In Ricardo's Difficult Idea, the author illustrates 5 points that why the idea of "comparative advantages" can be so misleading and confusing in today's time. He points out that, besides those stumbling blocks of cultural difference and modeling problems, the ignorance and arrogant attitudes of the authors of economics are the main reason why this very simple concept becomes confusing to non-economists. In the end he gives some opinion on what we can do to solve the misconception of the public to the concept of "comparative advantages". The whole reading is related to his lecture of "comparative advantages".
In Praise of Cheap Labor, the author tells us about that the importance of cheap labor market resulted by the multinational companies from the first world companies to the third world countries. Although it seems that it's unreasonable and unfair to have someone from the third world countries to work at a very low wages with no good working environment for the benefits of the people from the first world countries, these jobs are essential to promote the economic growth and the growth of infrastructure at the third world countries because these jobs incentivize people. Though it looks bad, it is still better than no jobs for these people and make then suffer at the third world countries. This passage has the idea that relates to "incentives" and "comparative advantages".
In A Raspberry for Free Trade, the author illustrates that free trade should be given among the countries even if the countries have much lower wages by using the raspberry as example. He compares raspberry that can lead to health issue with a product that is produced by a person paid with a very low wage, and concludes that these are different and therefore free trade should be allowed. People should not have a double standard on the economics and the market because competition is what makes the market efficient and subsequently improves the society and welfare of its people. It relates to the idea of "free trade and trade deficit".
Some rhetoric questions that happen to my mind:
1. Recently China has some really bad examples on how the entrepreneurs do some bad shitty business like putting some carcinogenic product into the milk product, extract cooking oil from the sewage collector and so on in order to earn more profits. Since lower wages to the workers might also mean that they are putting less effort in quality control, why we can't banned products from these countries because we also have legit reason to say that these products might cause health problems as well?
2. If most of the new idea are "cult" why do we have the reason to accept the idea of "comparative advantages" at the first place when it is first introduced against merchantilism?
3. Is it a sham reasoning to say that the globalization and the investment of foreign multinational countries are the reason that the quality of life go up for third world countries?
I think all these three paragraphs are well written and is interrelated with each other. By understanding that comparative advantages is as legit as the theory of evolution, simple yet complicated, we can picture easily on the situation illustrated in "praise of Cheap Labor" in relation to the comparative advantages in the third world countries. Third world countries have the comparative advantages in really cheap labor, by that the young entrepreneurs are incentivizes to produce. With such action to their own benefits they unintendedly improves the standard of living there. However, people still have the misconception that free trade from these third world countries are putting more disadvantages on them. The third passage "In a Raspberry for Free Trade" clears all the doubt for them and make a great conclusion by saying that "free trade between countries that produce stuffs based on their own comparatives advantages creates wealth for both countries."
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Friday, 28 October 2011
Class 24: Trade deficit and roundabout
Today, Mr Rizzo TEARs a dollar!!! !!! ARHHH. Besides emphasizing on the importance on trade, specialization and comparative advantages, he continues to talk on why having a trade deficit on one particular sector doesn't mean the money is going to lose. The roundabout basically means that the money that goes out of the country through import will eventually go back to the country because of multiple means and methods. Even if the dollar is just getting torn and burnt, it just increases the value of USD in US, resulting in a net lost of zero as well.
Class 23: Trade deficit and manufacture
Today, Mr Rizzo illustrates situation on trade deficit in relationship to the manufacturing sector. Although trade deficit occurs but the employment in US increases as well. Therefore, trade doesn't cost jobs. Although manufacturing percentage drops, the output doubles. Therefore, globalization is not at fault why the manufacturing sector decreases. In conclusion, trade statistics are meaningless because trade cannot be at fault.
Class 22: Comparative advantages
Today, Mr Rizzo gives us the lecture on comparative advantages by using multiple examples and calculation. An absolute advantage in producing everything doesn't mean that you have comparative advantages in everything. Therefore, we can say that whoever sacrifices less in making another thing as compared to the others are also having a higher comparative advantage because they are more efficient. As we realize the importance of comparative advantages we can be specialized and conduct trade, that's when wealth comes in because "self sufficiency is the road to poverty."
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Escaping the poverty
escaping the poverty
This is a video found on TED.com telling a story of a young poor girl named Jane growing up in a slum of Africa and how she eventually gets herself out of poverty. Since her childhood she had two dreams: becoming a doctor and marrying a good husband. Due to poverty she didn't manage to realize her first dream and married with a guy, got pregnant and gave birth to two sons. However, her husband left her and she was left with no jobs, no skills, no income and no life. She struggles through the social classes and market and eventually escaping poverty and end up having her own house. I find this video interesting because it relates to the few economic concepts that I had learnt in economics class: we all have comparative advantage in one or another field, specialization/ trade is the road to wealth while self-sufficient is the road to poverty, and how to place valueless items to where it's highly value.
1. In Jane's story that we can see that instead of becoming a doctor, she becomes a seller and a counselor which she fits perfectly into the role. She has the comparative advantage of encourage people with HIV positive because she is a living example of how people can still live with dignity as HIV positive. The society ends up getting better because it losses a not so good doctor to a great counselor. She does not need to sacrifice much to become a counselor and encouragement. Problem is, how do I know what's my very own comparative advantage?
2. Jane's specialized in sewing and she trades her skills to the market. She is efficient because she produces stuff with the lowest cost, maximum production that people want. She became richer by that. We can see that she has more resources by buying a sewing machine with the money that she earned, which makes her even more productive. Should there be anymore excuses on "I am skill-less"?
3. She places herself at a higher value because she understands her comparative advantages. Even without skills she can still become rich by many definition. Economic crisis is the time when innovation and creativity sprung in. As we being incentivized (without the intention of harming each others), we will be led to jobs. So why should we be worried much about unemployment?
I really like this video because it really gives us lots of things to learn from the story of Jane. We shouldn't be worried about whether in the future we are going to be employed or not. There is always a way to find wealth as long as trade involves.
This is a video found on TED.com telling a story of a young poor girl named Jane growing up in a slum of Africa and how she eventually gets herself out of poverty. Since her childhood she had two dreams: becoming a doctor and marrying a good husband. Due to poverty she didn't manage to realize her first dream and married with a guy, got pregnant and gave birth to two sons. However, her husband left her and she was left with no jobs, no skills, no income and no life. She struggles through the social classes and market and eventually escaping poverty and end up having her own house. I find this video interesting because it relates to the few economic concepts that I had learnt in economics class: we all have comparative advantage in one or another field, specialization/ trade is the road to wealth while self-sufficient is the road to poverty, and how to place valueless items to where it's highly value.
1. In Jane's story that we can see that instead of becoming a doctor, she becomes a seller and a counselor which she fits perfectly into the role. She has the comparative advantage of encourage people with HIV positive because she is a living example of how people can still live with dignity as HIV positive. The society ends up getting better because it losses a not so good doctor to a great counselor. She does not need to sacrifice much to become a counselor and encouragement. Problem is, how do I know what's my very own comparative advantage?
2. Jane's specialized in sewing and she trades her skills to the market. She is efficient because she produces stuff with the lowest cost, maximum production that people want. She became richer by that. We can see that she has more resources by buying a sewing machine with the money that she earned, which makes her even more productive. Should there be anymore excuses on "I am skill-less"?
3. She places herself at a higher value because she understands her comparative advantages. Even without skills she can still become rich by many definition. Economic crisis is the time when innovation and creativity sprung in. As we being incentivized (without the intention of harming each others), we will be led to jobs. So why should we be worried much about unemployment?
I really like this video because it really gives us lots of things to learn from the story of Jane. We shouldn't be worried about whether in the future we are going to be employed or not. There is always a way to find wealth as long as trade involves.
Friday, 21 October 2011
Profit motivates human
Steve Jobs wasn't great; he wasn't even close.
A very interesting article that I found on the net that has the title of "Steve Jobs wasn't great; he wasn't even close" written by Neeraj Thakur. In this article, he argues that Steve Jobs wasn't really a great person that's worth the tears of millions of people because he did not really do what he did, but in fact he avoid doing lots of things that a billionaire should have done. He points out that Steve Jobs is a person who is "motivated by profits", a billionaire that has no association to any philanthropic action, and has some sort of virtual "property rights" over things such as personal computer and iPhone which were not even invented by his very own hand. He concludes that motivation by profits among human civilization is not the reason why people should be referred as great.
However, I have a few questions after reading the articles:
1. Everyone is motivated under the self-interest. Talking about Mother Theresa, or the inventor of polio vaccine Dr Salk, just because their profit isn't in the form of money, they can be referred as great?
2. Why must a great company be philanthropic? Is it even wrong for Steve Jobs who is just trying to incentivized his workers in order to produce better phones?
3. Talking about opportunity cost that the whole world has lost, the sunk cost of human resource that the world will never ever get back, the comparative advantages and the absolute advantages that Steve Jobs has in his invention, would it be reasonable to say that he's indeed a great person?
I think that the author's point of view is worth for us to at least to reevaluate on how we decide who's great. However, the author has a very serious profit bias in his argument that I would disagree on most part of what he's written.
A very interesting article that I found on the net that has the title of "Steve Jobs wasn't great; he wasn't even close" written by Neeraj Thakur. In this article, he argues that Steve Jobs wasn't really a great person that's worth the tears of millions of people because he did not really do what he did, but in fact he avoid doing lots of things that a billionaire should have done. He points out that Steve Jobs is a person who is "motivated by profits", a billionaire that has no association to any philanthropic action, and has some sort of virtual "property rights" over things such as personal computer and iPhone which were not even invented by his very own hand. He concludes that motivation by profits among human civilization is not the reason why people should be referred as great.
However, I have a few questions after reading the articles:
1. Everyone is motivated under the self-interest. Talking about Mother Theresa, or the inventor of polio vaccine Dr Salk, just because their profit isn't in the form of money, they can be referred as great?
2. Why must a great company be philanthropic? Is it even wrong for Steve Jobs who is just trying to incentivized his workers in order to produce better phones?
3. Talking about opportunity cost that the whole world has lost, the sunk cost of human resource that the world will never ever get back, the comparative advantages and the absolute advantages that Steve Jobs has in his invention, would it be reasonable to say that he's indeed a great person?
I think that the author's point of view is worth for us to at least to reevaluate on how we decide who's great. However, the author has a very serious profit bias in his argument that I would disagree on most part of what he's written.
Principles Lecture Notes
This abridged note is basically about "property rights" established in a society. It talks about the importance of property rights as an institution, the reasons why other alternatives/ philosophies/models are not workable like "property rights", the role of "property rights" in making free and peaceful trading possible in our market, the relationship between property rights and other institutions in the market, and also the origin and evolution of property rights. It demonstrates clearly the definition of "property rights" as part of the human right and argues greatly on why other concerns on property rights are not legitimate.
Some of the questions that come into my mind:
1. why is it that when civilization was first born there were no property rights concept in the people who found the civilization? How did king eventually come into the picture and start forcing people to give things to them without the idea of property rights?
2. During the colonization era, when British colonized countries over the world, are they exploiting the natives? The colonies are weaker, far less developed than British, lack of education and technology, but the nation grew, they gain technology and ideas and other products resulted from the industrial revolution and so on. What if they were deprived from the property rights, are they still being considered as being exploited?
3. Will there still be a need for property rights if all the resources become unlimited and abundant? (Like for instance in heaven which time is eternal with no scarcity at all)
I remain neutral to the notes (since it's just notes), but I think that the final legitimate concerns and considerations about property rights are not really a "legitimate" concern because humans react to incentives and this is what makes things around human evolve and become better. I believe it is just a matter of time before human comes out with a perfect scenario with perfect justice and equality through trial and error, innovation and so on.
Some of the questions that come into my mind:
1. why is it that when civilization was first born there were no property rights concept in the people who found the civilization? How did king eventually come into the picture and start forcing people to give things to them without the idea of property rights?
2. During the colonization era, when British colonized countries over the world, are they exploiting the natives? The colonies are weaker, far less developed than British, lack of education and technology, but the nation grew, they gain technology and ideas and other products resulted from the industrial revolution and so on. What if they were deprived from the property rights, are they still being considered as being exploited?
3. Will there still be a need for property rights if all the resources become unlimited and abundant? (Like for instance in heaven which time is eternal with no scarcity at all)
I remain neutral to the notes (since it's just notes), but I think that the final legitimate concerns and considerations about property rights are not really a "legitimate" concern because humans react to incentives and this is what makes things around human evolve and become better. I believe it is just a matter of time before human comes out with a perfect scenario with perfect justice and equality through trial and error, innovation and so on.
Class 21: Advantages create wealth
Today, Mr Rizzo explains what's comparative advantages and absolute advantages and how trade creates wealth. He shows us examples to show that trading is not a zero sum game and it can create wealth. A few graphs are drawn to show absolute advantages, productivity efficient and the law of diminishing returns. Through trade, resources, and technology we become even richer.
Class 20: Feedback loops, trade, and factors of production
Today, Mr Rizzo explains to us why trade can create values. By introducing us the concept of feedback loops, trade, and factors of production, we can see that how trading creates values by putting the things that are lowly valued to places where they are highly valued.
Class 19: Gold and silver rule
Today, Mr Rizzo introduces us two important rules: the golden rules and the silver rules. Golden rule is summarized as the rule which people are motivated by their own self-interest for their own goals in order for the society to works. Silver rule is summarized as the rule which people, while pursuing their own self-interest, does not hurt others or do something onto others that they would not want others to do onto them. Both rules are important because we are just not omniscient.
Saturday, 15 October 2011
Critical Reading: Unintended Consequences
Based on the reading of Stigler, George. 1984. “An Academic Episode,” in The Intellectual and the Marketplace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Chapter 1, pp. 3-9, it tells how a policy made in the education sector might lead to a desirable consequences as intended, but later will lead to disastrous unintended consequences which much efforts are required to mend it. The policy is that a person can challenge its upper level position in the academia and if he wins he gets a promotion. The initial result is very positive but soon problems arise like research stopped, injustice happens in between and so on. In the end nobody really knows which this policy may lead to.
In Gans, Joshua. “The Most Unusual Day,” Core Economic, it illustrates the point that a government policy on birth rate and incentives lead to unintended consequences. Initially the birth policy was to reduce the cost of the health care in hospital by giving subsidy to babies born after certain dates. However, pregnant women reacts to incentives and their behaviors change, subsequently resulting in a crowded hospital packed with people after that particular date.
The questions that I came out with the unintended consequences are,
1. it seems that every action that we did will definitely carry some unintended consequences, then what should we really do?
2. Mr Rizzo keeps incentivise-ing us in the class by giving us money around, using money to buy credits, so on... ... what's the unintended consequences? Are we encouraged to become very economized and leads to academic dishonesty?
3. If most economic model are unable to falsify a hypothesis or proof, like for instance the causation fallacy, how do you proof that this particular action is the cause of that particular unintended consequences?
From my personal view, the idea of unintended consequences is something that we couldn't really see and since it is an unintended consequences it would be very hard for us to really predict what would actually happen in the future. Conclusion, every policy has to be revised on and on and on again to reduce the negative effect of unintended consequences.
In Gans, Joshua. “The Most Unusual Day,” Core Economic, it illustrates the point that a government policy on birth rate and incentives lead to unintended consequences. Initially the birth policy was to reduce the cost of the health care in hospital by giving subsidy to babies born after certain dates. However, pregnant women reacts to incentives and their behaviors change, subsequently resulting in a crowded hospital packed with people after that particular date.
The questions that I came out with the unintended consequences are,
1. it seems that every action that we did will definitely carry some unintended consequences, then what should we really do?
2. Mr Rizzo keeps incentivise-ing us in the class by giving us money around, using money to buy credits, so on... ... what's the unintended consequences? Are we encouraged to become very economized and leads to academic dishonesty?
3. If most economic model are unable to falsify a hypothesis or proof, like for instance the causation fallacy, how do you proof that this particular action is the cause of that particular unintended consequences?
From my personal view, the idea of unintended consequences is something that we couldn't really see and since it is an unintended consequences it would be very hard for us to really predict what would actually happen in the future. Conclusion, every policy has to be revised on and on and on again to reduce the negative effect of unintended consequences.
Airasia and Cost
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/theasiafile/9132035/How_Air_Asia_keeps_costs_down/
This article is about how Airasia cut costs in order to provide very low fares tickets to its passengers. Airasia is a budget airlines company founded by a Malaysian and has now become one of the very top choice for travelers to travel around Asia because of its really cheap tickets and sometimes completely free ticket. In this article the chief executive of Airasia X shows us how the company actually cut the price and its cost in operating the company. This topic relates to the marginal cost, sunk cost, the idea of greed, nothing is free concept which is taught by Mr Rizzo recently.
1. Can the company be viewed as greedy? Greediness is self-interest taken too much, but in the field of business is greediness a necessity to earn more profit by cutting of cost as much as you can? Is Airasia cutting too much? Are they exchange the safety of its passengers for lower cost?
2. Are the workers in Airasia being exploited? I would say it is a yes because, for instance the pilot in Airasia, they earn less than a typical pilot in other company for more working hours and less welfare. If the workers are felt exploited then what are the factors that restricted them from making the choice in the market?
3. Are the tickets sold by Airasia Cheap? Think of the opportunity cost that they sacrifice if they buy Airasia ticket (inflexible time, smaller seats, lack of cabin crew, delayed time, waiting time, and so on). The ratio of money spent to the product/ service gain is far more better in other company. Don't the passengers value their life even more than the money spent?
I personally very much anti-airasia because of their shitty services. However, if this is what the majority people want and Airasia manage to produce what the people want in the lowest cost, I cannot deny that Airasia is still a very smart company in making the market even more efficient.
This article is about how Airasia cut costs in order to provide very low fares tickets to its passengers. Airasia is a budget airlines company founded by a Malaysian and has now become one of the very top choice for travelers to travel around Asia because of its really cheap tickets and sometimes completely free ticket. In this article the chief executive of Airasia X shows us how the company actually cut the price and its cost in operating the company. This topic relates to the marginal cost, sunk cost, the idea of greed, nothing is free concept which is taught by Mr Rizzo recently.
1. Can the company be viewed as greedy? Greediness is self-interest taken too much, but in the field of business is greediness a necessity to earn more profit by cutting of cost as much as you can? Is Airasia cutting too much? Are they exchange the safety of its passengers for lower cost?
2. Are the workers in Airasia being exploited? I would say it is a yes because, for instance the pilot in Airasia, they earn less than a typical pilot in other company for more working hours and less welfare. If the workers are felt exploited then what are the factors that restricted them from making the choice in the market?
3. Are the tickets sold by Airasia Cheap? Think of the opportunity cost that they sacrifice if they buy Airasia ticket (inflexible time, smaller seats, lack of cabin crew, delayed time, waiting time, and so on). The ratio of money spent to the product/ service gain is far more better in other company. Don't the passengers value their life even more than the money spent?
I personally very much anti-airasia because of their shitty services. However, if this is what the majority people want and Airasia manage to produce what the people want in the lowest cost, I cannot deny that Airasia is still a very smart company in making the market even more efficient.
Class 18: Zero Sum and Markets
Today, Mr Rizzo introduces us a few concepts regarding the "zero sum assumption", "private property", "market transaction" and "the rule of law". He describes that the markets are often "wrong" because of the lack of markets and the disability of the institution itself. Therefore, market has to be efficient itself with the commonly accepted law that's not arbitrary (the rule of law) in order to work.
Class 17: Unintended consequences
Today, Mr Rizzo introduces the law of unintended consequences and its application in economics. Law of unintended consequences is basically the unintended result coming out from the choices that we made. For instance, a well-intended law that is passed down to protect the disabled might lead to the rise of the cost of disabled people (unintended consequences). Therefore we have to be careful with the regulation.
Saturday, 8 October 2011
Section 4: Theaters and Fine Arts
This week reading assignment is basically based on the reading from section four, Selected Essays on Political Economy written by Bastiat. The article is about his strong opinion against state subsidizing the arts because of broken window fallacy. His argument is that what's seen through subsidizing the arts from the state could be a form of increase in jobs in arts, but what's not seen is that the money used to subsidizing the arts has to be coming from the tax payer money which is also needed to be spent on some other jobs and careers in other field. In conclusion, he does not denounce the importance of arts in a state but he reasons that all forms of subsidizing in arts should be from the private sectors (the people) and not from the state. After reading this piece I have mixed feeling as well mainly because
1. Should the state be allowed to do some jobs through public funds on sectors that the public that is not highly interested in?
2. What's the difference from Private spending and Public Spending when both of them are actually from the pocket of the people as well? Government use public spending in order to maximize their profit, which is on power in the seats, through gaining popularity from the people.
3. Although we know that arts comes with value, should we just let it die along with the price system when nobody is really interested in it?
In conclusion I think that my opinion will still be mixed. If the majority public sees that there is a need to use public funds to subsidize people, why not?
Why We shouldn't afraid that apple is afraid of samsung
SAMSUNG VS APPLE. WHY APPLE IS AFRAID OF SAMSUNG
My today's reading is an article about why Apple company is afraid of Samsung company. The main reason why Apple is afraid of Samsung is because that Samsung is a large company that penetrates into almost all industries while Apple is restricted to only IT products. Furthermore, Samsung innovates, produces and exchanges faster than Apple, which is the source to wealth and income. Besides, the leadership within Apple has suffered after Steve's dead. The interesting point that I found from this article is that instead of using the typical argument of why Android is a better system as an open source, the author actually uses principles of economics to explain why he thinks that Apple is afraid of Samsung.
Some of the questions that I like to ask is that,
1. We talked about specialization improves the people wealth as no-one knows about everything and by produce in mass quantity through specialization and exchange what they produce. Then is it that open source market that Android is currently using resembles a lot about "invisible hand" as well? Android opens up its source and let everyone contributes what they know a little bit about the apps and system and let them modify themselves.
2. Why in current era Apple is afraid of Samsung when Apple is the one more specialized in IT product than Samsung? Does it show that it is not sufficient that for a person to be just "specialized" in one single field when everyone can be specialized in your own field?
3. What if Apple fails to lead the innovation edge again, should we be afraid of the Samsung products invading US? Should we bother to save Apple?
My conclusion to this article is that we should be glad that Apple is finally afraid of something, because competition encourage innovation and better quality products. Consumers is going to get benefit from this in the end, in regardless which company reigns as the final king over the IT market.
My today's reading is an article about why Apple company is afraid of Samsung company. The main reason why Apple is afraid of Samsung is because that Samsung is a large company that penetrates into almost all industries while Apple is restricted to only IT products. Furthermore, Samsung innovates, produces and exchanges faster than Apple, which is the source to wealth and income. Besides, the leadership within Apple has suffered after Steve's dead. The interesting point that I found from this article is that instead of using the typical argument of why Android is a better system as an open source, the author actually uses principles of economics to explain why he thinks that Apple is afraid of Samsung.
Some of the questions that I like to ask is that,
1. We talked about specialization improves the people wealth as no-one knows about everything and by produce in mass quantity through specialization and exchange what they produce. Then is it that open source market that Android is currently using resembles a lot about "invisible hand" as well? Android opens up its source and let everyone contributes what they know a little bit about the apps and system and let them modify themselves.
2. Why in current era Apple is afraid of Samsung when Apple is the one more specialized in IT product than Samsung? Does it show that it is not sufficient that for a person to be just "specialized" in one single field when everyone can be specialized in your own field?
3. What if Apple fails to lead the innovation edge again, should we be afraid of the Samsung products invading US? Should we bother to save Apple?
My conclusion to this article is that we should be glad that Apple is finally afraid of something, because competition encourage innovation and better quality products. Consumers is going to get benefit from this in the end, in regardless which company reigns as the final king over the IT market.
Class 16: Marginal value vs Total value
Today, Mr Rizzo talks about the idea of marginal value versus total value. There is no such thing as intrinsic value as it depends on how human actually values on the product itself. Therefore, we can say that the relative scarcity actually determines the price of that particular product, because this is how much we really value them. The idea of sunk cost is also introduced, which is cost that will not be changed when making a decision.
Class 15: The Broken Window
Today, Mr Rizzo introduces us the idea of the broken window fallacy. One of the very interesting point about this lecture is that I realize that job is not actually a profit but it is a form of cost because the money given out to create new jobs can be used as other even more better thing. As a conclusion, destruction can't actually bring any good because it uses up the opportunity cost and resources which is not seen by now.
Class 14: Trade off and Opportunity cost
Today, Mr Rizzo talks about the opportunity costs and trade off, which are two of the very important basic economic principles. As economics is the study of scarcity, people made decisions and people interact with each other in order to make the maximum profit while reduce the cost. Since there is no such thing as free ( having anything without sacrificing anything), people can only make the best decision out of their best interest based on opportunity costs and trade off.
Saturday, 1 October 2011
Economics of Happiness: Does Money Buy Happiness
http://www.aifestival.org/session/economics-happiness
The video "Economics of Happiness: Does Money Buy Happiness" is generally about two economics professors debating on whether Money can really buy Happiness. Professor Justin Wolfers from University of Pennsylvania, with lots of empirical data and graph, shows us that indeed money can buy us happiness as "richer people are generally happier than poorer people" and "richer societies are generally happier than poorer societies. Professor Robert H.Frank, on the other hand, shows us that money could not really buy happiness because of relative position: richer people might not be happy because human are constantly comparing themselves against each other, and that just pushes the standard bar higher and human become unhappy again. Overall, it relates to the lectures of "economic growth brings happiness" given by Professor Rizzo.
Is there such thing as "unhappy Millionaire"? If there is seriously no unhappy millionaire, then why George Eastman commit suicide?
If relative income matters, then humans are suppose to migrate to poorer countries, but why humans are constantly moving to richer places just to get poorer? No matter how much you earn, you are still, poor.
How can the country becomes richer but the general people are not getting any richer?
Personally I agree more to Professor Robert H. Frank that money can't buy us happiness but rather it is our feeling that makes us feel better when we compare to others.
The video "Economics of Happiness: Does Money Buy Happiness" is generally about two economics professors debating on whether Money can really buy Happiness. Professor Justin Wolfers from University of Pennsylvania, with lots of empirical data and graph, shows us that indeed money can buy us happiness as "richer people are generally happier than poorer people" and "richer societies are generally happier than poorer societies. Professor Robert H.Frank, on the other hand, shows us that money could not really buy happiness because of relative position: richer people might not be happy because human are constantly comparing themselves against each other, and that just pushes the standard bar higher and human become unhappy again. Overall, it relates to the lectures of "economic growth brings happiness" given by Professor Rizzo.
Is there such thing as "unhappy Millionaire"? If there is seriously no unhappy millionaire, then why George Eastman commit suicide?
If relative income matters, then humans are suppose to migrate to poorer countries, but why humans are constantly moving to richer places just to get poorer? No matter how much you earn, you are still, poor.
How can the country becomes richer but the general people are not getting any richer?
Personally I agree more to Professor Robert H. Frank that money can't buy us happiness but rather it is our feeling that makes us feel better when we compare to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)