https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot Food for thought board en-us 2018-02-02 13:18:57 UTC 2018-05-15 12:36:34 UTC hello@padlet.com 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/227463157 To what extent should this industry be regulated? - This industry should be regulated more than what it is now the sneaker industry is becoming dangerous because people are killing each other over sneakers, also the industry should be regulated more because you do not know if the poeple you are buying sneakers off of are real or not and or if it is a rip-off. 

Do you agree that sneakers can be an investment opportunity given the "information" available? - I agree and disagree that sneakers could be an investment opportunity I agree for the fact that if you invest in a pair of sneakers and then do not sell them you could treat the sneakers like stocks in a way and double or maybe even triple you money invested in that sneaker which is a good opportunity. I do not agree for the fact that it could become dangerous or just like how they can be like good stocks it could be that you lose all your money. 

is Nike manipulating the "market" unfairly? - I believe that Nike is manipulating the market unfairly because they come out with new and newer brands every week and there goal is to appeal to sneaker heads and make people in a way become addicted to their sneakers and there brand which is unfair. Because they understand that they appeal to sneaker heads and other people with that sneaker addiction so they raise the prices and make more money, ended with manipulation to the market and the public.

]]> 2018-02-02 13:20:24 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/227463157 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/232307494 What does better "off" mean to you ? - Better off to me means that being 'better off' is that in fact I agree with the speaker Courtney Martin. I believe that everyone living behind a white picket fence is not necessarily happy, that happiness and being better over all means that you have done what you achieved and is not necessarily "living comfortably" and having a comfortable income is not better off for everyone. 

How should a nations growth/satisfaction be measured by whom? - I think that a nations growth/satisfaction should be measured by the business incomes and not necessarily just the personal income of the citizens that live in said nation. It should be measured by the government not for the fact that they would be in control of our money and satisfaction for the fact that it would be better and safer for us as a nation and in the end we need to trust our government and having them keep our growth as a nation from the business's and etc. We would be "better off"

The poverty rate is often seen as a statistic not the humans behind it, what would you suggest as a solution ?-  As a solution I would recommend that poverty not be seen as a statistic because in fact it is a reality, when it is seen as a statistic it is not being taken seriously. To try and fix poverty as a solution I would indeed  recommend that we help people that are suffering from poverty by helping in the ways that we can by donating money from the government or trying and do group homes (more group homes), or trying to make it more known to the public about the amount of people indeed suffering from poverty. 

"Universal Income" is incredibly controversial. can that/should that become a reality?- In my opinion I believe that it should become a reality because them people would get money even if they are suffering from poverty. But I think that then people would become happier and the universal income of our nation would exceed because then people would be able to get more jobs and would be able to start up their life again when they were extremely poor before hand. That is why I believe that "universal income" should indeed become a reality in the end to help people not hurt people. Because in the end it is a basic guarantee that you will be receiving some kind of income in the end and yes I see how this would be a extremely controversial topic and how some people could definitely see it's negatives but in the end it is going to help more than hurt. It does have negatives because everybody gets no more than what they should be required to get and how people would no longer be able to live in "luxury".

]]> 2018-02-16 13:19:11 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/232307494 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/234208113
How should we balance the need for economic growth with the reality of limited/Finite resources? - We should balance this economic growth by scientists slowing down and coming up with a plan for overpopulation and no more resources. The more people on this earth the more we consume and spend and create, as the speaker said this is a problem resulting in overpopulation and no one is doing anything we should stop trying to ignore the problem and begin to create a scientific and economically correct plan to help us plan for 2050 when we are offcialy overpopulated and can no longer survive in a world with that many people and finite resources will begin to decrease at an alarming rate. 

How should we balance the need for economic growth with the reality of limited/Finite resources? - We should balance this need for economic growth with the limited/finite resources by trying to come up with a scientific plan to make it easier to live with more people. The command for economic resources is decreasing yes but it can easily be stopped by limited the amount of things people receive and trying to regulate how much is produced and released to the public etc.

According to economic analysis it is better to produce to this situation rather than reactive. To what extent do you think ECONOMIC policies can make change? - I think that in my opinion that it is indeed better to produce to this situation because people will at least be supplied while scientists are trying to figure out how we are going to slow down our overpopulation and try and stop how quickly we are losing finite resources. 

What is the relationship between a government and it's economy? (national/local international) ? - The relationship between the government and it's economy is that the governments job is to protect the economy and to protect civilization and in this situation the government is not doing this they are not because they are not preparing us for what is happening tp our world and how we are overpopulating and how we are not ready for our shortage and overpopulation. 

Do you believe that the global economy is dependent on large scale industry? -I believe that the global economy is dependent on the large scale industry because we can not survive without some of the large scale industry we would definitely suffer greatly without them. ]]> 2018-02-22 13:53:19 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/234208113 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/240147358 -60% of the US public has less than $1,000 in savings. To what extent is the US economic system to blame? - The US economic system is to blame for the public having less than $1,000 in their savings account because if the government wishes they could slow or even stop poverty, poverty is something that millions of people not just in the US but in most third world countries suffer from, it is a serious problem and the government is choosing to not participate in helping these people for example Curtis. The government is not all to blame of course because these people living in poverty do indeed have the option of attempting to find work or reaching out to people and not resulting in crime which is the peoples decision.
-50% of the US population is considered to be financially illiterate. How would you fix this issue? Does it need a solution? -  Yes, this issue needs a solution because if people do not know about finances than they could easily be robbed or worse be killed for money or profit. I would fix this by maybe requiring a financial class in high school/college so people know a little bit about what is going on in finances and economics and the field(s). Also how to separate financial decisions and emotional decisions.
-To what extent do you believe financial stability is possible for an individual 18-24 in the U.S? - Financial stability is when you are stable money wise but you also have room for when you need to make "emotional' decisions as Curtis said, but you have enough to live comfortably and also to live with normal financial problems/issues. Financial stability is absolutely possible for an individual because of the possibilities in the USA we as a country have so many opportunities to be successful and even the black market could be helpful toward that sort of thing. 



]]> 2018-03-09 14:04:28 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/240147358 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/242771886 -GDP of these companies has out paced India (amazon,etc). Should these companies be regulated? Should they have "Power" like India, China, etc? - Yes, these companies should be regulated whether it is by the government or by the consumers because if these companies like amazon, google etc begin to gain for power than India , china or Japan or any other powerful countries they could out work or try and take over the most powerful countries. In some cases yes they should have more power because they could help make the country better or help the citizens of the economy in some way but other than that situation, no they should not have more power and should be regulated. These companies represent their shareholders at the end of the day and no they should not have that much power but their daily influence is such so they could have that much power.

- Behavioral economics is the fastest growing economic sector for large companies, Do you believe that behavioral economics takes advantage of the consumer? - In a way yes, behavioral economics does take a bit of the consumers advantage because they are purposely studying the way that the consumers buy products and what is new and selling just so they can jack the price or make a surplus of that certain product/products. But in some ways they are not taking advantage because they are just trying to do their job and make money to continue their business and nothing illegal is happening unless the company is involved in the black market. So yes, of course it does that is the entire point of Behavioral economics, but we still participate as a society in this type of economics because we like it we like social media and it is now part of our daily routine of our Lives now, they have made it so much of a necessity. Apps being created making us need our phones and computers and the internet. Huge part of our lives and this generation has grown up with sort of thing and we can no longer control this.

-$64 Billion has been paid by Walmart in taxes : Is this tax  burden too much or too little? why? -  This is too much in my opinion because tax payers do not deserve to be paying so much for this certain business especially if you do not sop their.For example if you are a shareholder in this company then this feels like too much because it would make you unhappy. Their should be an international tax society and should it be stopped is a new controversial question that my generation needs to answer. If you are a taxpayer then no this would not be fair because this is almost outrageous.

-Comment on job loss or small business closures as it relates to these topics :   Job loss in this certain situation is a growing problem because of these problems arising from the large online businesses occurring and not needing physical labor anymore. (google, amazon etc.)]]> 2018-03-16 12:22:53 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/242771886 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/247479589 -Could this "experience" philosophy work to save the New England based malls? - Yes, this could save malls because the hope that they wouuld come into the mall to see that one thing could get them to do or shop somewhere else. 
-Do you think that outlet/discount options combat online shopping? - No they do not because you can get the same prices online because you could get the same thing in your pocket without having to drive or waste gas. 
-How should we balance the need for economic growth with the reality of limited resources?
-According to economic analysis, is it better to be proactive to this or reactive? To what extent do you believe economic policies can make change?
-What is the relationship between a government and its economy?
-Do you believe that the global economy is dependent on big industry?]]> 2018-03-30 12:48:05 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/247479589 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/247945421 2018-04-02 22:06:18 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/247945421 9959227 https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/260810780 - Do you believe that automation increase/decrease the economic "pie"? why? - I think that yes, if the automation decreases it will change the "pie" in the fact that the pie would shrink entirely because automation is making the pie itself, as Dan said it is a growing issue. and if the automation increases then the pie with grow as a whole and not only that but they will also change the ingredients in the "pie" because if humans beings can not explain themselves then they can not be automated but the world is changing that and soon we all could be "automated".
-Have economists fallen victim to the "intelligence myth"? Does it matter either way? - Yes, economists have indeed fallen victim to the intelligence myth and it does not matter because we need human intelligence and human emotion in order to express or complete actions, and the machines will never be able to do what humans can do/accomplish with themselves because the machines/robots will never understand what they have done they just do it. And economists are starting to believe in artificial intelligence and less in human capabilities which in the end does not matter because they would not even know how to react to the problems/situations. 
-Machines and substitutes/compliment human beings, in your own opinion should productivity be sacrificed so people have work? explain your thinking. - In my opinion productivity should not be sacrificed because we as humans need to do things on our own and if we keep up on this track that we are on then we will soon be replaced as humans with machines and the world will become more automated than ever. Also that machines do not substitute the humans/people in this world they have no emotions and they affect the economic pie and the people involved in dividing it up.
**Bonus question** = have we solved the "economic problem" ?-  How do we divide up everything equally so everybody gets a piece of the "pie". So no we have not solved the economic problem because not every country has solved this, some countries live in extreme poverty and do not have what the US has but the US has figured it out and solved it. ]]> 2018-05-15 12:15:51 UTC https://padlet.com/9959227/2an11ndi52ot/wish/260810780