Purpose: To develop the skill of making and assessing economic arguments and to deepen understanding of the economic concepts introduced in Chapters 12 & 14. Now you put together an entire economic argument. This is a bit of a longer assignment so there is a potential to earn up to 10 extra points (20 out of 10) for very good posts, which could make up for missed or low grades on previous activity assignments. You will not see other students posts until after you have posted.
Context: Theories of monopoly and oligopoly say these industries are inefficient and transfer income from consumers to producers (pages 237-240, 274). Regulation can improve outcomes, although imperfectly (see pages 243-245; also, check out pages 410-416). Consider internet oligopolies—e.g., Google, Amazon, Facebook (pages 279, 419) and this statement:
The Government should intervene to alter outcomes in internet markets because they are inefficient.
Task: Make one substantive but succinct post (250-500 words) to the Activity 10: Economic Arguments. Argue either for or against the statement above. Make an efficiency argument with at least two points or elements. One of those can be a social justice or fairness point as in my example below.
Criteria: In your own words (no quotes, no online resources), make a convincing economic argument consisting of five short, separate paragraphs (ii, iii., and iv. can be in any order):
i. A 2-4 sentence opening paragraph that states your position (normative statement) and at least two main elements or points of your argument.
ii. A 3-5 sentence paragraph developing one or more related points.
iii. A 3-5 sentence paragraph developing a second point (or set of points).
iv. A 3-5 sentence rebuttal to what you think is a key point of the opposing argument.
v. A 2-4 sentence concluding paragraph that sums up your position, including at least one normative sentence.
Your post should be clear (readable) and free of distracting grammatical errors and misspellings. Do not use ‘I believe’ or similar phrases. Do not make your post too long.
Example of an argument in favor of expanded subsides to college education: (These are in the order suggested above but yours does not have to be)
The Government should act to reduce the cost of a college education. All should have access to the opportunity for intellectual enlightenment. Moreover, it is economically efficient to ensure that everyone can maximize their own productivity.
Access to knowledge is a core human right and a basic service that the Government should provide. Those without access to education, cannot achieve their personal growth potential, nor contribute as effectively to the unfolding human narrative. Indeed, those who cannot acquire human capital are subject to the manipulation and tyranny of those who can.
Wider access to higher education is not just fair, it is also efficient. Thus, it is even more critical that the Government take action to lower the cost. Society benefits when people are educated. Political discourse is improved and there is a greater capacity for creative solutions to pressing social, environmental, and economic problems. An educated society is an economic powerhouse.
Of course, there is a risk that reducing the cost of a college education would attract less serious students. Yet, most students (about 60-70%) who are admitted to and can afford to go to 4-year schools, put forth the effort to graduate. The lower success rates (about 40%) at community colleges with open enrollment are a result not of cavalier attitudes but of significantly barriers these students face, including cost. Moreover, we already make academic progress a requirement of continued education, which would weed out the frivolous.
Given that education is a basic human right and the large benefit to society of a well-educated populace, we must reduce barriers to success and reducing the cost is a good place to start. It is the right thing to do; it is the smart thing to do.
0 comments