state of Wisconsin. Track season started up on March 4th of this year but that’s not the point of this post, let’s take a trip back to last year’s State meet and look at the economic impact that it brought in for not only the La Crosse area but the whole state of Wisconsin.

Last year the WIAA State Track and Field Championship took place on June 1st and 2nd. I had the pleasure to be able to run during this meet in the 4x800. And it was crazy, probably one of the coolest experiences of my life. To be honest, I could even see the economic impact of this meet with my own eyes.

Over this two day event according to WIZM News, “nearly 20,000 passed through the gates to cheer on the best athletes in the state, including 8,918 for Saturday’s finals”. Which is absurd, think about this the supply of tickets for the stadium is limited. Especially from what I saw there were hundreds and maybe even thousands that just had to stand because there were no spots to sit. But the demand for these tickets to get into the stadium is an all-time high, lines were formed by parents, family, and friends to secure their spot for the meet. The average ticket price was around $10, so by taking the price and multiplying it by the number of people who attended the meet made $200,000 just solely off tickets!

Then take into account the athletes up there, now athletes stay in UW-La Crosse’s dorms however parents of athletes have to stay overnight especially if their son or daughter is in multiple events. Also, the athletes have to eat, aggregate demand is extremely high and shifts to the right from what it originally is. Which means that the price level of food and drinks from restaurants will increase. Along with the increase in price level, there’ll also be an increase in the real GDP of the surrounding La Crosse area. Not a huge shift for the entire economy by any means solely just from the food and drinks from restaurants.

The last main reason that there is such a huge economic impact is merchandise/apparel. This is the biggest hit of them all, yeah you can watch the meet and say you were there. But how do you show that? Through extremely overpriced apparel and merchandise. And I mean I say all this about it being overpriced but I want it, I need it. Through merchandise, athletes wanting to show off to their peers that they participate in the state track and field meet can do that. There aren’t exact numbers however I saw first hand how fast apparel was flying off the shelves. If you like something and didn’t buy it when you were there, you weren’t getting that item. The demand for apparel and merchandise skyrocketed especially for the niche target market of the state track and field apparel. Supply was limited, which made apparel such a hot commodity.

The economic impact of the Wisconsin State Track and Field Meet is amazing to see especially first hand. When it estimated that “about a $3.5 million economic impact for the area” happens on a yearly basis it’s absolutely mind-blowing (Fremstad). And how a state track meet is bigger than just showcasing a tremendous amount of talent. But how it keeps La Crosse as a city, thriving and looking for bigger and better things to help out the next generation. That’s something cool to be a part of and I can’t wait until June when hopefully I’ll be apart of that again.

Works Cited

Fremstad, Jordan. “Explore La Crosse Estimates More than $3 Million Economic Impact from WIAA State Track & Field.” WKBT, Morgan Murphy Media, 2 June 2018, www.news8000.com/news/explore-la-crosse-estimates-more-than-3-million-from-wiaa-state-track-field/748550511.

Krakow, Kari. “2018 All State Team Announced.” Wisconsin Track Coaches Association, 18 Nov. 2016, www.wistca.org/news_article/show/444850.

Lang, Kjerstin. “State Track Meet Makes a Nearly $4 Million Economic Impact.” UW, Campus News – UW-La Crosse, 3 June 2014, news.uwlax.edu/state-track-meet-makes-a-nearly-4-million-economic-impact/.

Solem, Rick. “LOCAL RESULTS: Nearly 20,000 Attend WIAA State Track and Field Meet in La Crosse.” WKTY Sports, WKTY, 2019, wktysports.com/2018/06/04/local-results-nearly-20000-attend-wiaa-state-track-and-field-meet-in-la-crosse/.

Stewart, Mark, and Curt Hogg. “WIAA State Meet Report: Athletes of the Day, Record-Setting Performances.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, 3 June 2018, www.jsonline.com/story/sports/high-schools/2018/06/02/wiaa-state-track-and-field-report-athletes-day-records/652963002/.

“Tickets.” State Tournament Tickets | Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, www.wiaawi.org/Tickets.

“Winter Team Sportsmanship Awards Selected.” Home | Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association, www.wiaawi.org/.

Solar Energy Impact

Solar Energy Impact
Hannah Siebert

While our population is promoting to maintain a clean planet, the use of solar energy is growing rapidly this year especially in California. Although California has always been the nation's leader and trendsetter in clean energy, other states like Arizona and North Carolina are growing their solar markets as well, like shown in the chart. However, in the past two years the industry struggled due to the tariffs.  The tariffs were set to bring in 30% imported solar panels. This brought uncertainty to the industry which caused an increase in price since importing is so expensive. Many workers lost their job due to this. Based on the data, last year solar energy employment decreased by 18,000 workers. The Solar Energy Industry Association stated that when the tariffs were established, the prices became more expensive since there was competition against other renewable energy businesses. Buyers went to other energy source firms as their substitute, since prices were so high. The solar industry loss many jobs and money during this time.

Now, in 2019, the solar industry is recovering fast.  Supply and demand for solar panels has increased after the mandate in California. The mandate is set to act in 2020, it states that all new homes built in California will require an installation of solar power. Which means that this year so far there has been 12,000 solar power installations. Hopefully California will influence other states to follow there rule.

There is a large number of people employed in renewable energy jobs, as you can see in the graph the amount of jobs within this industry skyrocketed after 2010. With so many new homes needing an installation of solar panels, the solar industry is expanding their company by hiring more than 243,000 workers resulting in the fastest growing job in the US. The graph also shows a predicted amount of solar industry jobs in 2019, the amount excels previous years and will continually grow. Employment rate in 2019 is set to increase by 7%. Not only does this industry increase employment rates, it also contributes money.  Solar energy industries contribute about 200 billion dollars to the US economy. By increasing renewable energy we can decrease the amounts of fossil fuel and coal, since it will not be at such high demand. By eliminating our use of coal, the US saves a ton of money. Also, renewable energy would increase the GDP by 1.1%.  As fossil fuel usage in the future may decline, due to solar energy, the amount of emissions in the air will decrease. This means that the amount of chemicals in our air will decrease, and as we eliminate air pollution our planet becomes much safer. So are solar panels worth installing? In order to maintain a healthy, clean environment our country should keep utilizing solar energy and as the industry develops more job opportunities will be created. Solar energy can be overlooked but can be very beneficial when it comes to saving money, growing our economy and creating more jobs.

Works Cited

Betz, Bradford. “California Mandates Solar Panels for Homes Built in 2020 and Later.” Fox News, FOX News Network, www.foxnews.com/us/california-mandates-homes-built-in-2020-and-later-include-solar-panels.

Penn, Ivan. “California Will Require Solar Power for New Homes.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 9 May 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/business/energy-environment/california-solar-power.html.

Rogers, Kate. “After Being Rocked by Trump Tariffs, the Solar Energy Business Is Bouncing Back.” CNBC, CNBC, 5 Apr. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/04/05/after-being-rocked-by-trump-tariffs-the-solar-energy-business-is-bouncing-back.html.

Are Mandatory Vaccinations Economically Justified?

Are Mandatory Vaccinations Economically Justified?
By Abby Jansen

Vaccinations are often debatable to the American people due to the multiple positive and negative health effects of these treatments. Some citizens believe that the risk associated with vaccines, such as fatal side effects, are not worth giving to their children, while others argue that these side effects are so rare that the overall effect is more positive for children and families. Additionally, some state that the government involvement in their children’s health should not be allowed because the parents or legal guardians should make these decisions, not the government. Yet, currently, all 50 states require 29 doses of 9 vaccines for children ages zero to six in order to enter public education (gavi.org). Overall, vaccinations, aside from a few side effects, allow almost all children to live a healthy life without major illness or diseases, such as measles, hepatitis, varicella, and many others. Additionally, these treatments will help prevent the spreading of these illness within schools and communities. Thus, the possibility of spreading and receiving these viruses will be decreased due to more children being protected thanks to vaccinations. As a result, not only will the health of citizens benefit, but the economy and society will, as well.
As stated before, vaccines allow children to live a life with no to a few illnesses due to the protection. Thus, this healthy lifestyle will lead to children attending more schooling. Finally, with more education for a larger group of children and young adults, the future society will become more advanced due to the better learning available for students because they simply were able to attend school due to the lack of illnesses they obtained. For example, in the Philippines, children were positively affected with test scores due to the effect of vaccinations. According to Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, test scores went up, on average, 0.5 standard deviations, or points stating how far away from average one is. Thus, with just one increase in standard deviation, earnings in future life will increase 8% for these children. Additionally, in Bangladesh, children who were vaccinated for measles in their first year were 9% more likely to attend school (gavi.org). Thus, with greater amounts of attendance in schools, economic problems and deals will be better solved due to more education and brighter minds of our future.

While children are the group that are being physically and mentally affected by vaccines, families are also being affected yet in a financial way. Vaccines cost around $130 for families plus possible insurance coverage that can decrease this cost, as well (nytimes.com). Yet, while the seems like a large sum for only one dose out of 29, the money that is being saved by families and health systems cannot be compared. Stated by the Gavi, “Vaccinations lower care costs...saving up to $6 billion in treatment costs”. As a result, the family does have to pay a small amount of money compared the large chunk that they could be if their child was prone to these illnesses. Thus, allowing family and government to utilize money in other categories that could be beneficial, as well.

Finally, with healthier and more advanced citizens, comes a more sophisticated country. If the United States were to have outbreaks of illnesses and unstable health benefits, internationally, countries would not trust the U.S. Thus, trade between countries would be weakened. Without trade, 41 million citizens who work with international trading would be unemployed along with 300,000 companies being shut down. Lastly, the financial benefit of $1.3 trillion from U.S. exports would brought down substantially, leading to a decrease in individual and national benefits (uschamber.com).

Overall, vaccinations are essential to the public health in order to create a healthier future that will not only benefit the safety of citizens but also the financial stability of the economy. Without vaccines, unemployment rates would increase, the amount of trade would decrease, and ultimately, the world would be a more dangerous place to live. Understand the benefits for vaccines both for yourself and for the entire nation and that vaccines are economically justified.       

To better understand the economics behind vaccinations, watch this short, informational video: Economics of Vaccinations. 


Work Cited

Berkley, Seth. “The Power of Vaccines.” World Economic Forum, www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/the-power-of-vaccines-2/.

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. “Economic Benefits of Vaccines.” Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, 1 Oct. 2014, www.gavi.org/library/audio-visual/presentations/economic-benefits-of-vaccines/.

Rosenthal, Elisabeth. “The Price of Prevention: Vaccine Costs Are Soaring.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/health/Vaccine-Costs-Soaring-Paying-Till-It-Hurts.html.

“The Benefits of International Trade.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 5 Apr. 2018, www.uschamber.com/international/international-policy/benefits-international-trade.

Which Sporting Brand is Better?

Which Sporting Brand Is Better?
Kennedy Osterman

There is a rough estimate of 262 different sporting brands, out of that rough estimate we come across three brands that are very competitive with one another. Nike, a consumer products company, engages in the design, development, and marketing of footwear, equipment, and accessory worldwide. Adidas focuses on design, distribution, and marketing of athletic and sporting lifestyle products. Under Armour, deals with development, marketing, and distribution of branded performance apparel, footwear, and accessories for men, women, and youth. When closely looking at each brand individually we can decide which competitive sporting brand is truly better.

Nike has become the most popular brands of sports apparel in the US, and across the world. Nike took over the global market, making most of their money off their shoes. However, Nike started to decrease in popularity, and the stock began to decrease. This decrease didn’t last long due to deals with athletes to wear their apparel, along with increases in buyer sales as the decade progressed. In 2012, Nike reported, “that due to the slumping economy, over 1400 jobs were to be cut, out of the whooping 35000 jobs that Nike consists of nationwide.” (NKE Key Statistics - Nike Inc. Cl B Financial Ratios). Cutting these jobs was a reorganization of the company, to create a better outlook for Nike’s future. Nike executives stated, “that these cuts are not just because of the economic issues, yet a big part is due to complete reorganization of the company.” These cuts affect the economy of individual jobs and income too. However, being the powerhouse that Nike is, the reorganization should be effective and create more jobs. According to seekingalpha.com, “Nike's revenue increased over sixteen percent to 5.8 billion from 2011. Nike's revenue had risen in every geographical region except for Japan, making 2012 look like a very enticing and effective year for the veteran company.” For many years, Nike has helped the economy due to the amount of revenue they produce yearly.

We all know Adidas as a famous company that develops sports equipment, shoes of high quality and sports apparel too. This experienced and successful company faced many economic challenges but still survived, and found out which external factors affect Adidas. According to marketingdawn.com “Adidas has faced many economic downturns til 2005. The economic factors like per capita income, inflation, unemployment, and taxation effects on the profit or generated revenue of [the] company. [The] stock market will face instability only if the interest rate fluctuates or growth rate is affected.” These factors do affect the potential customers and decrease purchasing power as well as firm capital cost. Adidas has been hit tremendously by the economic downfall around 2005, Adidas completely revived their company and put them right at the top again. With celebrity and athlete endorsements, with the creation of Ultra Boosts and also Kanye West’s Yeezys turned around the company. Because of Yeezys, the demand of Adidas products skyrocketed almost the same as Nike. They went from just being a soccer company to now being the closest competitor with Nike and a lifestyle brand. 

Under Armour was founded in 1996, Georgia Tech was the first buyer, buying $17,000 worth of apparel for their athletes. Within a couple of years, Under Armour sales topped $1 million. Since then, their growth has continued as it has formed partnerships with athletes and sponsored college athletic teams. According to Forbes, “Under Armour is currently growing its sales at a healthy double-digit clip. The company is expected to grow sales by 8.6% in 2017, and another 14% in 2018.” Under Armour has had over 29,000 products on Amazon. Also has earned $0.45 per share in 2016. In 2017, that number was expected to lower to $0.38. Yet in 2018, analysts are expecting a rebound back to the $0.45 level. When looking at the price to sale ratio, Under Armour has a market cap of $7.25 billion. Compared with the projected sales of $5.25 billion, the company trades at around 1.4 times sales. Under Armour used to be a lower tier company but since sponsoring with athletes like Cam Newton, Stephen Curry, Tom Brady, etc put Under Armour atop of the overcrowded market for sports apparel and shoes. And the demand for Under Armour continues to grow rapidly every year.

When comparing these 3 competitive brands it’s your decision to decide which brand is the best. Keeping in mind these facts from CNNMoney, Nike generates more than 50% of its sales from shoes. At Adidas, 80% of sales are footwear. Under Armour that number is only 21%. Compared with Nike ($34 billion sales) and Adidas ($21 billion sales), Under Armour is the smallest out of the other two competitors. Last year, the company generated $4.83 billion in sales. All these companies can take advantage of favorable trends in the industry. Trends that will support growth for many years and probably decades also. Global population growth, economic expansion in emerging markets, increasing diffusion of sporty lifestyles, increasing diffusion of sportswear as a choice of style are all trends that will support sales for these three companies.


Works Cited
Streetinsider.com, www.streetinsider.com/stock_summary.php?q=nke.

“ADDYY.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/quote/profile/profile.html?symb=ADDYY.

MoneyShow. “Why Sports Brands Still Have Room To Run.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 6 Sept. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/moneyshow/2017/09/06/why-sports-brands-still-have-room-to-run/#6496e77a5b62.

“NKE Key Statistics - Nike Inc. Cl B Financial Ratios - MarketWatch.” MarketWatch, www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nke/profile.

“PESTLE ANALYSIS OF ADIDAS.” Marketing Dawn, 24 Jan. 2017, marketingdawn.com/pestle-analysis-of-adidas/.

“Under Armour Inc (UA) Company Profile.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/company-profile/UA.

Black Friday

Kirsten Gahan

Every year more and more Americans empty their wallets and fill their shopping carts with items they didn’t know they needed to participate in the annual Black Friday Tradition. In 2017, $5 billion dollars was spent by American consumers (Quartz). Black Friday shopping is overall good for the economy because it increases sales for suppliers and decreases prices for consumers.

When stores drop their prices for one day each year, it produces a change in quantity demanded by Americans. A change in quantity demanded occurs when the point on a demand chart moves to the left and down, meaning there are more consumers willing to buy because the price is lower. This situation is unique because when you compare the demand and supply charts, more suppliers are willing to supply at a lower price because they will be able to sell more. Therefore the supply line shifts to the right, they will sell more quantity for less money each. The final chart will end up looking like the image to the left, with the supply shifted to the right and the demand moving down the line. This is good for suppliers because they will end up making more money and moving products that may not have been selling. This is good for consumers because they can buy items at a very low price.

Black Friday can cause a shift in the demand line to the left in some circumstances. One case of this would be a shift due to future expectations. Before Black Friday the demand curve shifts to the left because consumers know that the product will be cheaper in the future. Unlike a change in price, this cause a change in demand of the product and can lead to consumers buying less in preparation for a blowout sale. Regardless of this initial drop of demand, companies can still make up for these losses during the Black Friday sale.

Overall Black Friday blowout sales are beneficial to the economy because they allow suppliers to sell more products and move excess inventory if needed, and also allow consumers to purchase goods a very low prices.



Works Cited
“Black Friday Statistics and Trends.” Fundivo, www.fundivo.com/stats/black-friday-statistics/.
Hassan, Aisha, and Aisha Hassan. “Black Friday by the Numbers.” Quartz, Quartz, 16 Nov. 2018, qz.com/1456840/black-friday-by-the-numbers-savings-store-openings-and-more/.

The Federal Reserve and Politics

The Federal Reserve and Politics
Claire Lasko

It isn’t any secret or surprise that the economy has a lot of impact on our daily lives. One of the biggest economic factors that impacts the way we live is the Federal Reserve. This should also be no surprise to you! But if it is a surprise to you, here’s a quick recap: In 1913 the Federal Reserve was created as a way to give the U.S. safety and security on nationwide money policies. It dictates economic and monetary policies by keeping in mind its two main goals: ensuring price stability and reaching maximum potential employment.

Thinking about the Federal Reserve and the economy isn’t something that I do on a daily basis, but maybe I should be giving it more thought. Recently, President Trump has been publicly commenting on how he believes that the Federal Reserve should be ‘cutting rates’ and ‘lifting the economy’. (What does that mean you might ask? President Trump would like to see the interest rates decrease as it would eventually result in an increase in consumer spending, which he believes will lift, or boost, the economy.) Does President Trump have any say or jurisdiction on how the Federal Reserve chooses to handle itself? Short answer: No. Did it stop him from voicing his opinion? Does anything?

You might be wondering, or just be relieved at this point, as to why the President of the United States cannot control how the government's central bank runs itself. The Federal Reserve’s decision-making board is made up of 220 PhD economist (Yes! You could get your PhD in economics!) plus various researchers and support staff. Notice how majority of the decision-making board members are highly educated in economics? As students, we struggle to make it through a basic level of economic understanding through various theoretical situations. Now imagine, someone gets to make these life-impacting decisions, you are not going to want them to mess up. So who better to ask than those who are most qualified? Not only is this logical, but it puts the U.S. citizens at peace knowing that the Federal Reserve is not just a political game. Theoretically, of course.

We do have to take in consideration the the Federal Reserve is a government aid. This means that it is fair game to becoming a political punching bag. We also know that life isn’t fair. Everything is inevitable, etc. Do you get the point? According Paul Krugman, an opinion columnist at The New York Times, “If [Trump] succeeds, one of our few remaining havens of serious, nonpartisan policy making will be on its way toward becoming as corrupt and dysfunctional as the rest of the Trump administration.”. His points are valid. The reason that the Federal Reserve has kept the economy on its feet is because it doesn’t allow for outsiders influence to determine the policies to be made.

Will this change in the future? Hopefully, as the years keep coming, the Federal Reserve will continue to make effective and educated policies with their two main goals in mind. But, as we know from scandals even as recent as the USC admissions scandal, the Federal Reserve could be subject to an exponentially increasing amount of biases in the coming years.

Works Cited:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/what-economic-goals-does-federal-reserve-seek-to-achieve-through-monetary-policy.htm.

When the Fed Raises or Lowers Interest Rates, www.foundationsforliving.org/articles/foundation/fedraiselower.html.

Business, CNN. “How the Federal Reserve Works.” YouTube, YouTube, 13 June 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t2ifgMscDA.

Krugman, Paul. “Why Does Trump Want to Debase the Fed?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/opinion/fed-herman-cain-stephen-moore.html.

Tankersley, Jim. “Trump Says Fed Should Cut Rates and Lift Economy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Apr. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/business/economy/trump-fed-interest-rates.html.

Bhutan - the story of life, liberty and the pursuit of (gross national) happiness

Bhutan - the story of life, liberty and the pursuit of (gross national) happiness
By Swati Dalmia

The number of Americans who said, ‘yes, I am happy with my life’ peaked in the 1980s, but ever since then has fallen slowly but steadily. During this time, our levels of world GDP per capita have increased dramatically and according to the principle of conventional microeconomics, our experience of higher utility means that we should all be happier – yes?  Bhutan, a small country (about the size of Maryland) sandwiched between India and China, has adopted an innovative policy that hopes to redefine the role that happiness plays in the economy. 

Landlocked in the Himalayas, Bhutan has a population of less than 800,000. Yet, this small country has radically transformed its national policy priorities through changes in their environmental policy and adoption of the innovative Gross National Happiness (GNH) index.

Currently, western countries address environmental policy as a way to prevent the tragedy of the commons and market failure. The underlying assumption here is that environmental policies are only necessary as far as being a means of achieving economic prosperity. The stronger assumption is that economic growth and environmental protection are mutually exclusive. However, Bhutan dispels this myth by demonstrating that not only can environmental protection and economic growth be achieved in tandem, but they are also a means to an end - the mere byproduct of striving for happiness.

In 2008, Bhutan issued Gross National Happiness (GNH) as a philosophy to shape policy creation. This comprehensive index covers nine domains: living standards, education, health, environment, community vitality, time use, psychological well being, good governance, cultural resilience, and ecological diversity and resilience. Prospective policies are measured against these standards to evaluate their potential benefit to society and impact on national happiness. To enhance GNH, the Bhutanese government has invested in sustainable transport, subsidized electric cars, transitioned into a paperless administration and funded renewable energy schemes. Core to the GNH philosophy, these measures work together to increase the nine domains contributing to higher aggregate happiness levels. Fundamentally, Bhutan seeks to create “development with values” that aims to improve the nation’s environmental, social, cultural and economic wellbeing. (TED)

Measures of GNH have suggested that Bhutan’s subjective happiness has increased over the last decade, accompanying and even tracking improvements in traditional economic indicators. (Wood) World Bank data demonstrates that since 2008 Bhutan has increased GDP and recorded higher household income, whilst maintaining a stable unemployment rate averaging 2.5%. (Bhutan)
Driven by GNH measures, Bhutan announced at the 2009 Climate Change Conference its commitment to remain carbon neutral. Annually, Bhutan caps its carbon production at 2.2 million tonnes whilst acting as a net carbon sink for more than 4 million tonnes. National parks and green spaces are protected, with the constitution ensuring forests comprise a minimum of 60% of Bhutan’s land cover. Currently, more than 72% of Bhutan is covered in forest, with these trees absorbing more than 4 million tonnes of carbon annually meaning that Bhutan is not only carbon neutral, but the only carbon negative country in the world. (Climate Council)

Whilst achieving carbon negative (or even neutral) status is heavily dependent on a number of factors, much can be learned from Bhutan and the GNH to create better environmental policy. In view of this, by ensuring the wellbeing of future generations who will inherit more than just the economy, an approach that increases happiness can contribute to a greater environmental, social and economic legacy.

Works Cited

“Bhutan.” Data, data.worldbank.org/country/bhutan.

Climate Council. “Bhutan is the world’s only climate negative country so how did they do it?”, 2017, https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/2017/04/02/bhutan -is-the-world-s-only-carbon-negative-country-so- how-did-they-do-it.

TED. “This Country Isn't Just Carbon Neutral - It's Carbon Negative | Tshering Tobgay.” YouTube, YouTube, 1 Apr. 2016, www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc_dlVrg5M.

Wood, Patrick. “What Happens When a Country Strives for Happiness - at Any Cost?” ABC News, 23 June 2017, www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/bhutan-strives-for-happiness -but-at-what-cost/8633424.