Category Archives: Economics

>Should the rich help the poor?

Posted on by 4 comments

>In todays culture we assume yes. But consider this example:

“Consider Joe Smith and his identical twin brother, Jim, who have identical abilities and education. Joe decides to take a job as a high school teacher of economics. He teaches six hours a day and the rest of the time he spends fishing, swimming and sailing. He is very happy. Not surprisingly [Stiglitz never experienced high school teaching], his pay is very low. Jim becomes an economic consultant. He works seventy hours a week and has no time for fishing, swimming, or sailing. […] One has a high income, one a low income. Is it fair that Jim should pay far higher taxes than Joe?”
Joseph Stiglitz illustrating problems of taxation in Economics of the Public Sector, Pg 472.

>Inheritance

Posted on by 4 comments

>Should it be taxed or not? If so by how much? Do you think that all people have the right to pass their surplus cash onto friends and family or do you believe in complete equality of opportunity i.e. that everyone should start from a roughly level playing field and therefore achieve based solely on ability?

>The future of education

Posted on by 7 comments

>Milton Friedman (a famous American economist) once advocated a privatized system of education where every new born child receives a certain number of vouchers that can be redeemed at any educational institution right up till PHD level. This would give parents a choice of whether to spend all the vouchers getting their child into a world class school like Eton, or spending the vouchers getting their children into a moderate school but still having some vouchers left over to fund higher education. Though of course parents would be able to spend extra money on top of the vouchers.

Is this a good idea or should education be solely administered by the state?

Any other ideas for educational reform are also welcome (from any country).

>Is the right to parenthood absolute?

Posted on by 8 comments

>It is fashionable among modern politicians to say that the environment is the biggest problem facing our age. But many environmentalists argue that the planet is overpopulated. In fact one the most popular documentaries to ever be made, ‘Planet Earth’, features a quote saying that we need to limit the number of people to a level far below its current 6 billion in order to achieve a sustainable level of life.

Then there are all the abusive, and just plain bad parents out there. What gives them the right to be a parent? Is a child always better off with the natural parents?

>Why do Terrorists do what they do?

Posted on by 18 comments

> This picture (taken from http://www.fullposter.com)shows the 1998 US embassy bombing in Nairobi, Kenya. It depicts what we often think of when we think terrorism. But this is something that is going on all around the world, not only targeting the West but many centres of authority around the world.

Some people suggest that few people truly believe terrorists will be granted eternal paradise. They say that if this was true then more people would be doing it and that in fact it is only the young who are fooled. Do you believe this is true? If so then why do those few believe?

And more importantly, if you believed killing others would gain you access into eternal paradise would you do it? If you believed your God wanted you to spread misery would you worship that God?

>Stable or maximum growth?

Posted on by 2 comments

>

Most economists and politicians argue for growth to be treated as the primary goal. Practically all people agree that growth is desirable. But what sort of growth should it be? Assuming we will always have economic slumps, should we try and stabilise growth so that we don’t suffer huge depressions, or should we just aim to achieve the highest possible rate of growth over a hundred year period?

>TV: Good or Bad?

Posted on by 2 comments

>Most of us love television. Most people spend a hell of a lot of time watching it. But is it good for us?

Bhutan’s ruler nobly declared in 1972 that he would lead the nation based not on ideas of advancement and monetary growth but on happiness. On the whole this does seem to have made people more happy, even if only through providing people re-assurance that their government is trying to help them. But in 1999 it was decided that television would help people become more happy. And so Bhutan became the last nation on Earth to recieve television. What happened next?

One year later crime and suicide had surged. In April 2002 the country experienced a crime wave like no other it had ever faced. The non corrupt culture that Bhutanese had been so proud of erroded seemingly over night. In a country where drugs grow more commonly than grass drug use had never been a problem before television. Yet on April 16th 2002 Dorje, a 37-year-old truck driver, bludgeoned his wife to death after she discovered he was addicted to heroin. Stories like this would have seemed completely out of place in 1998, where the Budhist culture discourages killing anything, even insects. Have the Bhutanese experienced a culture shock and difficulties coping with change? Or is television really at fault as many Bhutanese believe?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »