I'm trolling through blog comments and there were some questions that went neglected as I freaked out the last two weeks. :)
First, from Marty, regarding PPC's:
a) An increase in the average length of an average vacation would cause an underuse of resources (in response to Savannah's uncertainty, I think she's right about that...) To be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure what this would do to the PPC. I would assume it would cause it to shift inward, but I thought that the curve itself only shifted if something caused the amount of available resources to decrease. As far as I can ascertain, an increase in vacation time wouldn't so much decrease the amount of resources available, but just cause the underuse of them. I know this was marked as a point closer to the origin than any of the curves on the PPC graph we studied. Is that the same in this instance, too? It seems like it'd be more appropriate; the human resources are still there, they're just not being put to use...
There is a good argument for two possibilities here. The good news is that as long as you are able to justify your response, you'd be pretty safe with either. First, if the average vacation nationwide increased in length, the "correct" answer is that the curve would shift in. It's a loss of resources. BUT...it's entirely possible to view it as an underuse of resources (i.e., a point inside the curve), because it's plausible to use those resources (human resources) differently. With an explanation, either is perfectly acceptable. If it were a multiple choice, I would go with the curve shifting in.
From Erika, same post, about PPC's:
c)A decrease in the average retirement age would cause nothing if the same amount of people stayed in the work force. I'm confused about what this means, are you referring to more and more people dropping out of the production of goods? In which case the graph would be likely to curve inward? (not sure!)
The work force would mean a change in resources - with that, it's going to affect the curve. So yes, more people dropping out of the production, and yes, the curve shifts in. :)
From Josh, same post - and I'm so sorry I didn't see this before your test.
I am commenting on number 4 as well. Before i answer the question i had a question about the ppc. in our packet, most of the graphs show "consumer goods" as x axis and "capitol goods" as y axis. is this just an easy example to use or is this like the base model to think about when answering these questions?
It's just an example. Anything on the national exam will tell you what would be on each axis. The chances of it being a FRQ are pretty slim, but there will be m/c questions on PPC's. Hopefully that will help with retests, and I don't have to feel too guilty about missing it. :(
Tanvirkamal, same post -
EXCELLENT analysis on the MySpace and scarcity. Really a great way to view it.
Oh and this is going to a VERY fun semester, I will make sure of it, many of you know I can do that...
How fun...? lol
John mentioned (same post):
# 1) The author believes that the opportunity cost is that of short term loss of jobs within the United States. The author believes that the loss is being exaggerated and really should not be of conern to Americans but he also states that it should not go unnoticed. The author believes that the government should not adapt a policy of protectionism but rather let the economy be and have things take care of themselves through a competitive process between companies within the economy.
Get used to this way of thinking. :) We'll come back to it again...and again...and again. Great interpretation of the author.
Brent, same post, on outsourcing:
He says that the comparative advantage of trade by outsourcing will benefit the US economy in the future compared to the loss of the jobs in the short term. Personally, I think this author can write this so biasedly because he or no one else he knows has been affected by outsourcing.
One of the first rules is to take the emotion out of the analysis - which is really hard, especially if you've been affected by outsourcing. It's easy to say "Jobs in the US will be regained in other sectors", but the reality is, if you (or a friend/family member) is the one losing their job, it's different. Basic economic free market theory (which is what we have to look at in this class) will state that when trade is willing, it's good for all involved. Therefore, jobs that go overseas can be seen as opening our economy up to increase in other sectors - usually seen as higher level jobs in technology or services. It doesn't, though, look at how those people are supposed to make that shift from the GM factory in Janesville to some high-tech job. It's a tough one.
He doesn't see the individual when writing this article at all, how they can't pay their bills because they don't have a job, how they can't support their kids, how they get deeper into debt when they never should have been let go to begin with. So many corporations make so many horrible decisions, it just pisses me off!
You're right - it's not about the individual for the author. The corporate edicts have changed in the last 50 years or so. Just as the American worker is no longer concerned with company loyalty, the company is no longer concerned with keeping their workers happy. It's really changed how business is done in our country. Is there an answer? Well...I'm not sure. The bottom line for businesses is that their costs are lower and profits rise. Yes, there are businesses that will take other things into account, but that number is lower than it has been in the past.
Okay - that's the comments from the PPC post (the one entitled "Friday" below). I'll hit more later. :)