Economy? Yo.

I believe that the economy is going to go in the direction of option A, as much as I would like to believe differently. If I were looking back at the economy's decrease since graduation from high school, it would not be an easy path for the country. With the arrival of the fiscal cliff, taxes rose, and continued to rise through the years as the country fell further and further into debt. Of course, many people were unable to pay these high rates of taxes, and began having difficulties supporting themselves and their families. The quality of life declined dramatically as people were unable to support themselves. The last few years haven't been easy for my family and I, either.
I was able to get into college, but am having difficulties paying it off (and likely will be for quite some time). I wasn't able to get a job until the end of my sophomore year, and it doesn't pay as much as I would like, but at least it's a job. It's difficult to have any extra money to spend on things (of course, being a college kid means I'm broke anyway, but in this economy it's about twice as bad), and I'm mostly using all of it to just get by. The taxes continue to rise every few years, and the debt never seems to get any lower. I don't look forward to seeing how the economy is for the next generation, but maybe they'll be able to fix it. You never know.
A question to end with is, will the American people be able to look past the lifestyles they have now in order to help maintain it in the future?

Econ Paper, yo. (Disney Company)

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the entirety of your life, chances are you have heard, read, or seen something related to Disney in some way. Disney is one of the largest corporations in the world, and is involved in nearly everything imaginable - movies, television, amusement parks, the Internet, games, toys - the options are endless. Disney can be found almost anywhere, through advertisements and product placement; it is designed to never be out of mind. How did Disney get so good at its marketing strategies - what makes it so successful as a company? Through countless years of learning and experience, the Disney corporation has perfected its social media and marketing strategies into nearly a work of art.
Originally founded in 1923, Disney has had many years to perfect its strategies, to figure out what worked and what didn’t. This is one of the primary factors that puts them so far ahead of other companies - the huge amount of time they have had to learn and revise their marketing strategies. Their marketing teams are extraordinary at coordinating complementary marketing events; a good example is the release of Toy Story 3. When it was released in theaters, it generated a very positive response, earning $1 billion in the box offices. It wasn’t long after the movie’s release that the retail market was flooded with toys, souvenirs, apparel, and other items, all related to Toy Story. A few months later, a new Toy Story attraction was opened in Disneyland Paris; although it was an attraction that had been in production for years, its release was scheduled to coincide with the release of the movie to amplify the Toy Story frenzy. As well as that, Disney World was then able to add to their already existing Toy Story attraction to make it relevant to the new movie (Tracy). These are only a few of the strategies used to draw attention and interest to the products of Disney. The Disney marketing teams do not allow their products to leave customers’ minds, and are always introducing new products to keep the Disney brand fresh in fans’ minds. Through their careful and specific advertising and marketing, Disney is able to do that successfully with nearly every franchise they launch.
Another reason that Disney is so far ahead of many other entertainment companies is because, quite simply, they were the first company to successfully launch what they are most famous for; animations. In 1928, Disney was the first to release an animated short that was synced with sound, Steamboat Willie. It was a huge hit, which gave the company the advantage of being the first to offer such entertainment. They were also one of the first to release a full length animated film, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, and revolutionized the entertainment industry by being the first studio to produce programming exclusively for television (Tracy). By starting so much earlier than most other companies in the field of film and animation, Disney gained a huge advantage, and more time to perfect its production and presentation to audiences. Their aptitude for continuous improvement of this strategy has rewarded them well.
Another social media strategy that Disney uses is building communities of people brought together by a common interest - Disney - while extending the community beyond that sphere. Some communities such as Disney Living or Disney Baby maintain a focus other than Disney, but the Disney mystique is what initially helps draw interest and bring the consumers together in a community. It is also another technique to always keep Disney in mind; while mothers might be having discussions about their babies or parenting-related topics, they are still linked together through a Disney community (Warren). Disney offers a variety of products and communities, that range far from the expected merchandise and movies associated with Disney in order to have impact and relevance in all aspects of life. Even when people aren’t specifically discussing Disney, they are still linked to it through the very community they inhabit.
It is quite outstanding how the Disney machine has managed to expand its reach into such a variety of business ventures - including merchandise, games, movies, amusement parks, cruise lines, and online communities. Disney creates this diverse range of business not only by creating its own franchises, but by acquiring outside businesses, such as ABC Family, Pixar Studios, and Marvel, which allows Disney access to a whole new range of popular, well-known franchises (Tracy). When Disney gains access to the earning power of companies that are already popular and successful, it increases the likelihood that their own success will grow. One would not expect any of these companies to be a part of Disney at first glance, further proving the point that almost any aspect of business and entertainment can be related to Disney, and further enhance its brand.
Due to its wide and powerful influence, Disney plays a large part in the economy. Their merchandise fills store shelves, their movies generate income for movie theaters, and their advertisements are visible everywhere. If Disney did not exist, it would result in a significant loss of income for many other companies. For example, Disney has quite a few amusement parks scattered around the world. All of the businesses, hotels, and restaurants in the towns surrounding Disney properties depend on the business gained from all of the tourists who are there to visit “the happiest place on earth.” If the parks were not there, these companies would lose the considerable business produced by the constant barrage of tourists. A huge number of jobs are also created in Disney parks, stores, studios, and other operations, all of which would be nonexistent without Disney. Disney has built a strong, influential hold over society and its economy.
In conclusion, Disney has used its countless years of experience and practice in order to make itself into one of the most successful and influential companies in the world. While it would not be impossible for other companies to copy Disney’s business model, they would likely  have a difficult time replicating Disney’s success. If you need evidence of that, look at all the ways that Disney surrounds us and try to imagine another brand achieving such a universal presence.

Citations

-Barnes, Brookes. “The Downfall of a Disney Marketing Executive.” Nytimes. 1/8/12. Web. 11/30/12.

-Tracy, Ryan. “The Business of Magic.” The Daily Beast. Newsweek. 11/3/10. Web. 11/30/12.

-Warren, Christina. “Disney Marketing: The Happiest Social Media Strategy on Earth.” Mashable. 8/3/11. Web. 11/30/12.

Fiscal Cliff, yo.

The Fiscal Cliff is a looming set of tax increases that are set to happen after January 1st, if no decision is made between Obama and the Republicans. This will involve more than $500 billion in increases; taxes will raise for almost everyone, and most businesses as well. January is set to be when a few other things happen, as well; the Bush-era rate reductions, a cut in payroll taxes, and smaller tax cuts for businesses and individuals. As well, about 1 in 5 tax payers will have to pay the alternative minimum tax.

The alternative minimum tax is an extra tax that is meant to prevent people who have high incomes from paying little or no taxes due to special tax benefits; however, almost anyone can be affected by it. The alternative minimum tax, obviously, determines a minimum amount of tax a person has to pay - those who already pay that much through regular taxes aren't required to pay any more, but if the regular taxes are lower than the alternative minimum tax, a person must pay more to meet it. Along with that, the Bush-Era tax  cuts will be ending as well; Obama wished to end them two years ago, but reluctantly decided to renew them in order to help stabilize the weak economy.

The Republicans wish to keep the Bush-Era tax cuts the same, but Obama wants to end cuts on those with high incomes - to prevent the wealthy from paying a very small amount of their taxes. Also adding to the fiscal cliff is the incoming debt ceiling - the US is heavily in debt, and we're rapidly approaching the limit of debt that the government allows. In order to help lower the debt, spending cuts are supposed to go into effect on January 1st, when the Bush-Era cuts are set to expire. With our debts so high, it's looking unlikely we'll be able to pay off our debts in time - which is likely to raise borrowing costs in the future. January of 2013 should certainly be an interesting month, to say the least.

My Manifesto, Yo!

Whether we like it or not, the government is going to have some sort of influence on our economy - the amount of control and influence is what's to be determined. If the government had no control, I think it would be difficult to be controlled at all if left entirely to the people. Alternately, they should not have too much control over the economy; there should be a healthy balance of power over the economy between the government and the people. Without that control, the economy would collapse, but with too much, there would be no freedom. 

Although Oregon's form of taxes is good, I think the sales tax that Washington has would be just as effective, if not more. With the sales tax, people pay a little at a time instead of paying their taxes all at once. Also, it ensures that people do pay, because they have to purchase things at some point, and when they do they'll automatically have to pay some taxes as well. Ideally, those who are unable to pay should not have to pay taxes, while those who have enough to should pay taxes - however, any system like that would cause many problems with trying to distinguish what separates a person who can pay their taxes from a person who can not. People who have large amounts of wealth or excess money should definitely be paying taxes, though.

Health care is something that should definitely be provided for everyone, as well as education. Once a student reaches college, money may become more of an issue, but there should always be possibilities for them to be successful, whether that be through assistance or their own abilities. Unemployment is difficult because unfortunately, there will always be someone who does not have a job - that's what makes the jobs that do exist worth something, because they are in demand. The government should still offer some sort of support in all of these situations for those who need it. They should help provide for services such as police, fire, emergency, and military as well, as these are crucial necessities for society's survival and ability to run smoothly and efficiently. Although taxes should cover this partially as well, things such as roads and public areas should be upkept in order to keep them in safe working order.

To finish off with a question: if the US was not in debt, how much money would we be able to add back into things such as education and public services? Would taxes be lowered, or kept up in order to help prevent going into debt again? (Two questions instead of one? Golly.). 

Minimum Wage, yo.

I believe that the minimum wage is an important thing to have; without it, companies would somehow manage to get away with paying their employers very little simply because it may be the best they can get. I believe minimum wage should be at least $10; a person should be able to support themselves on minimum wage. Although raising the minimum wage would require more money from the businesses, it's important for people to be able to survive and support themselves through their jobs. If they aren't able to do that, they're in trouble. For someone like me, a teenager trying to get a job just to have a little extra money or help pay for things, the minimum wage is fine; however, for someone trying to survive entirely off of it, it may become a bit difficult. The minimum wage should most definitely not be abolished; and as nice as it would be for it to raise to $15-20, that would begin to put strain on the businesses and the amount of employees they can hire. I support the minimum wage, but it's an issue that must be tread through carefully in order to help everyone.

Price Floors, yo.

Aside from minimum wage, I don't think price floors are altogether that beneficial to the economy either. Of course, in some situations there are perks - a higher price means more income for the businesses. However, a higher price also means that less people are going to be willing or able to buy the product, and thus the consumer market will go down. Businesses having the same goods at different prices is a very important part of the economy; when businesses compete, they lower their prices to beat the others and as such, provide the consumers with a lower price. Competition in business is much better for the economy as compared to having price floors set on goods. It would also throw off the market equilibrium, creating a surplus of certain goods; if people are less willing to buy goods at the higher price, but the supply increases because of the raised price, then the businesses will end up with a surplus of goods.

Price Ceilings, yo.

While there are both pros and cons to having price ceilings placed on certain goods, the cons tend to far outweigh the pros; I disagree with the use of price ceilings. Although making the prices of items more accessible to everyone is helpful to many people, it also causes problems such as lower quality goods, hoarding, and scarcity of the goods in question because of how much demand there is for them at these lower prices. As well as becoming more difficult to get, many people will begin selling the same goods in black markets for considerably higher prices because of how difficult it can become to access the goods at the new lower prices. While many people would think lowering the price of something everyone needs would be a beneficial and helpful thing, the contrary is actually more likely; it would cause more harm to the people and the economy than it would help.

Supply Wrap Up, yo. (edi

Demand Connection, yo.

Out of all the topics we're able to write this entry about, I'm going to choose Inelastic Demand as my topic - specifically, gas prices, which is a topic I'm sure I'm not the only one writing about. Now that I've started driving and having to pay for more of my own gas, I'm realizing how very, very expensive it is. It costs about $40 to fill up the tank on my little blue car, and putting $10 in seems to vanish almost immediately. Gas, though, is something necessary to everyone, and no matter how expensive it may get people will still buy it.

These days, I'm always watching to see which gas stations may have a lower price - one I pass on the way to school has a gallon for about ten cents less than the station near my house. It's beneficial to get gas there if I'm nearby, but to drive out of my way to go there, I'm probably not saving much money. But even if people can get gas for a lower price at a different station, there's a high chance they'll get gas wherever is most convenient. Even if the price were to rise to ridiculous prices, people will still buy it because it's necessary for their every day schedule and transportation.

The reasons that gas count as an inelastic demand good are that even if the price fluctuates, people will still buy around the same amount - nor will they go out of their way to buy more or less. A cars gas tank can only fit so much, and so when gas prices get low, it isn't as if a person can stock up on gas while it's cheap; they're ruled by the size of their gas tank. Like another example of inelastic demand, milk, you can't stock up on it, can only get it when you need it. That is what makes gas an inelastic good.

As for a question to finish off this entry; if there were a way for people to stock up on gas (using sources outside of their gas tank) how would the price of gas change?

Demand Wrap Up, yo.

Demand Headlines, yo.

1. Complimentary: "Return of Captain America, patriotism skyrockets - American pies and flags purchase rises."
2. Substitute: "All hot dog carts destroyed during New York attack - citizens turn to shawarma instead."
3. Elastic: "Price of pop-tarts hits the roof - buyers reply 'nay'."
4.  Inelastic: "Cost of construction rises - citizens dutifully pay their due no matter the cost."

        "After the attack on New York from the Norse god, Loki, reconstruction of damaged property has been slow-going. So many buildings are destroyed, and many citizens wonder if our city will ever be back to it's former glory - however, many are optimistic and willing to do as much as possible. No matter the price, they will do what they must in order to fix the city. People are gathering together to help rebuild; the sense of community is astounding. While some businesses have been raising their prices due to so much demand, people are buying the necessary materials needed despite the higher cost. “It’s worth it in the end, once we’ve gotten everything back to normal,” one bystander comments. The famed Iron Man is contributing large amounts of money and materials as well. We can be rest assured that no matter what the price is, our city will be as good as new again in no time."

Elasticity Diagrams, yo.

Demand Schedule, yo

Market Systems, yo!

I don't really have any particular personal connections to a market economy - no one in my family has started a business, or lost a job and had to move (that I'm aware of). I haven't had a job in any market economy business, either, although I hope to change that. I do hold the opinion that it is a good system of market, though, for many reasons also found in the book. Despite having its ups and downs, it overall seems like it is effective and efficient.
Market economies are good because, quite often, they help the buyers get lower prices from competing companies, or specific goods that they want. Since the companies rely on the buyers for income, they are more driven to produce the things that we want, as opposed to control systems. Being controlled by the government, the control system has no competition, and thus is less concerned for the happiness of the consumer. Market systems are very concerned with the happiness of the consumer and trying to provide what they want in order to attract the buyers attention away from other competitors business.
An example that I can think of is from a few ads I saw over the weekend. The Christmas shopping season is starting up (Already? Dear lord.) and I saw an ad sheet for Toys R Us and Target, each advertising Avengers merchandise. Among the deals, they had the same exact large action figures displayed; at Toys R Us, they were sold for $17.99, but at Target, they were only $17. Not much of a difference, but I thought it amusing that there was that difference. Not only that, but the actual Avengers DVD coming out tomorrow seemed like a better deal at Target. The Blue-Ray 2 disc at Toys R Us was $22.99, but at Target, the 2 disc Blue-Ray (plus 90 minutes of bonus footage, I'm not certain if the Toys R Us one had that) was only $19.99. If I were shopping for these things (Which I am. Avengers will be mine.) I would definitely choose to go to Target over Toys R Us.

Before businesses reveal sale prices for the Christmas season, are they able to find out what price other businesses are selling the same thing for (such as the action figures)?

Opportunity Cost, Yo.

“Think about a time in your life where you had to choose between two or more options. Explain the opportunity cost involved in that decision.”

I'm just going to start off saying that I am actually the worst at making any kinds of decisions, whether it be something big or small. I always need someone else's opinion; half the time I won't even go with what they chose, but at least I still had another opinion. College is, of course, a pretty big deal. It's the next big part of my life. However, I think I actually have a pretty good idea of what I want to do.

The decision hasn't been made yet, obviously. I haven't even started applying to colleges. My main two choices are University of Oregon and Oregon State - so far, I'm leaning towards University of Oregon. Although I don't know what I want to major in, I've been considering pursuing marine biology, and for that the logical choice would be University of Oregon. If I were to chose Oregon State, some of my opportunity costs would be the marine biology program, as well as being separate from many of the friends I know who are planning to go to UO. 

Choosing OSU leads the same way - there will always be people I know who are going to go to a different school than me. There isn't really any specific courses I want to take that are offered only by OSU, so in my opinion, there is less opportunity cost for not going there. Deciding on a school is always difficult, and involves having to give up some things in order to have others. I wonder what the opportunity costs were for my parents when they were trying to decide on what school they wanted to go to?

Scarcity, yo.

(http://christainnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/time-management.jpg)

Time is fleeting; something that everyone feels they have a scarcity of. I spend a considerably large amount of time on the computer, and while I enjoy it immensely and have made so many amazing friends, I always have the feeling that I could have spent that time doing something that felt more productive. Going outside, reading a book, starting one of the crafts I've never actually started doing - there are so many things that I could do with the hours spent in front of a screen. I wouldn't give it up, of course; I enjoy it and I wouldn't leave some of my best friends. However, I could probably spend less time doing that, and use a bit more to do other things I want to do. And time really does seem to fly; after all, we're seniors already. That's a bit scary.