A summary of 150 words..

Can A Soda Tax Save Us From Ourselves? AS governments large and small face sizable budget shortfalls, policy makers are looking for ways to raise tax revenue that will do the least harm and, perhaps, even a bit of good. One idea keeps popping up: a tax on soda and other sugary drinks. The city council in Washington recently passed such a tax. Gov. David A. Paterson has sought one in New York. And a national soda tax was briefly considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a way to help pay for President Obama's health care overhaul. But is a soda tax a good idea? Economists have often advocated taxing consumption rather than income, on the grounds that consumption taxes do less to discourage saving, investment and economic growth. Hence the case for broad-based consumption taxes, like a value-added tax. The main issue for the soda tax, however, is whether certain forms of consumption should be singled out for particularly high levels of taxation. One argument for specific taxes is that consuming certain products has an adverse impact on bystanders. Economists call these effects negative externalities. Taxes on gasoline can be justified along these lines. Whenever you go out for a drive, you are to some degree committing an antisocial act. You make the roads more congested, increasing the commuting time of your neighbors. You increase the likelihood that other drivers will end up in accidents. And the gasoline you burn adds to pollution, including the greenhouse gases thought to cause global climate change. Many economists advocate gasoline taxes so that drivers will internalize these negative externalities. That is, by raising the price of gasoline, a tax would induce consumers to take into account the harm they cause after making their purchases. One prominent study added up all the externalities associated with driving and concluded that the optimal gasoline tax is over $2 a gallon, about five times the current level (combining the federal and a typical state's levies) and about the tax rate in many European countries. Applying that logic to other consumer goods, however, is not as straightforward. Consider cigarettes. They are among the economy's most heavily taxed products, as governments try to discourage people from smoking. Yet the case for such a policy cannot rely on a conventional externality argument. When a person sits at home and smokes two packs a day, the main adverse impact is on his or her own health. And even if second-hand smoke is a concern, that problem is most naturally addressed within the household, not at the state or federal level. Sometimes, advocates of ''sin'' taxes contend that consumers of certain products impose adverse budgetary externalities on the rest of us -- that if the consumption induces, say, smoking- or obesity-related illness, it raises health care costs, which we all pay for through higher taxes or insurance premiums. Yet this argument has a flip side: If consumers of these products die earlier, they will also collect less in pension payments, including Social Security. Economists have run the numbers for smoking and often find that these savings may more than offset the budgetary costs. In other words, smokers have little net financial impact on the rest of us. It may seem grisly to consider the budgetary savings of an early death as a ''benefit'' to society. But when analyzing policy, economists are nothing if not cold-blooded. If one uses budgetary costs to justify taxing particular consumption goods, the accounting needs to be honest and complete. There is, however, an altogether different argument for these taxes: that when someone consumes such goods, he does impose a negative externality -- on the future version of himself. In other words, the person today enjoys the consumption, but the person tomorrow and every day after pays the price of increased risk of illness. This raises an intriguing question: To what extent should we view the future versions of ourselves as different people from ourselves today? To be sure, most parents have no trouble restricting a child's decisions on the grounds that doing so is in the young person's best interest. Few teenagers are farsighted enough to fully incorporate the interests of their future selves when making decisions. As parents, we hope that someday our grown-up children will be grateful for our current restrictions on their behavior. But people do not suddenly mature at the age of 18, when society deems us ''adults.'' There is always an adolescent lurking inside us, feeling the pull of instant gratification and too easily ignoring the long-run effects of our decisions. Taxes on items with short-run benefits and long-run costs tell our current selves to take into account the welfare of our future selves. IF this is indeed the best argument for ''sin'' taxes, as I believe it is, we are led to vexing questions of political philosophy: To what extent should we use the power of the state to protect us from ourselves? If we go down that route, where do we stop? Taxing soda may encourage better nutrition and benefit our future selves. But so could taxing candy, ice cream and fried foods. Subsidizing broccoli, gym memberships and dental floss comes next. Taxing mindless television shows and subsidizing serious literature cannot be far behind. Even as adults, we sometimes wish for parents to be looking over our shoulders and guiding us to the right decisions. The question is, do you trust the government enough to appoint it your guardian?

PLEASE SUMMARIZE THIS FOR ME::::::::::::::::

Can A Soda Tax Save Us From Ourselves?

AS governments large and small face sizable budget shortfalls, policy makers are looking for ways to raise tax revenue that will do the least harm and, perhaps, even a bit of good. One idea keeps popping up: a tax on soda and other sugary drinks.

The city council in Washington recently passed such a tax. Gov. David A. Paterson has sought one in New York. And a national soda tax was briefly considered by the Senate Finance Committee as a way to help pay for President Obama's health care overhaul.

But is a soda tax a good idea?

Economists have often advocated taxing consumption rather than income, on the grounds that consumption taxes do less to discourage saving, investment and economic growth. Hence the case for broad-based consumption taxes, like a value-added tax. The main issue for the soda tax, however, is whether certain forms of consumption should be singled out for particularly high levels of taxation.

One argument for specific taxes is that consuming certain products has an adverse impact on bystanders. Economists call these effects negative externalities.

Taxes on gasoline can be justified along these lines. Whenever you go out for a drive, you are to some degree committing an antisocial act. You make the roads more congested, increasing the commuting time of your neighbors. You increase the likelihood that other drivers will end up in accidents. And the gasoline you burn adds to pollution, including the greenhouse gases thought to cause global climate change.

Many economists advocate gasoline taxes so that drivers will internalize these negative externalities. That is, by raising the price of gasoline, a tax would induce consumers to take into account the harm they cause after making their purchases. One prominent study added up all the externalities associated with driving and concluded that the optimal gasoline tax is over $2 a gallon, about five times the current level (combining the federal and a typical state's levies) and about the tax rate in many European countries.

Applying that logic to other consumer goods, however, is not as straightforward. Consider cigarettes. They are among the economy's most heavily taxed products, as governments try to discourage people from smoking. Yet the case for such a policy cannot rely on a conventional externality argument.

When a person sits at home and smokes two packs a day, the main adverse impact is on his or her own health. And even if second-hand smoke is a concern, that problem is most naturally addressed within the household, not at the state or federal level.

Sometimes, advocates of ''sin'' taxes contend that consumers of certain products impose adverse budgetary externalities on the rest of us -- that if the consumption induces, say, smoking- or obesity-related illness, it raises health care costs, which we all pay for through higher taxes or insurance premiums.

Yet this argument has a flip side: If consumers of these products die earlier, they will also collect less in pension payments, including Social Security. Economists have run the numbers for smoking and often find

that these savings may more than offset the budgetary costs. In other words, smokers have little net financial impact on the rest of us.

It may seem grisly to consider the budgetary savings of an early death as a ''benefit'' to society. But when analyzing policy, economists are nothing if not cold-blooded. If one uses budgetary costs to justify taxing particular consumption goods, the accounting needs to be honest and complete.

There is, however, an altogether different argument for these taxes: that when someone consumes such goods, he does impose a negative externality -- on the future version of himself. In other words, the person today enjoys the consumption, but the person tomorrow and every day after pays the price of increased risk of illness.

This raises an intriguing question: To what extent should we view the future versions of ourselves as different people from ourselves today?

To be sure, most parents have no trouble restricting a child's decisions on the grounds that doing so is in the young person's best interest. Few teenagers are farsighted enough to fully incorporate the interests of their future selves when making decisions. As parents, we hope that someday our grown-up children will be grateful for our current restrictions on their behavior.

But people do not suddenly mature at the age of 18, when society deems us ''adults.'' There is always an adolescent lurking inside us, feeling the pull of instant gratification and too easily ignoring the long-run effects of our decisions. Taxes on items with short-run benefits and long-run costs tell our current selves to take into account the welfare of our future selves.

IF this is indeed the best argument for ''sin'' taxes, as I believe it is, we are led to vexing questions of political philosophy: To what extent should we use the power of the state to protect us from ourselves? If we go down that route, where do we stop?

Taxing soda may encourage better nutrition and benefit our future selves. But so could taxing candy, ice cream and fried foods. Subsidizing broccoli, gym memberships and dental floss comes next. Taxing mindless television shows and subsidizing serious literature cannot be far behind.

Even as adults, we sometimes wish for parents to be looking over our shoulders and guiding us to the right decisions. The question is, do you trust the government enough to appoint it your guardian?

Each year in the US, millions of people become ill and thousands die from eating food contaminated with bacteria. Controlling growth of microorganisms on food is a particular challenge, and over the course of many centuries various methods have been developed for controlling microorganisms in food. Some of these include preservation by irradiation, drying, freezing, canning, and salting. Preservation by salting is based on the principles of osmosis. One example of this is the preservation of ham by applying large amounts of salt (“salt-cured”) or sugar (“sugar-cured”) to the meat within 48 hours after slaughter. Using information you learned in this lab, speculate about how this process works to preserve ham.

Chapter 3 question from Global Communication) At the end of chapter 3, Hamelink reminds us that international/global communication is often characterized by continuity (permanence) and change. With this in mind, how has the development of communication fundamentally changed our perception of time and space? Provide examples to support your opinion (use the textbook, news, journal articles--makes sure to cite properly)

Assume that it is now Jan. 2018. AZDT Inc. (US) expects to receive cash dividends from a joint venture in India over the next five years. The first dividend of Rs 2 million will be paid in Dec. 2018. The dividend is then expected to grow at an annual rate of 10% over the following four years. Current exchange rate (Rs/$) is 45 (65.25) and AZDT’s average weighted cost of capital is 10%.

a. Compute the dollar present value of the expected rupee dividend stream if the dollar is expected to depreciate by 5% per year against the rupee over the investment period.

b. Obtain the dollar present value of the expected rupee dividend stream if the rupee is expected to depreciate by 10% per year against the dollar over the investment period

c. What is the dollar present value of the expected rupee dividend stream if the exchange rate remains constant over the investment period?

According to recent figures from the National of Educational Statistics (US), 17.5% of all bachelor’s degrees are in business. 27% of bachelor’s degrees in business are obtained by women and 48.75% of other degrees are obtained by men.

1. Complete the table.

b.What is the probability that a randomly selected recent bachelor’s degree graduate will be a man?

c.What is the probability that a randomly selected recent bachelor’s degree graduate will be a man with a degree in business?

(d) What is the probability that a randomly selected female recent bachelor’s degree graduate will have a degree in business?

Suppose you have been assigned to analyze the consumer paper products industry in the US. From a top-down perspective, how would you proceed and what factors would you consider in analyzing the prices of shares in the firms in the industry?

A) This post is designed to have us find out how secondary sources differ from primary sources when reporting research information. So, for this post, search the internet for a topic that you would have some interest in researching (e.g., dementia, online course success, vaccines and autism). Specifically, find an article from a secondary source (e.g., CNN, Huffington Post, Bob's Psychology Page) and report the following information:

1. Describe what is being reported. Give a brief description of the source. Include the linkto the article.

2. Based on how our chapter explains research and research methodology, describe 2 ways in which your article's reporting of this topic differs from primary research. In other words, is s/he not reporting information that is typically included in primary research? If so, what? (Hint: This is always the case - secondary sources do not report the amount of detail that primary sources do).

3. On a personal note, what do you think of the author's reporting? How would you rate its clarity and comprehensiveness?

B) One of the important goals of this chapter (as well as this course) is to understand the characteristics of a reputable source. This post helps with this goal. For this post, I would like you to find a psychology-related journal article that conducted an experiment. After you find an article, you should read the Abstract (the small paragraph at the start of the article) and the Method (should be a couple pages into the article) sections (if your article does not contain these sections, find another one that does!) and then answer the following questions:

.1. What was the dependent variable(s)?

2. What was the independent variable(s)?

3. How did the researchers define the variable(s) they are measuring?

4. How was the variable(s) measured?

5. What were the limitations of the methodology (or the study)?

6. What would you do differently? What did you think of the author's attempt to measure the variable in question?

7. Remember to upload the article to your post.

Project: Random variables are all around us, from the time we require to commute to school, to the percentage of lecture material we remember for the exam, we can describe much of the world around us using probability. Project Statement: Find a random variable in your day-to-day life, call it X(ω), and do the following:

• Describe X as either quantitative, qualitative, discrete, continuous, etc.

• Give the support of X (i.e. its possible range of values)

• Speculate on its distribution. Is it normal, geometric, exponential, etc. Give specific reasons and justification for this speculation!

• Sample this random variable at least 5 times. • Use this sample to estimate its parameters.

• Give the newly parameterized distribution explicitly.

Q1.Graph the demand for and supply of Australian dollars for US dollars. Label each axis.

From Australia's perspective, show graphically and explain the effect on the Australian dollar of the following.

Australia’s major trading partners experience higher RGDP and income growth resulting in an increase in the price of Australian exported commodities (e.g. coal, iron-ore).
Additionally:
-   there is increased speculation of the Australian dollar (AUD) based on speculators expectations of its future value.
-   Lower interest rates in Australia decrease Australian financial investment overseas.
                                          

Q2.   Explain the impact/ consequence of the change in the exchange rate in (a) above will have on Australia’s net exports, real GDP and the price level in the future.