Investing 101

1. Stocks:

http://www.thegreenhead.com/2008/09/slice-solutions-pie-pan-divider-creates-perfect-slices.php

Depending on how many shares of stock you purchase, you can get a larger or smaller share of the pie, or company, and have more power about its fate (energy form sugar).

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/22/the-new-collective-bargaining-agreement-mostly-small-changes-but-total-success-all-the-same/

2. Bond: I more secure agreement given by large-scale organization; the handshake represents the added trust to the return payment as these are large and powerful organizations that won't go under easily.
3. Primary Market/ Secondary Market:

http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/why-we-should-plant-more-trees

Planting a tree is like a primary market because the the gardener is like the issuer of the security (the tree) to the earth (the one who ultimatley purchases it)

http://www.mtvcountryclub.com/equipment.aspx

 A secondary market is like a work-out machine because the person buys it like a security for their body (they are buying form an investor in order to invest on their own body).
4. Bull and Bear market:

http://chadashim.biuinternational.com/2013/01/18/staying-sane-during-finals/

Studying is like a bull market becuase when you study who can expoect, or are curretnly actively seeing, your grades rise.

http://www.lucilleroberts.com/blog/http:/www.lucilleroberts.com/blog/trainer-tip-how-to-tighten-and-tone-your-inner-thighs/

When going on a diet, one can expect, and actively see, thier weight go down, such as in a bear market when numbers drop.

http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1828R-52523

5. Selling Short: When a kid sneaks candy before they eat dinner, they are "borrowing" a security they do not really have possession of yet and are expecting to be able to get away with it and maybe get even more candy after dinner.

6. Franchise:

http://ourtowntustin.com/2012/03/30/big-brother-is-watching/

Big Brother has control that is like an organization of all the businesses in the society.
7. Underwrite/ Underwriter/ Going public:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/geeseandswans/discuss/63916/

The mother swan is guaranteeing her offspring security and closely watching them, as one company offers financial assistance and oversight to another company; the public act of feeding the chicks is like going public because the mother is sharing her private foods with them (the new investors).

When I'm Thirty

Option B

Since the Sequester 12 years ago, this nation has consistently found it necessary to use hard measures in order to cut federal spending and reduce our national debt. The divide among Republicans and Democrats have worsened and the ability to enact new measures have suffered because of it, leading to more across-the-board cuts. When we elected a new president, we subsequently lost some of the mental blocks which had surrounded President Obama's 8-year term. However, this new generation has realized there must be changes in order to reduce the United State's horrendous trade deficit, and there have been painful (but necessary) cuts. This was unfortunate when I sought to buy a house as the mortgage rate was higher than before. Taxes have increased as well, and it was difficult to find a job in that time's poorer economy.

Globalization has seen a shift in power over the last 12 years, and the United States was in a difficult position trying to keep job-producing companies in the US with low corporate taxes; however, we needed those funds, and we raised the corporate tax. We now concentrate on ourselves, as opposed to international conflicts, and seek to strengthen the internal economy while maintaining a respectable trade relationship with other countries. The government used to politically divide us on topics such as gun control or abortion, but now we recognize the need to address the economy with as much passion. Times have been harder as we rely more on state and local governments to guide our lives, and the transition from a big government to a smaller one has included balancing the budget better so that the federal system is not a fund-draining conglomerate. Overall, while it has been harder on me this last 12 years, I understand our economy could not sustain the debt and trade deficit as well as other hardships that were steering our economy to a worse and worse end. There was no simple or easy way out of the hole we dug, so now this generation must work to get us out of it and clear the path for the future with long-term goals in mind.

Manifesto 2.0

1. The role of government in the economy ought to be a limited one. As President Obama stated in his second inaugural address, "Our rights come from nature and God, not government. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes". This means that the public should not entirely rely on the functions of a government to shield them or provide for them. Instead, we must harness the individual and community opportunities in order to make us who we wish to be. In this vein, the government should encourage a public of contributors with some promise degree of support, as seen in health care and Social Security, but at the same time ought to not involve themselves to deeply and promote a system of dependence, as seen through layer of complex organizations that promise to come to the aid of people. The government should seek to improve and maintain infrastructure and general public health and safety, but then should leave the more personal dealings to smaller governing structures such as states, counties, towns or family units. The government risks drowning under too much responsibility and must learn to share the burden through smaller governments under them.

2. The sources of federal government revenue should rely to a large degree on individual income. The government seeks to improve the public - through infrastructure - and protect the nation's way of life - through military defense - and the beneficiaries of this then logically ought to contribute to these functions. I am slightly unclear about the Social Security and Social Insurance systems and what they constitute, but I can see the government's perspective on the (relatively) low percentage taken from corporate income. In this globalizing world, it is risky to drive away companies that now have the option to pack up and settle outside the USA - and outside the corporate tax. We need these companies and their jobs, revenues and stimulation, so a low(er) tax will hopefully entice them to stay. Overall, I mainly support the percentages that make up the federal government revenue pie chart detailing where the money come from, although I would require greater study into the relationship between government and economics to refine my answer.

3. The money that the government spends is more confusing to me then how they obtain their revenue. The major section I am having trouble with is the "Discretionary" slice. Other than that though, I find it interesting to see the fairly equal manner in which the pie chart is divided. I support the decision to focus on public works and functions, such as Medicare and Social Security, which maintain the quality of life an individual has in our country. The majority of the spending should - as they are - be focused on improving the majority of the nation's public, although it ought to also support those fields that are less visible to the public as well, such new research that may or may not improve the lives of people. However, I feel there will, and should, be a shift away from government funding into this research and instead have private interests fund research; this way, the scientists will be more intimately involved and motivated instead of just working off of grants they apply for simply in order to work.

4. Some of the major choices for reducing the deficit in the years to come include reducing the funding for the arts and humanities. While I enjoy public art and believe to some degree that public art improves the mindset of the people, I have found that communities more often sponsor art that is intimate and focused on the local flavor than federally funded art. Another cut I would advocate is the $852 billion for war spending/defense. We would withdraw from a war that has drained our economy without benefiting us in any major way, and it would allow the public to focus on the national security rather than international affairs that damage our reputation. One other change I would make includes the elimination of tax subsidies for the oil and gas industry that allow them to "expense" exploration costs. The government's job is to improve or maintain the quality of life of the public, and by eliminating these subsidies alternative and cleaner energy sources will be encouraged and explored. This will, in the long run, improve air quality, reduce our dependence on a mainly foreign economic good, and  reduce spending put towards cleaning the environment.

5.                                                   

http://www.ldsfitnessnetwork.com/2012/07/fitness-myth-machines-are-always-a-safer-way-to-exercise/

This is an image of an exercise machine. It symbolizes the need to gradually burn off the fat (unnecessary spending)  and to improve the muscle tone and ability of the overall "body" of the government. This also means that we need to get to work and put more overall effort into the problem, targeting each part of the body so that the resulting body functions well together (focus on national rather than international security). We need to be strong and rely on our own body's ability to function (oil dependence) and overall unite the different sides of the body to work together (unite parties).

Taxes: Pros and Cons

Flat Tax

Pros: An even percentage of tax on all tax-paying citizens which leaves "investment income, such as capital gains, dividends and interest...tax-free". Deductions would be much less viable option, thus closing "controversial loopholes". Low-income families (household incomes with family of  four~$36,000) would be exempt from tax. A flat tax is argued to "remove the barriers to upward social and economic mobility". It is a simple system and corporations would not be able to lobby for loopholes. Also, incentive is increased when people feel as if their hard-earned money is not given away to the government because they do better (progressive). No double taxation, so encourages economic growth. Workers for the IRS would be cut and reduce federal spending.

Cons: Flat tax would eliminate the tax-exempt house mortgage deduction. Mortgage-interest deductions encourage people to buy homes, stimulating the economy. The DRI estimate "an average 12%-15% decline in the total value of residential housing in the U.S. would result  from a flat tax". Charitable contributions might decline as they would not be tax exempt. It would raise taxes on lower and middle class, but would lower the tax on the wealthy.

Statement: I do not support this tax because it would unfairly burden the lower and middle class with increased tax percentages, thus limiting the amount these consumers would buy as their decreased spending money would  be mainly spent on necessities.

Progressive Tax

Pros: The wealthy are more able to afford the higher tax percentages placed on them, thus decreasing the national debt faster and more efficiently. Lower-income people would be exempt or pay much lower taxes, allowing them to retain funds which would be spent on the economy, thereby strengthening it. Many of the wealthy "get off relatively easy when it comes to paying their fair share" partly because "much of their income is derived from investments". Allowing lower class citizens to keep more of their money means they will spend that on the economy, stimulating it.

Cons: It has been argued that "If wealthy Americans...saw their taxes increase...they would be less likely to invest their money by starting or expanding businesses". These "job creators", with their extensive funds and connections, would be less likely to create job positions in new ventures if they felt they could not afford it or would just be unfairly taxed for their successes. Others argue that there are only a small number of extremely wealthy people to tax, and those are running out so we shouldn't rely on their taxes to prop the federal government. The practice could be considered inherently immoral, as most rich people work hard for their money same as any other class.

Statement: I do not support this tax because it punishes the wealthy and encourages them to seek ways in which to evade their taxes, further complicating the system.

National Sales Tax

Pros: This tax would eliminate the need for the IRS, eliminate federal income tax for individuals and corporations and help low-income households previously without tax with a universal rebate on all tax-payers. This flat rate sales tax would tax those who buy personal goods or services, thus rewarding those who are thrifty and encouraging careful consideration before purchase. It is reported to eliminate "personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment and corporate taxes", but that this sales tax would raise the funds for Social Security and Medicare. The tax also simplifies the tax system and promotes predictability. It would also eliminate the double-tax on corporate businesses, thus encouraging them to invest in their companies and bring them back to the USA.

Cons: Could be argued this is a regressive tax, unfair to lower and middle class; these classes spend most of their income in necessities, whereas wealthier people can save their money which is then not taxed. Their is debate on where the sales tax percentage would be, ranging all the way to 60%. Others "wonder how the rebate system would be administered without a centralized system" as this tax proposes the elimination of the IRS. It is also mentioned that states with an older population would suffer heavier as they would pay a "double-tax" from previous income taxes. The transition would be rough then and would be unfair the the elder generations.

Statement: I do not support this tax because it is a regressive tax that does not take into account the lower incomes of lower and middle class, limiting the products they will buy and weakening the economy.

Value-Added Tax

Pros Many other countries have adopted this method of taxation. There is a lower VAT on necessity goods and services so that the lower and middle class are not as effected by this regressive tax. Proponents argue that VAT "is often not a decisive issue for investors, whereas corporate taxes are more decisive". The size and complexity of international and domestic corporate tax would be simplified with a VAT system. The suggestion of a VAT would encourage consumers to purchase goods and services before it came into effect. It could then be phased in over a couple years, thus encouraging consumers to become aware of saving and being thrifty.

Cons: It is a regressive tax that could further increase the burden on the poor and middle class. Also, the VAT is a less flexible system than the current income tax, and so "the U.S. Congress would be sorely tempted to [tweak and tinker with it]". Some argue that a personal income tax would need to be combined with a VAT system so it would offset the regressive effects of it.

Statement: I support this tax because it would indirectly tax the consumer, encourage corporations to return or stay in the USA and it would simplify the system and encourage consumers to become more aware of their purchases in order to save money.

The Big Picture

I think that taxes are a necessary part of living in a country like the United States of America where social programs and government funding create a melting pot culture that attempts to address the needs of many. Like the saying goes, "Nothing is certain but death and taxes", so now we must find a balance that works with this lookout in mind. However, first I would like to point out that any solution proposed here is made with limited knowledge of the subject, thus I am unable to firmly stand behind any proposal reached at this point - although the quote above does reflect my view.
First off, I would recommend to the President that a progressive tax be kept in place - the rich are taxed at a higher percentage. My reasoning for this is that this nation allows the near limitless growth of wealth for companies, and through them individuals, provided they have the right tools. I highly doubt these individulas are even capable of spending all their money solely on themselves; they owe the system, which in part educated their workers and provided them services, like highways and health care, which allowed them to focus on the company and not the dangers of a next meal or child's cost of college. Also, it is wise to not let these successful people gain too much power, as this is a democracy and the government should respond to the people, not the wealthy individual who can control international assets worth billions and hold great influence - all factors in political power. Additionally, the rich can sustain the higher taxes and do not live in fear of financial collapse as long as they are responsible. Indeed, it is the irresponsibility of the US government that has led to a $16 trillion deficit, and I would recommend the federal budget be reduced in response to this. We can not live beyond our means, and the mistakes of the past must be payed, even if it is difficult at first; we can try to implement a long-term solution that may lessen the blow to the system however.

Sequester

      Through the lens of CNN, the sequester is a 1.2 trillion government spendings cut spaced over a period of 10 years. These cuts would be focused evenly between defense spendings and domestic discretionary spendings. The origin of these across-the-boards cuts could be argued as to be a result from the increasing US debt which is upwards of $16 trillion, especially spiking after the 2007 recession. More recently, the standoff between the Obama administration and the Republicans in Congress in 2011 over the US debt ceiling has them agreeing to cut $1 trillion through a debt ceiling law and the sequester, although there was hope that a "super committee" could find a less drastic method of reducing government spendings. Some conservative groups like FreedomWorks support the measure, although others think it is "legislative madness". The sequester's date of March 1st is due to it being pushed back from New Years Day as the government did not want to have old Bush tax cuts expiring at the same time as the sequester, perhaps reversing a still-struggling economy. $46 billion will be cut in 2013.
    ABC News includes the fact that Social Security checks, Veterans Administrations programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Pell grants, food stamps, and CHIPS will not be affected by the 9% cuts. Some governments officials maintain that programs have some "flexibilty" in which they can avoid the worst of cuts, while others purport that the "rigid nature" of the sequester does not allow too much maneuvering. Most of the cuts will be dealt with through government-worker furloughs, although there will be advance warning to these workers. Before the required legal signing in of the sequester, the government sought ways to prevent it. One thought was to give agencies more authority so that they could rearrange their own money and concentrate funds on the essential programs. The sequester has already been delayed once; it is possible that it can be legally postponed again.
    Lastly, according to the Washington post, the sequester is part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and part of the debt ceiling deal. The sequester was a last-minute punishment of sorts as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, or Supercommittee, could not reach a compromise to cut $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The fiscal cliff of New Years Day was averted partially because the sequester was delayed to March 1. Despite heavy reductions, no programs will be cut altogether. One example of cuts can be seen in the shuttering of 128 national wildlife refuges of 561. Obama has suggested having a new package of tax increases than the sequester in 2013. Pretty much every group and organization does not want to see the sequester go through.

Manifesto Beta Version

I feel that government is created as a system to manage the affairs of the people, especially those it directly governs. Therefore, the government should be involved to some degree with the economy as money is a very human and social thing that is controlled by our desires. Social programs, a - again - very human affair, should be aided by (and in some cases controlled) by the government. This is because the government is taking some of the money (taxes - which I approve of, more on that later) and money ought to be used to improve the nation the government runs, including aiding organizations which seek to help people in various situations. This has pros and cons however; one negative aspect is that dependence and mooching can occur, producing or encouraging a populace of shiftless individuals who take advantage of programs they are not in need of. Yet, because of the inevitability of the class wealth distinctions characteristics of a capitalist system, there will be disadvantaged individuals who would benefit from these programs and could then contribute back to society (the ultimate purpose of instating social programs by the government) with their increased confidence, skills and understanding. Overall, social programs, while essentially a good moral idea, will always feed a certain populace that will not give back to society. Yet, the programs should exist, regardless of the negative factors, as no programs would anger the a majority of the population and an angry people is not a good thing for a government.

Economics Research Project Spring 2013

 To Presentation

Supply Wrap Up

Inelastic Supply Curve

Inelastic Supply Product Example

Elastic Supply Curve

Blue is Original, Green is Decreased and Red is Increased