Monday, October 19, 2009
Concerning econ test
Concerning microecon test... I have to say that I have been studying for the last week and its seems that the test is not going to be easy. Actually, the theory is not really hard to understand nor long, but it is the way that Dr. Borland likes to teach. It is just too much wordly. I mean, he uses a lot of words to try to explain the dynamics of the theory, but he almost never uses numbers to explain the exersices. I think it would be a lot easier if there is formulas and numbers that explain the exercises. Another thing that is very bad is the graphics. They dont even have a tittle that explain the theory involved in the exercises. I think those need to be improved in order to be more didactic. Well, anyway. Good luck everyone in the test!
Monday, October 5, 2009
Microeconomic class
hey guys,.. Here is an issue about the education system that we discussed a couple of weeks ago. It seems that professor Borland does not agree with the idea of giving free education to north Americans. Well, this can be understood if you only take in account the monetary benefits from giving free money as a subsidy instead to offer free education. To me the topic is very interesting and its a classic point of debate in politics and economics.
Well, I have to say that I agree with the free education idea and I will give you my reasons. First, even if this kind of subsidy is less effective and more expensive than give money to people, I think that unless the government provides free education to students they are going to spend this money in other things (thinks that give them more utility according to the indifference curves). As far as I remember we discussed this topic last semester in Public Policy Economics class with professor Goff and we concluded that from the economic theory view point it is not very effective, however, it assures in some how that young people go to school instead of spend the money in other things. Second, about the argument that the students are less productive if they receive free education, I think that this can be measured and compared with another systems. For instance, most of the European countries have free education systems even at the university level and they have been able to achieve great achievements in all the areas of sciences.
Therefore, I think that a free education system is the most fair way to redistribute the wealth among the society even if it is not the most effective economically speaking.
Well, I have to say that I agree with the free education idea and I will give you my reasons. First, even if this kind of subsidy is less effective and more expensive than give money to people, I think that unless the government provides free education to students they are going to spend this money in other things (thinks that give them more utility according to the indifference curves). As far as I remember we discussed this topic last semester in Public Policy Economics class with professor Goff and we concluded that from the economic theory view point it is not very effective, however, it assures in some how that young people go to school instead of spend the money in other things. Second, about the argument that the students are less productive if they receive free education, I think that this can be measured and compared with another systems. For instance, most of the European countries have free education systems even at the university level and they have been able to achieve great achievements in all the areas of sciences.
Therefore, I think that a free education system is the most fair way to redistribute the wealth among the society even if it is not the most effective economically speaking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
