Tuesday, October 1, 2013

What's up with Gas Prices

Whats Up With Gas Prices?

            Almost all Americans rely on cars, buses, trains, for transportation. Without this transportation people will not know how to get place to place on time. Gasoline is scarce knowing that we have a limited supply of it. Gas prices are up the roof ranging from three dollars to four dollars a gallon. The average gas pricing is now $3.67. According to CNN money, there is at least a 50% chance gas could top the $3.79 a gallon high for the year reached in February. Gas prices are constantly being in supply and demand knowing that this is an essential need/want to an everyday life. Jeff Sommer states in New York Times, “How high and how quickly those numbers climb — and whether they leap above $5 a gallon and morph into a painful symbol of inflation — could have an enormous impact on the financial markets and the economy.”

            As gas pricing ranges weekly, the more the impact on the financial market and the economy.  If the prices will go high enough, the negative effects will spill over to stocks and the economy. If oil prices reach more than 33 percent in a six month period then the stock market performance tends to weaken according to John LaForge, commodity strategist at Ned Davis Research. f gas goes to $4.50 a gallon and stays there, it would cost each household about $1,000 more this year than last to buy the same amount of gas. That would eat half of the $2,000 savings a typical household will get from this year's cut in Social Security taxes.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfCpL7SCnwk

Syria is not a major oil producer, but approximately a third of all of the crude oil in the world is produced in the Middle East. Are you ready to pay four, five or possibly even six dollars for a gallon of gasoline?  War has consequences, and a conflict with Syria has the potential to escalate wildly out of control very rapidly. The side effect of higher oil prices could end up being rising prices at the pump.
   
YouTube - Videos from this email
Posted by at 19 comments:

Advertising to Children: Should the Government Intervene?



Advertising to Children: Should the Government Intervene?
Autumn Johnson

Advertising to Children Video

There’s a lot of talk about where the line should be drawn for the government in terms of stepping in on a free market economy. Additionally, for what should this interference occur?
For the regulation of advertising aimed at children? While many argue no, the government should not interfere with the advertising that is intended for children, just as many swing the opposite way and believe that advertising should be monitored. Because younger generations are the future of the nation and will behave later on based on what they learn in their formative years we should control what they are being influenced by now and allow the government to step in.

. In fact, there is quite a significant consequence on the economy from the advertising that children are viewing. The big ad companies take advantage of the fact that children are easily influenced and create ads that specifically target their future buyers. By creating this demand for products in the children, since they are not economically able to provide for themselves, parents are the ones buying the items that are seen in the ads. In total, parents are responsible for a whopping $670 billion dollars in spending each year from influencing by their teens and children under the age of 12. Some people might ask, that’s a good thing for the economy, right? Wrong. Parents, which make up roughly 66% of the population, may be being put into debt by their own children, which could ultimately halt the flow of money in the market because the income of the parents is no longer substantial enough to afford market products. This wouldn’t just affect the households, but the businesses, firms, and even the government would all lose money and resources due to such a catastrophic event. All this from kids watching a little TV, you say? It gets worse.

Teens alone are responsible for spending $160 billion dollars a year as a result of marketing and children up to 11 spend $18 billion a year. If children this young are spending this much of their own money already, this could be a reflection of their future spending habits. If these habits were to continue, once they are adults and are the individuals accountable for the economy, an unstable one can be predicted. Like their own parents, the brain-addled, advertisement-influenced generation will grow up and not be able to support the economy with regular purchases.

Several studies have been conducted on the effects of advertising on children, and the results are not pretty. Advertisements affect the mental and physical well being of children.  Studies show that children who have seen the ads for unhealthy products like junk food, combined with the deceptive nature of most ads, are more likely to live unhealthy lifestyles and be obese. In addition, a study done by Dr. Robert J Hancox on the correlation between adolescent television viewing and adult health, in which individuals were studied from birth until the age of 26 years, proved that television viewing in childhood and adolescence is associated with overweight, poor fitness, smoking and raised cholesterol in adulthood (Sciencedirect.com, 2004). Since the majority of ads are seen by children appear on the television, it can be said that advertisements have a negative effect on the health of children exposed to them. Racking up medical bills in addition to coercing their parents into buying them advertised products, children will be pushing their parents towards serious debt.

Now, the general consensus about problems in the United States is that because of our free enterprise economy all our issues will somehow work themselves out - self regulation. Leaving the issue of advertisements aimed at children to self-regulation is risky business though. There have been laws like the Children’s Food and Beverages Advertising Initiative that have been passed in an attempt to limit the number of unhealthy commercials seen by children under the age of 11, but research shows that other than this feeble attempt, the food industry does little to reduce the exposure of children to products that are unhealthy, and other, more harmful industries have done nothing.

Yet, there is not a great demand of the government to regulate the ads younger audiences are viewing on a daily basis. Is a small deviance in our level of economic freedom really that much of a negative externality to pay for a healthy future for our children? The opportunity cost of a little freedom is nothing compared to the benefit of a little government intrudance. We need to preserve the innocence children have left and push the government to become stricter on the influencers of young minds across the nation, not only to protect the future of this country but the future of our economy.






  • " Association between child and adolescent television viewing and adult health: a longitudinal birth cohort study ." ScienceDirect.com | Search through over 11 million science, health, medical journal full text articles and books.. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article

Posted by at 10 comments:

Should college athletes get paid?

Written by: Sebastian Ledgaard

Should college athletes get paid?
This is an interesting question. Is it fair that college athletes like Johnny Manziel, aren’t getting paid, even though the aggies makes tons of millions of his name? Last year Texas A&M's athletic department raked in 120 million dollars in revenue, sixth-highest of any school in the country. And how do they do this? A big part of it is merchandising. A replica #2 jersey goes for 60 dollars through the school's bookstore, just one of the many items for sale with Manziel's number. The jersey was so popular the bookstore sold out of them — all 2,500 — last December. This is a lot of money. And it’s not only the school that makes money on Johnny Manziel Saturday the 22th of September boxer Floyd “money” Mayweather tweeted: Congratulations @JManziel2 for putting on a fantastic show. He may not be able to make money off himself but I can. pic.twitter.com/Tp3sKyznkq
To be fair the schools give the students an education, many of them normally wouldn’t be able to attend (about 50% of athletes go to schools they academically don’t qualify for). The average cost of attending one of the Top 25 football schools over 4 years is nearly $100,000 for in-state students and roughly $147,000 for out-of-state students.  Scholarships from Stanford, USC, and Notre Dame confer the greatest costs savings, each costing over $210,000 over 4 years. Besides that they receive a lot of merchandise such as hats, jackets, backpacks, etc. They also get significant medical care, which is important and certainly necessary for football players, which is very prone to injuries. So is it fair that the students want even more? In my opinion it’s reasonable. According to folks at business insider that have created a metric that estimates what each school's average player is roughly worth. Per the report, a University Texas of player is worth the most in America, with a Fair Market Value of $578,000. Collegiate athletes also lay it all on the line like their professional counterparts. Why, then aren’t they given monetary compensation in return for all the blood, sweat and tears they shed for their school?  “Let’s start paying college athletes” an article by Joe Nocera of The New York Times, the 15 highest-paid NCAA football coaches made $53.4 million; meanwhile, the 13,877 Division I players made $0. And we can all agree on that the players, are at least, as important as the coach right? The big schools, makes an unbelievable amount of money on their sport programs. And who’s responsible for this business? In part the players. The problem seems to be that we don't look at college athletics as a business. Instead we constantly look at college sports as something different. We allow the "school" part to blind us into thinking that the educational piece changes the dynamics of what is really going on, and makes the athletics become about something other than money.
So is it time to pay college athletes? In my opinion, this shouldn’t even be debatable.
Sources:


Posted by at 19 comments:

Uncle Sam’s Benefits

Written By: Alec Sterling 

Uncle Sam’s Benefits

With the economy getting worse, and more people losing their jobs, it is becoming harder and more competitive to find a real job. People are going to college for years to be given a chance at finding a job. The Military offers secure jobs with benefits that go beyond the private sector. Plus college isn’t usually required, in fact the military will often give you the training and certification, while paying, feeding, and housing you. Everyone thinks that the military is a bad career choice since it’s commonly associated with war. But most of the modern day military careers will never see combat. There are jobs in supply and command, combat support, medicine, and cooking. These jobs will most likely never see combat. There are exceptions of course, take medicine for example. If you become a Dentist through the military they aren’t going to be sending you out on patrols. Whereas if you want that, and medicine there are jobs such as being a medic.


            Not all military jobs are full time either. Joining the reserves or National Guard is a great way to get benefits, and go to college. You only give one weekend a month, and two weeks in the summer and you are entitled to almost all military benefits such as the GI bill. Think to yourself, do I really want to finish college with a load of debt on my back, or do I want to join the military, have college payed for, and have a fulfilling career after college? Let’s say you don’t want to be some enlisted nobody, well then (N)ROTC and SMP programs are for you. You can get a full ride through college, and be an Officer when you complete. When you finish your service and go into the private sector think of the advantages to having military background on your application. Especially if you were an officer, manager positions will become available for you, that other people won’t have the opportunity to receive. Private careers will also be available to people with Military backgrounds in military police, Medical, logistic, construction, engineering, and much more. All offered through the military and while you’re receiving certification and the military is paying you.




Rank
<2 Years Experience
4 Years Experience
6 Years Experience
Private (E1)$18,194**——
Private (E2)$20,398$20,398$20,398
Private First Class(E3)$21,449$24,178$24,178
Specialist or Corporal (E4)$23,756$27,659$28,840
Sergeant (E5)$25,913$30,359$32,490
Staff Sergeant (E6)$28,285$33,833$35,226

Rank
<2 Years Experience
4 Years Experience
6 Years Experience
Second Lieutenant (O1)$34,517$43,430$43,430
First Lieutenant (O2)$39,769$53,924$55,037
Captain (O3)$46,026$61,398$64,339
Major (O4)$52,348$65,542$69,296
(Army salaries)
            These pay scales do not include bonuses, allowances, or other Benefits. These salaries are what the pay you, but you have to remember you get bonuses for going active duty, learning new training, and signing for specific positions. Plus you get free housing, food, transportation, certification, and educational benefits. If you retire out of the military you get half your annual salary every year. So if you’re a major with 20 years in the military you’re going to be receiving over 36k dollars a year, add this to a civilian paycheck, and your living large. With the economy constantly changing, and recently mostly for the worse, the Military offers secure positions, steady income, and educational promise.



Posted by at No comments:

Government Shut Down!

Written by Nolan Dang 

It’s been on the news for a while, that the United States Government is going to shut down because it reached the government reached its debt limit. It’s not as bad as it sounds, the government isn’t disappearing forever but there are severe economic repercussions.
So to begin with, what is a debt ceiling? The debt limit is the monetary limit, that the US government is allow to spend before it has to default on its legal obligation, the current amount that the US congress allowed the US to borrow was 16.39 trillion dollars and the US is already reaching that amount.
But what happened when the Government reaches its debt limit? Once this debt limit is reach by the government, the US government has either a choice to raise the debt limit which allows the us to spend as much as it want, until it reaches the new debt limit, where the US congress can simply raise it again. Or they can choose not to raise the debt limit and default on its legal obligation, such as social security, Medicare benefit, and military salaries. This provides an incentive for government to provide a solution or else the US population who depend on these services would be in dire need of help, because the government wouldn’t be able to provide the services that they depended on.
But even delaying the decision of what to do with the debt limit can still cause backlashes major backlashes to the economy. Arguing over the decision of raising the debt limit or keeping at the current amount, would create uncertainly on the bond market causing upward pressure on interest rates. These rate increases cause by this would also put pressure on US businesses and divert tax-payer money away from certain federal areas such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare.  And downgrade the US credit rating, and can throw the stock market into a panic, like in 2011 when the debt limit was raised, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged roughly 2000 points. 
Not only would the US would feel these economic backlashes but foreign investors and the dollar value would also face dire consequences. Foreign investors invest their money into the US because it was deemed as the safest place to store and invest with their savings. But with the news of the debt limit being reached and the predicted consequences, makes foreign investors, lose confidence within the US, which then influences them to withdraw and remove their investments out of the US, causing the US dollar to be worth less, causing the dollar to not be remembered as the world’s reserve currency. But even though the dollar would be worth less, there would be slight benefit for US business that rely on private good exports to make an income. The depreciation of the dollar would increase foreign demand for the goods provided, because they would be cheaper.
So what happens now? Most likely the government would choose to raise the debt ceiling again like before, because the benefit of more government spending and government services, outweighs the cost of mounting debt. It may be the easiest choice, to help relief the rushing issue of government services, but it only prolongs the looming problems of our unending government debt.

"Debt Limit." Treasury.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <www.treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx>.
"Government shutdown versus the debt ceiling: Why hitting the debt limit is scarier than closing the federal government. ." Politics, Business, Technology, and the Arts. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/government_shutdown_versus_the_debt_ceiling_why_hitting_the_debt_limit_is.html>.
"The Debt Limit Explained - YouTube." YouTube. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE>.
"The Debt limt." Cfr. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <www.cfr.org/budget-debt-and-deficits/us-debt-ceiling-costs-consequences/p24751>.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form



Posted by at 8 comments:

Blackberry Buyout

Written by: Alex Johnson

One of the most competitive markets around today is the technological market. Whether it’s phones, computers, or anything in between, the race to create the most appealing and innovative technology is just beginning. BlackBerry is a company that once sold smartphones so popular that they were referred to as “CrackBerrys.” So what happened to the once popular smartphone producers?
In the past few years, BlackBerry has failed to keep up with the technological advances of Apple and Samsung. It seems as though their prospects are continually dwindling, with their share in the smartphone market shrinking from 4.9% to 2.9% in just a year. Blackberry has taken the spot of 4th place behind other popular phones such as Androids, iPhones, and Microsoft.  “Blackberry really missed the whole transformation of the smartphone,” Segan said. Apple and Android phones continued to grow and become more and more popular, but Blackberry failed to release an really new or “exciting” hardware for its customers, ultimately causing its shares to decrease.


Blackberry recently released the Z10, their newest smartphone, in January of 2013. The reviews of the new phone were mostly positive, but there was nothing really new about the phone.  It mirrored most other smartphones on the market, and therefore failed to change the company’s prospects.
The fate of Blackberry resembles a recent situation that occurred with another well known company—Dell. Dell was once a powerhouse in the world of PCs. “It’s made-to-order model was no longer viewed as useful for consumers, while tablet computers and smartphones sapped demands for PCs” (Blackberry, Meet Dell). Dell was once the the number one PC maker in the entire world, and they have now fallen to number three. Both Dell and Blackberry can attribute some of their downfall to Apple and its increasingly new and inventive products. In 2009, BlackBerry had nearly 50% of the market of operating systems in smartphones, according to IDC. It now has 2.1% (Blackberry, Meet Dell). Dell faced a buyout, the purchase of controlling interests in a corporation by another corporation, after many failed attempts to return to the top of the market.
Blackberry faces a similar fate to Dell, but considerably worse. Blackberry’s continuing efforts to pull themselves out of their never-ending slump just were not working for the company. They attempted to “run a rapid auction and have a buyer identified in a few months” (Blackberry, Meet Dell). The company has announced a $4.7 billion buyout offer. Many investors are tentative towards the offer because they aren’t sure if they see a future in the company.
"Taking BlackBerry private doesn't solve the fundamental problems," said Ovum analyst Jan Dawson in a report. "It's likely that BlackBerry will be out of the device business entirely by the middle of next year. Unless Fairfax plans to radically change or accelerate BlackBerry's strategy, it's unlikely to be able to turn the company around.” (Blackberry Gets Buyout Offer).
So what is the fate of Blackberry? We may not know now, but let this company and other companies like Dell be a lesson to the rest of the market. If you plan on staying around, competition is key. In this world of ever changing technology, businesses must keep up with the world transforming around them and continually challenge their competition. Consumers will always want the newest and most interesting product.




" BlackBerry, Meet Dell: A Comparison of 2013′s Tech Buyouts - MoneyBeat - WSJ." WSJ Blogs - WSJ. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/09/23/blackberry-meet-dell-a-comparison-of-2013s-tech-buyouts/>.
"BlackBerry Gets Buyout Offer, But Does Firm Have A Future? - Yahoo Finance."Yahoo Finance - Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackberry-gets-buyout-offer-does-224700969.html>.
"BlackBerry surges in buyout prospects."USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/08/13/blackberry-surges-in-buyout-prospects/2648001/>.
News, Bloomberg. "Analysts: BlackBerry problems spiral toward doom." Standard-Examiner - Top of Utah News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2013. <http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/09/23/analysts-blackberry-problems-spiral-toward-doom>.
Posted by at 11 comments:

How Groceries Stores Manipulate You

How Groceries Stores Manipulate You
Written By :  Courtney Van Dusen 

Have you every realized the design of the grocery store? Wonder why the soda brands are next to the chips, or why gum and candy bars are placed right next to the checkout area? These are only a few of the many tactics grocery stores use in order to persuade consumers to buy more than what they intended to.
When checking out items, how many times do children ask their parents for a Kit Kat bar, or any kind of candy that lies right in front their faces? The items placed in front of the counter are called impulse items, these are the things people do not need but feel as if, “Oh it is only a dollar or so, nothing hurt”, but these little impulses build into a hefty profit for the store. Impulse buys are what grocery stores go off of when designing and placing specific items in to it. Another example is the placement of flowers or the bakery in the front of some stores, by using your senses  of sight (seeing the colorful flowers) and smell (fresh baked bread and cookies), this allows for the consumer to at least think about buying these  delectable products placed oh so perfectly in front of them.

Video: http://youtu.be/NZca5-bkKYw


Other procedures used are ones that include two different products, but they are often consumed together. Soda and chips are a great example for this.  “A team of researchers, including Coleman Chair Professor in Marketing Venkatesh Shankar” looked as the sales of chips and soda over 2.5 years and within 180 different stores. After moving the chips an aisle closer toward the soda, both sales increased by 0.7 percent and after moving the item farther away from the soda aisle, the sales decreased about 1.4 percent. Lastly, after placing the chips and the sodas in the same aisle, and facing each other, sales of both items increased to a 9.2 percent. These percents prove that the grocery store, and how they present the produce, can manipulate consumers into buying more than needed. Also, these increases in profit are common with a price-cut promotion just without any loss in profit, so basically, it is unnecessary to cut any prices on any product or service in order for customers to buy more.
This information can not only help profits for stores but manufactures for all of their revenues. Expressing how integrated marketing of certain items, such as soda and chips can increase sales leading to certain companies to own products in multiple categories. A company that is familiar to most and follows by this idea is PepsiCo, owner of Pepsi beverages and Frito-Lays snacks.
The typical factors that influence the purchasing of products are the demand by the consumers and the supply of the company, but the effect of placements and sense stimulants are big causes as well. By placing impulse and commonly purchased items in specific areas of the grocery store, sales are able to increase, and consumers will leave with more than proposed.









Works Cited
"Five Ways Grocery Stores Try to Trick You | Rodale News." Rodale News. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://rodalenews.com/supermarkets-and-healthy-food>.
Houston, Chrystal. "   Store shelf strategy | Mays Business Online." Mays Business Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Oct. 2013. <http://Maysbusiness.tamu.edu/index.php/store-shelf-strategy/>.


Posted by at 4 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...