Skip to main content

Like Econ 101, but Interesting

Another economics book finished! Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science by Charles Wheelan lays out basic economic principles in an interesting manner. Although the author comes from the Chicago school of economics, he gives many different perspectives on the topics. Some of the topics I've heard discussed before: how to save endangered animals from poachers, adverse selection (relating to used cars and insurance companies), &c. Some of the things the author covered are considered more boring and weren't discussed in The Undercover Economist or Freakonomics, such as how the Fed operates and index funds (although I found these things very helpful). My favorite chapters dealt with globalization and development economics. The book didn't become very thought-provoking until the epilogue, where Wheelan asks several questions about what the world will be like in 2050. The one that I found most interesting was this:

How many minutes of work will a loaf of bread cost? ... If productivity grows at 1 percent a year over the next half century, our standard of living will be some 60 percent higher by 2050. If productivity grows at 2 percent a year, then our standard of living will nearly triple in the same time frame--assuming we continue to work as hard as we do now. Indeed, that leads to a subquestion that I find more interesting: How rich is rich enough?

Americans are richer than most of the developed world; we also work harder, take less vacation, and retire later. Will that change? ... Economic theory predicts that as our wages go up, we will work longer hours--up to a point, and then we will begin to work less...

Assuming Americans continue to grow steadily more productive, will we choose to work sixty hours a week in 2050 and live richly (in a material sense) as a result? Or will there come a time when we decide to work twenty-five hours a week and listen to classical music in the park for the balance?


The book is good for those who want a refresher on their Econ 101 topics, filled with interesting relevant discussions on global warming and trade protectionism.

Naked Economics: B

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus, Lover of my Soul

An old friend and spiritual mentor of mine left a comment on my last "Religious Conversation" Post . It provoked so much thought that I wanted to share it with everybody, because I know quite a few of my religious friends are reading this, and I know quite a few of you who would make a similar statement. Here it is: There is an element in this conversation that is being overlooked (at least, I presume). There is an aesthetic beauty and, more, an affection, which Steven appears to have for God. This is not illogical; in fact, all human beings exhibit it for something. It may be subjective, and it is not conclusive, but it is completely logical. And I can't imagine an argument that would refute it. It is something like a man saying, "I love my wife. I appreciate her many virtues and charms; I believe her to be the woman most worthy of my affection and lifelong commitment." If I say this and someone were to say to me, "But EVERY man says that of his bride!

After Summer Sosltice

my very first priority for the day was to sleep in as late as possible. when my foul roommate woke me up I had to shift to priority number two: be as comfortable as possible - normal routine be damned. Upon shuffling my way into the kitchen, I discovered a moth, wet-plastered to a dirty pan. "I feel your pain, buddy." Sitting on the couch next to a glass of water, I wish I could devise a way to get the water in me without having to move my arms or head. My vacant glazed gaze gathers itself toward a brochure on the coffee table:Tips 4 Teens - Alcohol Abuse I laugh (only mentally) and for a moment, the shaking stops. Jesus, it's good to be alive.

How Many Will Enter Heaven?

Check out this quote I found online: "[C]onsider this fact: fewer than 20% of people actually think they are going to hell. And yet, in answering that question, Jesus says in Matthew 7 that FEW pass through the gate that leads to eternal life. 80% doesn't sound like few to me... do some of us have the wrong idea?" There are a number of problems with this quote. First of all, you it is assuming that "few" refers to the current ratio of professing Christians to non-Christians. What's to say that Jesus isn't referring to the entire population of all the earth over all time? In that case, it's entirely plausible that 80% of people now are really Christians, as long as there are still few total Christians when all is said and done. Maybe it applies only to the people in the crowd listening to Jesus. Or, it could refer to something else entirely (as I believe). Jesus was talking to a specific people living in a specific time. We cannot decontextualize his