Is Bale Worth It?

May 24, 2013 2 comments

Today was the day that Tottenham Hotspurs qualified for Champions League. The Spurs needed to win along with a loss or tie for Arsenal. Even though Gareth Bale buried a game winning goal to give them a chance to qualify for champions league, Arsenal defeated their opponent disqualifying Tottenham from Champions League. Gareth Bale, a Welsh professional soccer player, plays in the Barclays Premier League on the Tottenham Hotspurs. In the season 2012-2013, the demand for Bale significantly increased due to his extraordinary performances. He appeared in thirty three EPL matches scoring twenty one goals and receiving four assists. Bale placed third in goals scored that season and received the Play of the Season award. The success Tottenham had in 2012-2013 only happened due to Bale’s excellent showings. Since Bale scored many game equalizing and game winning goals, the clutch factor increased the incentives for other clubs to buy him. Rumors were created saying Bale wanted out of Tottenham if they did not qualify for Champions League, causing teams around the world to be more interested in him. Since Tottenham was disqualified from Champions League next year and incentive for Bale increased, teams around the world, such as Real Madrid, are more than willing to pay substantial amounts of money for him. The question is: should Tottenham reject all offers or accept money and potentially star players for Gareth Bale.

Bale Econ 1


This is a simple trade-off. There will be a cost and a benefit if Tottenham decides to reject all of the offers and keep Bale. The benefit of keeping Bale at Tottenham is that they keep their best player on their team. They are almost guaranteed success if Bale stays on Tottenham. The costs of rejecting all of the offers to keep Bale is the loss of a great amount of money and potentially other stars to fill in holes in Tottenham’s squad. Andre Villas-Boas, the manager for Tottenham, said, “his club wouldn’t sell Bale even if Real Madrid were to make a bid of £60 million” (BR). If Tottenham will decline any offer  £60 million or less, they are losing a great possibility to increase the club’s wealth and to purchase other star players to improve the overall squad. The costs and benefits of selling Bale for money and players is the opposite. The benefit of accepting an offer for Bale is a substantial amount of money to increase Tottenham’s wealth and the possibility to purchase other star players. The cost of accepting an offer for Bale is the loss of Tottenham’s best and most inspirational player.


If the decision was up to me whether to keep or sell Gareth Bale, I would choose to keep Bale at Tottenham. Even though I could potentially gain a great amount of money and good soccer players, the benefit of keeping Bale on the team is more desirable to me. Bale is the heart and soul of Tottenham creating a large amount of chemistry throughout the squad. Chemistry plays a huge role in a club’s success, therefore I would spend my effort searching for a strategy that complements Bale’s play style. Gareth Bale will endure a long, promising future, therefore Tottenham would be making a bad mistake letting Bale leave and win trophies for another football club.




The Environmental Problem

May 24, 2013 Leave a comment

The ever growing and prosperous capitalist economy of America is considered by many to be a near perfect system. Our economy helps  ensure success is attainable, without detriment to  any one person or any group. Unfortunately, this perception is not reality. The American economic system has brought about many negative externalities, most notably the environmental impact our corporations have made on our planet. Greed and overindulgent behavior of businesses have led to a possible environmental apocalypse. Large egocentric corporations are causing fossil fuels to be near extinction, mass pollution and destruction of vital habitats, and carbon emissions to rise.  These negative externalities that are caused by corporations need to be reduced or abolished. At the moment the government is doing very little to stop corporations from destroying the environment.  President Obama’s current environmental policies are very vague and undisruptive. Over the past 5 years Obama has enacted the Recovery Act and attended the Copenhagen meeting. These actions have led to very minimal environmental recovery. The Republicans and corporate lobbyists are not doing much to promote the environment either. In fact “The big business lobbies, like the Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, and others, have been very clear and explicit in their support of commerce over the environment. A couple of years ago they stated they intend to carry out a major publicity campaign to convince people that climate change is not real, that it’s a liberal hoax.”Image Republicans and corporate lobbyist are actually denying the existence of an environmental problem even though the statistics show otherwise. In 2012 carbon emissions increased 2.6%. Increased carbon emissions will weaken the atmosphere and dangerously heat up the earth. Due to pollution, only 1% of Chinese citizens breathe air that is considered safe. This has caused cancer to be the leading cause of death in many parts of China. The north pacific gyre has approximately 100 millions tones of trash. This trash will harm sea life, and take centuries to dissipate. These facts show that environmental damage is extreme, and impacting quality of life on the planet.  At the moment corporations are acting out of self-interest and greed. This will be an on going predicament unless there’s some alternative policies initiated. I believe that slight regulation as well as higher prices and taxes for certain fossil fuels will help alleviate the environmental woes. At this point in time, large businesses have too much power and freedom, which is causing large negative externalities. Creating higher taxes for fossil fuels, will promote switching to alternative methods of energy production. This will give corporations incentive to switch to cleaner energy. In addition, raising the price of certain fossil fuels like gas and oil will have a great affect on the consumer. Due to higher gas prices ,the consumer will most likely feel the need to utilize a car that does not rely on oil. Consequently, demand for gas run cars will decrease, and companies will start to make more eco-friendly cars that appeal to the consumer’s tastes and preferences. I also believe that we should implement stricter regulations. Unfortunately, large amounts of greed have consumed the American economy in the past 30 years. Corporations have started to deviate from rudimentary business ethics. The federal government needs to take some control over the reckless corporations. In recent years, deregulation, corruption, and greed has destroyed the earth, and the government has done very little to stop it. Implementing the right policies and actions will Imagemake the environmental problem treatable and will help the planet for all its citizens.

Republicans Introduce Census Reform Bill

May 23, 2013 Leave a comment

This year we have studied both Government and Economics and worked on ways to relate our studies to the current events around us. This year has been one of Economic turmoil mostly caused by the Government’s struggle to achieve bipartisanship.In mid April the GOP began working on a bill that will limit the information the constitutionally required census will be permitted to ask us. This bill will have massive repercussions for the American economy. Not the state of the economy itself but the indicators used to calculate unemployment and the GDP itself. Making this story on primed for our economics class.

The Census is an essential part of both of our Governmental and Economic systems. Republican Representative Jeff Duncan has begun the process of pushing a bill through congress that will end the census as it is known today, limiting the amount of information that can be procured from it. This bill would limit the census to finding out information about population….and that’s about it. The bill states that the census may conduct only a  “decennial census of population,”.  It eliminates the part of the census that provides information about poverty, income, education, health converge and most importantly no economic census. Without further information, the ability to calculate unemployment rate will be hindered along with GDP. We would not be able to calculate unemployment rate because we would not know how many people are working nor what the people who are working are making. This eliminates our ability to know how much people are spending or saving. These pieces of information are important economic indicators for predicting and calculating GDP. Without this data the government will not know how to compensate for the economy. We willbe forced for a total hands off economy, removing government involvement entirely. Should this bill go through our Keynesian way of life could be put in jeopardy. As intrusive as the census could seem it it is a necessary part of our governmental system and essential to keeping our economy running in the state it is.
          Before our class I would’ve viewed the GOP census bill as something nominal, really not worth noticing in the scheme of things. Now I see the impact the census makes. The importance of these economic indicators and the governments involvement in our economy can not be corrupted because we want a little more privacy. This article made me reflect not only on economics but on the relationship between our study of the constitution and our economics studies. Although I may not understand everything about economics, I understand the impact it has made in our world now, and how important it continues to be.

Original Atricle:

Categories: A1

Student Loans and Their Implications on the American Economy

May 22, 2013 1 comment

With everyone left in our Economics becoming seniors next year, the looming beasts of college and student loans are fast approaching.  Even after college, the fear of having to get a job to help pay off the loans almost seems more daunting.


Thinking about the Burden of Student Loans

In today’s economy, it almost seems like a better idea to not go to college as to not have to pay off the student debts.  However, this would leave young people in a precarious situation of not having a good enough job.  This would lead to a decision between a high school diploma with a weak job or a college degree, student debt and a much stronger job.  With those students with debts, it kills their credit scores and makes it nearly impossible to get a mortgage or a car loan or any other “big ticket” items.  The whole aspect of student loans is sending “a whole class of people out into their professional lives with a negative net worth. Not starting at zero, but starting at a minus that is often measured in the tens of thousands of dollars. Those minus signs have psychological impact, I suspect. They might have a dollars-and-cents impact in what you can afford, too” (NY Times).  Students have  now become very burdened by a load that seems almost impossible to pay off.  While it might seem like an economic death wish to enter the economy after college with such a large amount of debt.  However, in today’s economy employers are more likely to hire a candidate with a college degree than without.  Therefore, it becomes a weighing of cost and benefits between a high school diploma and no debt or a college degree with large amounts of debt.


In 2012, about 60 percent of college students borrow a student loan.  ” There is roughly somewhere between $902 billion and $1 trillion in total outstanding student loan debt in the United States today” (American Student Assistance).  About $85 billion of this total is past due.  Despite all these economic statistics working against them, “in 2010, young adults ages 25–34 with a bachelor’s degree earned 114 percent more than young adults without a high school diploma or its equivalent, 50 percent more than young adult High school completers, and 22 percent more than young adults with an associate’s degree” (National Center for Educational Statistics).

High school seniors who are on the fence about attending college must weigh their costs and benefits and  look at their personal interests.  On one hand, they cannot go to college, not go into large amounts of debt, and enter the workforce at a net worth of zero.  On the other hand, they can go to college, get a degree that can get them a high profile job,  and enter the workforce with a large amount of debt.  Some students who would go into large amounts of debt, may want to be a doctor, actor, business or whatever their heart desires.  Those students have to weigh the benefits of following their dream against the costs of attending college.


Doctor in Debt


Man at “McDonalds”

Students who are graduating  now face a choice, being a doctor who followed his dreams but is in debt or a man working at McDonalds with little chance to obtain a high profile job.

Keynesian Economics Today

May 22, 2013 Leave a comment

The use of Keynesian economics was introduced by John Maynard Keynes in order to fight the Great Depression.  Keynesian Economics uses monetary and fiscal policy in order to fight recession and inflation. Keynesian economics was a way to keep the economy at equilibrium by using two opposing policies.  Both policies encourage spending and circulation of wealth through the economy. Keynes proposed the problem was in the demand and not in the business confidence levels. Through Keynesian economics the solution would not be to cut government spending or to cut wages so that the businesses would hire more people. The solution was to increase government spending and infrastructure to create jobs and lowering taxes to encourage people to spend money.  The use of Keynesian economics could be used today for the problems we presently have in our economy, which is mentioned in an article for the New York Times written by Nancy Folbre.

Fiscal and monetary policy work opposite eachother to keep the economy in equilibrium by preventing recession and inflation. Fiscal Policy works through the government by increasing government spending and infrastructure and lowers taxes to encourage spending, which stimulates the economy.  One example would be the war that pulled the US economy out of the Great Depression. The more demand for jobs and the increase in salary would promote spending and increase money flow in the economy. Monetary Policy is often the preferred policy because of its benefits over Fiscal Policy. It is much faster to implement because, instead of working through the government, monetary policy works through the Federal Reserve buying bonds in order to lower interest rates. As the supply of money increases the interest rates go down in order to encourage people to borrow money that will then be circulated through the economy. The graph shows how monetary policy increases the supply of money which decreases the interest rates and encourages people to borrow money which is circulated through the economy.

              Economists predict the solutions to today’s recession are the same solutions proposed by Keynes during the Great Depression. According to the article written by Nancy Folbre in the New York Times, our society has fallen into debt because of a lack of demand for jobs. His solution to this problem would be jobs created by the government.

Keynesian in Nixon’s Insanium Cranium


Richard Nixon (conservative)

British economist, John Maynard Keynes, developed a new theory of economics that dominated macroeconomic thinking in the postwar era. Keynes presented his ideas in 1936, in a book called The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money.  He desired to develop a comprehensive explanation of economic forces. An explanation like this could give politicians and economists insightful information on ways to get out of economic crises like the Great Depression. This form of demand-side economics gained the favor of President Richard Nixon as he proudly declared himself “a Keynesian in economics,” on January 4, 1971. This was a rather unusual statement for the arch-conservative president because Keynes was viewed as being well to the left, both politically and economically. Regardless of his political party, the president aimed to balance the budget on a “full employment” basis, a Keynesian idea. Conservatives viewed this “as a license to run budget deficits forever,” according to the New York Times.

A key component to Keynes’s ideas is to see the economy in a broader view and focus on the economy as a whole. Keynes looked at the productive capacity of the entire economy, which is the maximum output that an economy can sustain over a period of time without large increases in inflation. The British economist attempted to answer a question concerning the Great Depression: why does the actual production in an economy sometimes fall short of its productive capacity. The answer Keynes proposed included the fact that neither consumers nor businesses had an incentive to spend enough to cause a rise in production. It did not make sense for a company during that time to spend money to increase production when no one else had enough money to buy the products. Also, unemployed consumers could not spend money that they did not have. Nixon became the first president to balance the budget based on “full employment” which meant the United States would “spend as if it were at full employment to bring about full employment, thus justifying an acceptable amount of deficit spending.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the “recent economic downturn has increased the budget deficit by about 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product annually since 2009.” The Congressional Budget Office also calculates that “if the economy were operating at its potential based on its productive capacity” (what used to be called “full employment”), gross domestic product would be $1 trillion larger this year.

John Keynes

John Keynes

“Conservatives do not like calculating the deficit any way except literally,” says Bruce Bartlett. “All of the adjustments to the deficit are assumed to be tricks to make it look smaller, they believe.” But back in 1971, having a Republican president adopt a left winged idea such as an expansionary budget policy and balancing the budget on a “full employment” basis was radical stuff indeed.

When Nixon first took office, he tried a conservative method to tighten the money supply, however this method did not work and the economy appeared to be heading into a recession.  With the American federal budget deficit totaled at $23.03 billion, combined with Nixon’s failure of obtaining more revenue through tax reform legislation in 1969 and rising unemployment (4.9 percent) and inflation (5.7 percent) rates in 1970, Nixon decided it was time for a change and proudly proclaimed himself to be a conservative Keynesian, hoping to turn things around. The administration then turned to fiscal policy solutions.

Nixon’s new Keynesian methods turned out to be a short-term domestic success.  His New Economic Policy “attempted to balance U.S. domestic concerns with wage and price controls and international ones devaluing the dollar.” N.E.P. worked so well that by early 1972, the output rose sharply and unemployment fell, however inflation increased. Nixon became the only president since World War II to bring about an economic upturn in a presidential election year. This astonishing fact contributed to his landslide re-election in 1972.

When President Nixon resigned in 1974, inflation was at 11 percent and unemployment rates increased to 5.6 percent; however the deficit was down to $6.14 billion. Although he was a conservative president, he adopted more liberal Keynesian methods and succeeded in his attempt to balance the budget on a “full employment” basis.

Categories: A3, Learning

Online shopping: Good or bad?

May 22, 2013 Leave a comment

There have been a lot of discussions about whether or not online shopping is a positive thing or not. I personally enjoy the convenience, but many are concerned about a negative impact it can have on the economy. Browsing a website is easier than going to a store and browsing from aisle to aisle, and it’s open 24 hours a day. However, problems arise when it comes to the sales tax that seems to be left out on many internet purchases. Right now, “states can force only businesses that have a store, plant, or warehouse within their borders to collect their sales taxes on their behalf.” The Marketplace Fairness Act would change that. Should the MFA be put in place, it would force all out of state businesses to collect taxes. This would generate billions of dollars of revenue, based on the fact that the US spent $52 billion on internet products in Q1 of 2012 alone (source). The tax on internet sales would also compel people to go to stores instead, stimulating more activity in the economy by forcing businesses to hire more staff to 


accommodate an increase in store shoppers. The internet management and the actual store staff are usually two entirely separate divisions, with a web-based store requiring  a minimal number of employees. The pros outweigh the cons when it comes to implementing an internet sales tax. 

%d bloggers like this: