A short summary of the first blog post, which was written by one of his students. Gary Becker was a very respected economist from Chicago and is fondly remembered as a great mentor. Also, some of his significant works were economics of racial discrimination, the quantitative analysis of the economics of education, family formation and separation, fertility, crime and punishment, addiction, as well as social influences on economic behavior. However, the blog post describes more about his life and personality rather than his works.
The second post however, describes a lot on his works. Gary Becker tries to view the family as a market structure, which produces basic goods such as meals, residence, entertainment, etc. On the other hand, Gary Becker also came up with the theory of discrimination in the work force. When competition is strong, the employer is forced to employ the most productive laborers rather than those of their preferred ethnic groups to increase productivity. This can shift both the long run and short run supply to the right, as labor is increased. Also, as the productivity increases, firms can opt to hire less workers, thus requiring less cost. In this case, this theory is right,. However, when an employer discriminates a certain ethnic group, he/she might think badly about them and thus have bias. Another theory that Gary Becker had, (a quote from the blog) : "his microeconomic work on the economics of the family concluded that a major cost of raising a child was the foregone earnings of women. As women entering the labor force thus reduced fertility, this work became central to the macroeconomic study of economic- and population growth." Gary Becker proposes that the opportunity cost to not entering labor forces was due to fertility. As in the short run working would provide a greater "profit" compared to having to raise a child, plus not working while bearing the child, women choose to reduce the number of children they have and more and more women chose to enter the working force. Also, having children takes up time, energy and money, women who enter the workforce will choose to have less children, thus reducing fertility as a whole. As a conclusion, I fully agree with Gary Becker's theories as they are very relevant to today's society. However, families should not be based upon a market struc I found the Bitcoin really interesting and find that there are many ups and downs to this new kind of currency.
Bitcoin as a currency is constantly deflating and the cost for one Bitcoin is inflating very fast. This causes people who have Bitcoins to hoard them as they expect the value of Bitcoin to increase very quickly. Also, there are only 21 million Bitcoins available, no more and no less. Users can choose to mine or buy Bitcoins, however only enthusiasts and the more wealthy can afford to invest on 'custom silicon chips" (ASICs) to "mine Bitcoins". Bitcoins can be mined by solving complex algebra, and as the demand for Bitcoins are increasing, the algebra becomes more and more difficult every minute. Thus, only the more wealthy can afford to have and spend Bitcoins. This makes the circle of users smaller and companies accepting Bitcoins will eventually change to alternative currencies such as Litecoins. The Bitcoin is like a bubble going to pop anytime soon. I say that because the cost and demand of Bitcoins is increasing rapidly but the supply never increases. When he cost of Bitcoin is too high and also people who have Bitcoins are unwilling to spend them as they expect higher costs, people will start to turn away from using Bitcoins. The Bitcoin bubble will pop eventually and the value of Bitcoin will drop drastically, causing owners trying to sell them off or suffer a great loss. Bitcoin is a representative money as it is virtual and can only be used to buy stuff on the internet through websites which accepts Bitcoins. Personally I think that it can be considered as money as it is a medium of exchange, is a store of value, is a standard for a deferred payment, and is a measure of value. However, Bitcoin is an edgy bet to me. It is only used by some online sellers, therefore it is not possible to rely on Bitcoins as an "internet currency". People tend to prefer using their good ol' Paypal and other forms of payments. Also, the Bitcoin wallet is installed n your hard drive and if your hard drive crashes or reformats, you lose ALL your Bitcoins and for those who have invested a lot on Bitcoins, it can be really sad! Lastly, since there is only 21 million Bitcoins in the market, the Bitcoin will eventually face deflation. Thus, to play safe, I feel that it is still better the rely on our own currencies. Next, Nike exchanges sweat for items. Can sweat be considered a money? I personally think NO. Firstly, it is only accepted by Nike, thus is not a medium of exchange. Not only does it not fulfil any of the criteria of "money", sweat literally dries up very quickly! However, using Nike products to sport helps advertise their brand and I think it is Nike's sole purpose of implementing sweat as a currency. |