The recent wave of online shoppers has created hot debate over which online store is better, eBay or Amazon? Both are very similar. Both are online stores are where sellers can operate their business out of and where buyers can buy a plethora of goods out of just one site. But which web-site do consumers and businesses recommend? It all depends on the most you could get with the least of your resources. Or in other words they are trying to make the most cost-efficient decision to fit their needs. What sellers need to think about is the cost it takes to sell an item on either site. According to Economic-times, “It costs $3.92 to sell a $10 item on Amazon and $2.72 on eBay” Economic-Times.
This is one thing to consider but they also say that, “eBay takes more time and most merchants store inventory themselves” Economic-Times. In making these decisions, retailers make trade-offs; sell out of Amazon without having to stock your own inventory which is easier and faster at a higher price, or sell out of eBay being less efficient and having to stock your own inventory but at lower prices. These economic trade-offs are decisions suppliers need to make, and it all depends on what they value more, time and efficiency or money. Consumers also make decisions that involve trade-offs when considering buying from wither online store. If a consumer buys from Amazon, they are most likely making that decision based off of the convenience and quickness the company provides for its customers, rather than considering the price compared to eBay. A customer choosing eBay most likely chose this alternative site because of its lower price, not valuing time and efficiency as much as they value money. But most consumers value time and efficiency over cost. This is why their choice is usually Amazon. Vice President of Amazon’s FBA business, Tom Taylor says, “Customers like lower prices, but customers also like greater convenience, faster shipping and great selection” Economic-Times. Consumers also state their opinion on consumer surveys on squidoo.com. They say that, “If we were going to choose just one to live with for the rest of our lives, we’d pick Amazon. Why? It’s easy to shop there, the items are always represented correctly, checkout is a snap” Squidoo. The experience is also a major factor for buying things at either store. According to Clark Howard of CNN, “In their testing, the best overall experience for shoppers – not necessarily always the lowest price – was amazon.com.” CNN. It is clear that these consumers weigh the cost and benefits.
The cost of choosing Amazon is more money for their product, while the benefit is the efficiency, simplicity of getting the product bought and delivered, and the overall experience. In my economics class we have studied these terms used to describe the economic process that consumers and producers use. By applying these terms to the choice between buying and selling on either Amazon or eBay, it is easier to decipher my specific value of time and efficiency versus money.
I have always bought from Amazon because of its simplicity and efficiency. Although the cost of buying from Amazon is the higher price (compared to eBay), the benefits are efficiency and good experiences. The trade-off of this decision is buying from eBay with a lower price, but without a good experience. These decisions are small but are indeed involving economic thinking. By studying economics in school, I am able to apply my studies to everyday decisions, helping me make the most cost-efficient decisions possible. These terms I have learned to describe my economic decisions have given me the possibility to break down the economical processes people and I take, helping us see the best possible, cost-efficient decision to make for our benefit.
Recently in my government class we addressed the policies of choosing federal judges, which grabbed my attention to analyze this concept further. To my knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, it states that the President, “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court” U.S. Constitution. This may be the policy but why should Judges be appointed by the President and not elected by the people, and why should federal judges be appointed for life
? Washington Post answers the question of why judges should be appointed not elected by saying, “Three in four Americans, most business leaders and nearly half of judges themselves believe that campaign cash is affecting courtroom decisions.” Washington Post This does draw the attention to the effects elections have on the men and women running for certain judicial positions. It would indeed affect the judge’s decision over which side they would favor in a case if money were involved. This fact alone raises enough concern to spark the controversy over Judges being elected. A related reason why the election of judges may be detrimental to their decisions in the courtroom would be that the people that elected that judge might affect their settlement on certain cases. The Nevada Sagebrush writes, “we can have elected judges that come directly from the people but can’t seem to make up their minds on what the law is while trying to please voters…” Nevada Sagebrush. Both of these reasons provide an ample argument against the election of judges and how it affects their decisions in the courtroom.
A way that the appointment of state judges is closely related to the election of judges is merit selection. Twenty-four states have used this to select their state judges. This process includes a nominating commission of a state to recommend candidates based on skill, dedication, and judgment and gives the names to the appointing authority of that state, which is usually the governor. This process of selecting state judges is closely related to the federal judge appointing process, both of which avoid the election of judges that may alter the work method of judiciaries. The issue of selecting federal judges for a life term is another interesting concept. The Constitution states that, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…” (Article 3 Section 1 U.S. Constitution). This implies the appointment for life if they do not cease to have good behavior, but why should they be appointed for life? The Federal Judges Association says, “The provision of life-time positions with salaries that cannot be decreased helps assure that the legislative and executive branches are unable to punish judges for unpopular judicial decisions.” FJA This statement gives the implication that, since their salaries and position cannot be taken from them without certain cause, judges are able to make
decisions that are not influenced by popular thought. In other words if their decision is deemed unpopular among the general public, they cannot be punished because the public is not in control of their position. FJA later states that, “Judges can therefore make their decisions without fear of being fired or losing a portion of their salaries.” FJA This is a valid reason for judges to be appointed for life. CNN gives similar opinions on the subject of life appointments. They say, “By appointing the justices to life terms, the framers of the Constitution attempted to insulate them from political pressure.” CNN. Though this process might raise protest on certain cases, it does ensure fair and rational judgment on these cases. These Constitutional conventions to guarantee less corrupt decisions in the judiciary branch of government are for sure the best way to avoid conflict. I do believe that these policies find the most qualified, judicial and shrewd justices to work as federal judges. The concepts of the judiciary branch of government are thought out and well planned to create an efficient subdivision of the United States government.
The recent decision to initiate the end of restrictions and limitations of female duties in the military has sparked controversy and conversation over the difference between men and women and what makes women have the same eligibility to perform the same duties men can. The Pentagon recently announced that they have lifted, “a 1994 Defense Department ruling that restricted service opportunities for women in the military, particularly “physically demanding tasks that would exclude the vast majority of women.” (Waltonian) The idea that women are less capable of performing the same tasks as men comes from this speculation that females are less physically and mentally capable then men. Researchers have indicated that women are reportedly more susceptible to pain than men, which may be the cause of such controversy over what women are capable of doing physically. Men’s Fitness says, “The differences found between men and women may result from a variety of causes, such as hormones, psychological factors, genetics, or even the simple fact that men feel more cultural pressure to report less pain.” (Men’s Fitness). Studies like these may prove a point that women are different than men but I believe it does not give the government a right to ban all women from performing military duties. If a woman enlists into the military for a specific duty, and they perform up the same standard as men do, then shouldn’t that woman be eligible for the job? I believe it should be up to the person, female or male, to decide whether they are willing and capable to execute certain military obligations. Isn’t this one of the values this country was founded on? The freedom to choose your path and future applies to all citizens of the United States. My studies of the Constitution in my government class have taught me that the dilemma with women in the military should not be debated over.
Based on the freedom this country provides and emphasizes, women should, without a doubt, be able to enlist and apply for any military function. Although the Constitution does give Congress the right to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation
of the land and naval Forces” (Article 1 Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution) the decision to ban women from performing certain combat duties does not support the ideals this country embraces. To me this discrimination against women is not different then discrimination against a certain religion or race. This issue has given me a better understanding of the national thought on
what policies regarding different sexes should be. I believe that all people should have the chance to pursue their desires and not be restricted in any way. This event has given me a more vivid perspective on what we have studied in class. The answer to the question of whether women should be allowed to enlist for certain jobs in the military is given better thought and comprehension by me after my studies in government class of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Congress’ decision in 1994 to ban all women from certain military duties is not supported by anything other than studies indicating the differences between men and women. Ellen Lainez, the DOD Spokeswoman says that the reason for these restrictions is that “there are practical barriers”. (News.Discovery)
These ‘practical barriers’ defy the rights given to men (and women) by God! This so-called “glass ceiling” preventing women to excel in military duties is without a doubt labeling our country hypocritical in a sense that we hinder the potential of women to excel and make great accomplishments for themselves and their country. My opinion is that lifting this ban is the ethical and right thing to do based on the freedom to pursue certain paths that our country emphasizes and endorses.