A market has its flaws. But this paper describes the free market from the point of view of a simple pencil. One of the things to keep in mind is that government involvement in an economy can be a good thing. But there is, somewhere, a fine line where government is doing too much. Where that line exists is a matter of politics.
Questions to consider:
1) What should the role of government be in a market? Consider the goals/roles from the web diagram.
2) What questions do you still have regarding market or command systems?
3) How does I, Pencil explain the "beauty" of markets? Biased phrasing of that question I know, but it is pretty efficient
4) Is government involvement in the economy good or bad? Is there a line to be drawn in the sand that is going too far?
17 comments:
I challenge you pencil. Despite your assumptions or proof that not even the pres. of the company knows how to make you, someone does. The individual who goes through the process of choosing your tree, your lead, your metal, and etc. is the one who composed you. That individual is also the one that takes the resources and has it assembled onto the machinery made to build you. Which they are also very much aware of. That being said because they must know the pressure, cut, and precision of each of your kind. Care to challenge me?
1)I think the government's role in markets is to direct where the product should be sold in the market. This would give all types of markets a "chance", so to speak, to see how many of the product would be sold in different areas.
2)No questions about the Market and Command System
3)It explains the "beauty" of markets by describing the process of how it is made and sent into a market to be bought.
4)Government involvement in the Market is good for awhile until the line has been crossed. In which, the government would be controlling the market instead of just being involved.
1)The government should oversee these complex processes, but putting taxes aside, profit of the private businesses should go to the private businesses themselves. With this said, the private businesses would have to be responsible for attaining all their needed supplies, services, etc; the government shouldn't choose these things for the businesses.
2)How much control does the U.S. government have over our businesses? If we all countries are in between a market and a command economy, where exactly are we as a nation?
3)The work is split up in a way that cuts time and costs to people everywhere. All of the people involved in creating a pencil have such a small part, but each part is important. Their part helps create billions of pencils sold each year.
4)I think government involvement is good because otherwise, there'd be no Pure Food or Drug Act. There'd be no way to tell if we're getting fair prices. However, I do think businesses should have some freedom to expand and compete in the market on their own. That way, buyers have more choices.
-Overall, I believe that the government's role in a market should be to monitor or oversee the actions that occur, but not to get overly insertive into the affairs of trading and capital that occur in the market. It should be that the actions are controlled by the "creative know-hows", and the government can step-in in some situations when they are needed.
-One question that I do have about a market economy is that what is the certain extent of power that the normal person has over the market and how much power does the United states government have over the government and influencing, in a sense, us?
-The "Beauty" of the markets is how we are able to get the resources we need from all around the world to make things and the time and cost are signifigantly cut due to the market. As explained, the pencil was made from many resources ranging from " cedar of straight grain that grows in Northern California and Oregon" to "graphite is mined in Ceylon". And then due to the market all of this is possible and it is all done efficiently.
-The governments involvement in the market is a good thing. They are able to regulate what goes on and are able to set up rules that ultimately help everyone in the market. But there is a line that has to brawn when it comes to government involvement. A government with total control gives no room for freedom or creativity. The US does not want a whole lot of control because we want our private businesses and companies to be able to give the consumers the freedom of choice. Total government control is not totally a bad thing, but it is not right for a place like the USA.
-I would also like to challenge the anonymous comment above because that someone may know how to put the pencil together, but do they know how to mine the graphite out of the ground, do they know how too log the trees, do they even know how to grow the right tree for the job? I think that if someone wanted to, they could learn evey single process that goes into making a pencil, but I doubt if there is someone who truely knows everthing about making a pencil.
1) I think that governments should only watch and make sure trades are safe and secure. If they're were problems or fighting, that's when they got to step in.
2) I don't feel like asking questions.
3) It shows the process of how they get resources, how they use them, how people are involved, and how it is made and bought/sold.
4) Governments do play a big role, but I believe it should be to the point where as i said earlier, only to step in when needed.
1) I believe the role of government in a market should be to simply oversee what's going on. They should set up the outline, but not become too overly involved in what happens. They should let the private businesses operate without pressing for control over matters. Their presence should only be seen when it is necessary for them to become involved.
2)In the United States, how involved are they in the market? What would happen if even more power was shifted away from the government?
3) I, Pencil took such a simple everyday item and broke it down into every single component to show everything that goes into making this item. All of the different items needed to produce this pencil come from various places around the world. It shows the beauty by telling how many places are innertwined through just a pencil.
4) Too much involvement is bad for the economy, but so is too little. There should be lines drawn so that there are no incentive and coordination problems and what not. But overall it's better to have involvement so that there are regulations and a smoother way of running things, along with some freedom.
1) I think government should be the safety net. I don't think they should control what we do, but they should always be able to swoop in and save the day if things go wrong.
2)No questions.:)
3)I, Pencil made markets good because we wouldn't have had the product if we didn't have the freedom to interact with other countries.
4)I think government should be involved, but not too involved. People should have the freedom to start their own businesses or whatever, but not to the point where there are no rules because then that's just chaos.
Juan)The government should have no control over any part of a market except for the companies in which said government owns. I feel the only way to have a true capitalist society is for the government to take no part in any market. I understand that sometimes this is important because we have to keep companies in check and eliminate monopolies, so my soultion to that would be this. The government, like any other group or individual, has the ability and freedom to create it's own business. If there is a monopoly, the government can create a service or business such as UPS to compete. This being said, the government will have to follow all the same laws as the other businesses to keep them from undermining the indivudual or setting unreasonable prices. If this is the only way the government is involved in the market then it will flourish, people will become rich, and others will become poor. It's survival of the fittest and darwinism at it's finest, but hey, isn't the whole premise of capitalism darwinism anyways?
Shoe) No real questions. I just wonder if there are any real pure command systems or pure markets. I don't see how this could be in a world where no one has the time or power to control everything and most are too lazy or careless.
Tree) I would say that something this essay sas about markets (weather it's beautiful or not) is that even in the production of something as small as a pencil, so many people can be benefited. It talked about the suppliers of the parts that go into the pencil, the manufacturing of it, and the use. Everyone wins. And that, IS a beautiful thing.
Pauley Shore) I'd say government involvment can be a good thing, however I believe that in order for the most people to benefit and have the most control of their fates, the only way to accomplish that is for no government involvment. However, we as humans have been taught from the early age of 1 minute old that someone will always be there to hold our hands through everything we do. So if the world wants to perpetuate this to adults who most likely don't need their hand held and most of whom would find it weird, i guess that's okay. It's just a waste of money and other valuable resources such as time. But by all means America, if you want to have your hand in everyone's cake go ahead. Just wash your hand first or i'll move to Australia. (that was a pretty good metaphor i think).
1. The government should have the most limited role as possible in a market. However, they should be in charge of breaking up monopolies and any other unfair advantage a business has.
2.I think I understand the two systems pretty well.
3. It divides the work that goes into making pencils, making it cheaper and more efficient than having one group in charge of the whole pencil making process. It also shows the importance of each small task required to make pencils.
4. Government involvement in the economy to a certain extent. It is good to have them mediate any arguments and bail out businesses that go into debt. But as soon as they try to control private businesses they prevent creativity and innovation.
1) The government should only get involved in order to maintain a "healthy" market. The people should make their own decisions, but not decisions that are negative on the whole wide scale. This is when the government should step in and help.
2) The whole part about people's freedom. That was confusing. I don't get how that relates with economy? Is that what you mean when you say that the market is based on confidence?
3) It shows the beauty of the market by giving an expample, the pencil, and telling us all these interesting facts that we don't know into a persuasive essay.
4)I think that the government involvment in the market is only good if they don't go too far. Just as the govenrment puts rules for bussiness men about when there decision are impacting the whole people, the bussiness men should be able to say when the govnerment is not letting them make a profit and put regulations on the governmetn regulations. anyways that was confusing. and I'm tired and took Night Quil so I probably don't make much sense right now.
1.) I think the government's role in a market should be to step in only when markets are using monopoly abuse or raising prices to much. In terms of how and what markets should produce I think the government should let markets explore and handle that part, after all it is their job.
2.) I can not think of any questions right now but if I do I'll ask in class.
3.) It explains the complexity that the market organizes in order for a simply pencil to be made. There are so many parts to make a pencil we probably wouldn't use them if the market wasn't in charge of the making of it.
4.) I think the government's involvement in the economy can swing both ways good and bad. In terms of government role in the U.S. I would say it is good. However, in Cuba I would say it is bad. I think the line should be drawn at the difference between stepping in to help and stepping in to be in charge and control like its their job too.
1) Government should oversee what's going on to make sure that no laws are broken, but they shouldn't get directly involved by trying to run and monopolize the entire market.
2) I don't think I have any right now.
3) It shows how so many people and processes are involved to make the littlest thing like an everyday pencil.
4) Government involvement can be good, but only up to a point. In government, involvement can quickly become control.I think that there is a line, but I don't know exactly where the line would fall.
1) What should the role of government be in a market? Consider the goals/roles from the web diagram.
The government shouldn’t have much of a say on what gets traded in the market. Yes, there should be stipulations and regulations on to if people can trade marijuana, crack, nuclear weapons,etc. at school and such, but they shouldn’t price out, and have complete control over everything. This leads to the fall of the American Empire that we have been living for a hundred years or whatever. The government should decide for itself how much they are going to meddle in the economic affairs. They know the risks of having no government role, and respectively having all government rule, and probably make their decision. What they should do, is have just a little bit of rule. The best example of this is our very own United States of America. We have market economy ruling, with also a blend of a sliver of government rule. You have to have at least a portion, as that is what the government was planned out to do; rule, at least partially.
2) What questions do you still have regarding market or command systems?
I have several questions still in regards to the economic systems today. First of all, are there any other types of systems? These are just the extreme examples of economic system, government rule, or no government rule. What about partial? Isn’t that what we have? According to all this, a country has either a command or market. If we have a market economy, than how do we still have the government place their say in what goes on economically? Also, who decides on whether the country is market or command or some mixed version like us, the president? Or is it a race to see who picks it first, the people, who pick market, or the government, who pick command. If it is usually up to the people, then how can it be a command system? Would this only be in effect for those countries who have a dictatorship style government? Could we ever have a command system? If so, how could we put that into effect? Did Hitler instigate a command economy? You could write a book on Hitler making Nazi-Germany a market system, and title it “Irony.”
3) How does I, Pencil explain the "beauty" of markets? Biased phrasing of that question I know, but it is pretty efficient
I, Pencil explains the beauty of markets by using a direct metaphor to a pencil. It talks about the systems of market as if they were all associated with this single pencil. It gives us a broader sense of what we are learning through. This time, its a pencil. It is almost a full length single example about how it compares to a single graphite and wood pencil. One of the most significant comparisons is the notion between how it is just accepted among our people. We don't really take a pencil for granted. A pencil is just an everyday pencil, we don't think much more than that, and we shouldn't. This is directly in relation to the economic systems.
4) Is government involvement in the economy good or bad? Is there a line to be drawn in the sand that is going too far?
I think that the government should have involvement, but just not as much as say, a command economy would. To have just a little, it sets some standards, so everything is not chaos. But on the other hand, if the economy is all ruled by the government, there will be the same prices on everything, like in Cuba. This is bad to have in your economy, for many reasons. It cuts down on innovation, as no one would want to make their product better for more people to buy it. It would cost too much money, and they would still have to sell it at the allotted price deemed from the government structure. This also has an effect in competition. When you compete with someone or something, you want to get your product better so that you can beat out your competition and sell more. Well, with government involvement, there would be no need for competition, which has a direct impact on innovation. The country would fall behind, and it would eventually fall. The perfect example of this is the Soviet Union.
By the way, the "Anonymous" comment was Amy Nguyen.
1. The role of government in an economy should be such that it provides stability, public goods and services, maintaining competition, and provide the basic legal structure. The role of the government should not be one that confines the economy to a simple choice, but allows it to prosper on its own, specializing in what it may, and innovating its own failures.
2. My question would be : How do countries get to be what economic system they are? Is it based on just historical situations?
3. The reading explains the "beauty" of market by explaining in great depth how the processes of market is carried out, through the point of view of a product that participates in all the economic decision making and such that we analyze.
4. Government involvement, in moderate levels, is good in an economy. Govt. should take the position of the great overseer of economy, steering the overall economy into prosperity and preventing it from failing. However, when a government is too far involved, such as answering the basic questions of economies itself, instead of actual buyers and sellers, it turns into a command economy without any economic freedom. Living in the Unites States, the citizens of the nations are prompted to believe that the market economy is the best, for it is what supplies our success; however, I cannot say exactly, how much government should be involved, for it will depend on the situation.
1. I think the government should play the role of the "parent" and by this I mean, it should give the market freedom but at the same time there is a point at which the government should step in to regulate. Not all power should be to the government nor to the market itself.
2. none
3. I, Pencil shows that the market has a variety of ranges. It markets something as simple as a pencil to something as big as a billion dollar company.
4. I think government involvement in the economy can be a good and bad think. At some point the government has to step in or otherwise the market wouldn't have any rules and could get away with anything... but it does come to a point when enough is enough.
Post a Comment