Revised Response to: Week Nov. 12- Nov. 19 Assignment 2 Inflation

1) The inflation of the U.S. is a key piece to determine important economic strategies. For the past 20 years the inflation rate has increased at a steady pace. The production price index since 1980 has increased at an even keel as for every ten years, the price index increases at about 25. For the CPI it is a different story as there is less inflation as the prices since 1980 have decreased at an uneven rate. So for the PPI and the CPI, there is no pattern as for the past 20 years, each price index has either decreased or increased with the same slope. The PPI has stayed at a positive slope and the CPI has stayed at a negative slope.2) When the price indexes are different and the slope of each line is the opposite, there are certain factors that have caused this occurrence. This difference in the price indexes is caused by the prices of good and a change in those prices changes demand and then can cause inflation. Supply and demand are constantly changing which causes the price indexes and yearly numbers to never be at a constant rate. This has happened over the past 20 years and has caused inflation to be different as the factors of demand and production has made this occurrence happen.3) The price index that I would want to have to adjust my wages and salary is the CPI. I would pick this price index because over the past 20 years, this price index has increased every ten years and as the demand for good increases, then the production will also. With increasing price index, my wages and salary will also increase as the nation's income will rise.4) With the situation of adjusting my employee’s wages and salary, I would choose the production price index. PPI would be my choice because consumers affect demand and when demand is low then prices decrease causing more consumption and more production. When this happens, there will be more money to circulate which will make wages increase and more demand for jobs. Also this will cause more output and more production causing the income to rise.

Revised Response to: What are the best goals for the FED? Should it lean toward restraint or toward expansion?

In the economy, many questions are asked on what the U.S. should do to have an economic growth. Economists argue back and forth on the topic of what will expand the economy and what will make it go into a recession. Some economists believe that a stimulus will lead to monetary expansion and that was evident in January 2001 when the Fed lowered its rate from 6.5 to 3.5 percent. Other economists believe that expansion and not holding back will lead to an increase in the growth of the economy. In this case, interest rates were increased which caused costs of borrowing to rise and will result in a contraction.The side that has the stronger case is the restraint because it focuses on the present rate of the economy and not what can happen in six months. When lowering the Federal Funds Rate, the costs decrease and the cost of living declines too causing price to go down. When there is a restraint occurring it steadies out the economy as the costs decrease and production increases and a high stress economy is an afterthought. The average federal funds rate in January was almost 6 percent, well above many market interest rates, while the Treasury's 30-year bond was just 5.5 percent, and all bonds with shorter maturities were even lower. This means that banks cannot borrow Fed funds and relend them with a profit. At this point monetary policy finally became expansive, and the money supply began growing. The strategy to lower the fed funds rate and have a stimulus causes a monetary expansion and the economy grows.

Revised Response to: Should the FED be independent?

In the government there are certain departments that have more freedom than others. The Board of Governors can have a term that goes up to fourteen years which is more than any other section of the government. That gives the members of the Board of Governors the most freedom for any representative in the United States. This brings up the question, if these members have such freedom, should the public vote for the people to represent the Board of Governors?For this freedom to be shifted to the people there will have pros and also have cons. One pro for this is that the public will be in favor of the representatives that are elected. The members that are elected will be chosen because of the public has chosen these people to run this board. This will mean that the public should not attack these representatives or bad mouth them because it is the majority’s decision to have them be a part of the board. Another positive thing about the public voting on who should be representatives is that the public’s confidence will increase because a member of the FED has been elected by the power of the people. This will cause the people to be happy with the government causing demand to increase and quantity to also rise. With all this occurring the economy will rise as a monetary fiscal policy will be put into the systems of the economy.With the positives of the public voting on representatives, there will also be negatives that go along with them. One con about the public voting is that these days, voting numbers are at a record low and the majority of the number that do vote don't put enough time into focusing on who they vote for. With members who are elected from votes that aren't really true can result in the government becoming careless and policies will be made. Another con is that with the election of non qualified representatives, the economy will decrease due to bad policies that will make the U.S. money fall. Policies that are used in the wrong way can result in a bad economy and a recession will follow.

Revised Response to: The Future of Money and Banking

In the year 2050 the U.S. economy and the country as a whole will be completely different. The money, the technology, the culture, almost everything will be change and be totally different than it is in 2007. The future predicts an increase in the circulation of the U.S. dollar and it has been on the rise since the beginning of the 20th century. But what is also happening is the value of the dollar is decreasing making paper U.S. currency almost having no value what so ever. As this is happening, the Euro, European currency, is increasing and more countries continue to change their money to the increasing Euro. In the future, the value will continue to decrease making the Euro the new currency in the United States. In fact, the majority of the world's countries will transfer to the Euro and the world's currency will be based off of the same values. Also the dollar production will still not be the same as the production of other commodity goods. It costs about 2.5 cents to print one hundred dollar bills and that will continue. In the future, there are predictions that many businesses will converge and be together producing technology that will change the U.S. economy is the upcoming years. As this happens the Euro will become more valuable and countries whose currency value is depleting, they will convert to the Euro and the United States will follow. The countries that do switch to the Euro won’t just use the Euro they will use their currency in their own country but for their international reserves and trade they will start to use the Euro. This is what the textbooks are going to say about this occurrence of the U.S. dollar. The textbooks will describe the fall of the U.S. dollar and they increasing demand and value for the Euro and how the Euro has become the world's currency. This will cause the U.S. economy to rise as it will become easier to trade as production of exports and imports increase. This will cause the economy to flourish and other countries’ economies to also increase.

Revised Response to: Are Banks Special

1) The risk for the macro economy if the banks fail to exist with other businesses is that the economy will decrease because of the decrease in the money circulation. There will be less money going around from business to business because the banks are not funding them or getting money from them. My step-brother works at Citi Bank in the marketing department and he drives around from car dealership to dealership promoting Citi to fund their business. If this is forbidden from happening, then businesses will lose money causing the economy to fall and banks won't be able to make the money that they usually receive. This will cause the economy to be shaken up and rattled causing it to fall.2) If banks can contribute in other ways for businesses, what will happen is the opposite of if banks were limited on their funding of businesses. This will cause the economy to rise as more money will circulate and banks will be able to fund businesses. Businesses will get more money in return as banks have the freedom to control the funding and ending up controlling the businesses. Businesses might not like this to happen but when the banks control the money, then the businesses don't really have a choice on that matter. This will cause the economy to rise but in the long run, there will be a conflict between banks and businesses on the money situation because when the banks control funding, they will want to control the entire business. The businesses won't like that cause a clash between the two.3) Overall banks should not control the lines of businesses because of the money issue. Businesses should be able to control their own money and if the banks want to control business's money, it will get out of control. When banks fund a business, they want to control the business as a whole. This is unfair for the business as their freedom is in jeopardy and they need to control their own profits, spending, savings, investment, and money as a whole.

Revised Response to: A Balanced Budget Amendment?

1) The Federal budget becoming balanced is a confusing idea that can help the economy or hurt it. One reason that there should not be a balanced Federal Budget because the budget should not be balanced, it needs to be like it is now, a huge budget deficit. The federal budget is below balanced and it has kept taxes low and Government Spending high. If a balanced federal budget was required then taxes would have to increase because of a debt that will be caused and needed to be paid off. Also demand will decrease due to the increase in taxes which caused consumption to decrease along with consumer confidence. Another reason why a balanced federal budget should be enforced is because it will cause the economy to fall because of the rise in taxes and low demand. Quantity decreases and price increases, causing the economy to fall. With the federal budget staying below the balanced level, the economy will stay normal and taxes will remain the same.2) One reason to favor a balanced federal budget is that is it easier to balance the budget. If the Federal Government can control the balance of the budget then it puts then in control and it can make then choose what the amount should be to raise the taxes. Another reason that is beneficial to have a balanced federal budget is that it can cause new economic policies to be made and put forth into action. When a problem like a balanced federal budget comes abroad, new policies like an expansionary fiscal policy or automatic stabilizers that stabilize the economy. When a problem in the economy comes along, there will always be a way to fix the problem. With a balanced federal budget there will be new policies that can be produced to change the budget. This also can limit impulsive and excessive government spending. This causes taxes to increase and demand to decrease.

Revised Response to: What the Best Fiscal Policy

For the past three years the unemployment rate determined from the website: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/10/downloaddata is 4.7 percent. This unemployment rate is good as it is below 5 percent meaning that the country's economy is growing. As long as this rate stays the way it has been for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 the economy will continue to grow and prices will decrease and taxes will be low. If the unemployment rate increases then an expansionary fiscal policy will be in order because the economy is falling. If the unemployment stays the same or gets better there is no need for a policy because the economy is at a rate where it wants to stay so it can continue to rise.The surplus for the past three years based on the data from the website: http://www.cbo.gov/. The surplus percentage for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 as an average is 3.1 percent. This is good and there is no need for any policies. There is no need for any policies because an expansionary fiscal policy will result in a budget deficit. No contractionary fiscal policy is need either because there is a need for a surplus and no need for the economic growth of the U.S. to decrease.

Revised Response to: Is inflation caused by changes in aggregate demand or aggregate supply?

During the periods of 1979-1982, 1995-1999, and the past four years there has been an inflation that has affected the U.S. economy. Inflation describes an increase in the average price level initiated by excessive aggregate demand. Both supply and demand can cause inflation by either demand increasing too much making high prices or supply decreasing too much causing high prices. What caused this inflation for the past four years is aggregate demand because the CPI, PPI, and GDP deflator for the past four years showing that both demand and supply have increased. But with supply increasing it means that it couldn't have caused inflation because on a graph when supply has increased, the line shifts rightward. What has increased though is demand and that means inflation because the prices has risen. When demand on a graph increases it shifts to the right, meaning it goes upward on the graph meaning that price has increased. In the past four years, the inflation that has occurred was caused by too much demand and not enough production.

Revised Response to: The government should eliminate the underground economy.

As a representative for the Department of Justice and I have to present the advantages and disadvantages of the underground economy, I would give strong argument for both sides. I would start off the presentation by giving the disadvantages of the underground economy. The disadvantages of the underground economy are that it hurts the economy and everyone in the country that contribute to the economy. Those who participate in the underground economy avoid their tax responsibilities at your expense, and place an unfair burden on all law-abiding taxpayers. Unpaid taxes mean less money for programs, such as health care, childcare, employment insurance and pensions. Also the underground economy undermines the competitiveness of businesses and citizens because it takes away their taxes and goes against the legal ideas. The underground economy is illegal because of what it does to the economy as a whole and it takes away money from the people and gives it to others who don't deserve it. Again it is against the law because of tax evasion and the result is the loss of a job, business, homes, family, and freedom. A long jail sentence and The IRS has access to a variety of tools to detect and prosecute those who do not report all of their income, including information-sharing agreements, on-site visits by officers, information obtained from third party reporting systems, leads from other audit files, and lifestyle audits. There aren't that many advantages of the underground economy and they only involve the people that are in the illegal economy. For consumers, paying "under the table" for a job is not a better deal; if you pay cash you have no warranty, no recourse for poor workmanship, and the added risk of liability if an injury takes place on your property. As a person who is involved in this economy the risk is jail but if they are good at it, there are no taxes to be paid, no insurance or liabilities. Also if a person is good at breaking the law and not getting caught then a lot of money can come out of it because of the high demand for illegal goods that are purchased on the black market. The avoidance of tax is the biggest part as the consumer will avoid a tax on the good and the producer doesn’t have to give any money to the government for the good or anything. That is why it is so illegal for this black market to be occurring underneath the government's nose.

Response to: Why has oil price surged recently?

Recently gas prices has soared just like it has many times in the oast couple years. It is the holiday seasons and when there is a time of year when there is high demand going on in the economy then gas prices also increase. When demand and quantity increase, then prices increase too causing gas prices and prices for other items to increase along with demand. If prices increase too much then inflation will occur but as far as gas prices are concerned, as long as demand increases, then the price on gasoline will be high. The time when prices for gas are low is during the spring leading into the summer when it is not a high shopping season and people are going on a lot of vacations. But as the seasons turn and Christmas approaches, then prices start to increase again and then they get to an all time high.

Response to: "Scalping” tickets for major sporting events and economics

On the outside of a stadium at every sporting event there are many people braking the law and trying to scalp tickets. It happens hundreds of times every season for every sport and what it does to the U.S. market it troubling. It hurts the market as it is similar the underground economy as items are being traded with money and having no effect of the economy. Just like the underground economy, there are no taxes put onto the tickets and the money is going right into the pocket of the person that is scalping the tickets. This creates market shortages as no taxes are being given to the government and the economy is not benefiting from these transactions being made. The underground economy is illegal and so is scalping tickets and the government is trying to stop this because it is unfair for people to make money of items that have no taxes on them. Other ways that these tickets can be distributed is that these people that want to sell these tickets can give it to the team that is playing in the game. Then after that person gives the team those tickets then that team can sell those tickets. Once that team sells those tickets with a tax on them, then the person that is giving the tickets to the team to give away for a price will receive a part of the profit from the tickets. That way there are taxes on the tickets and both sides will receive a profit and then there won't be anyone losing money.

Response to: Do we work too hard?

Everyone knows that U.S. citizens are the hardest working people in the entire world. That shows when the data of hours worked per year are given and the U.S. workers work three hundred more than workers in France. There is a law though in Europe limiting their workers to certain amount of hours per week. There also have been questions about whether the United States should have this law. I don't agree with this because it will hurt the Economic Growth os the U.S. and it will cause many recessions. Income will decrease along with the economy as less hours will be worked along with the amount of money made every week. Economic growth will decrease because less hours worked and more vacations means that there will be less money made, less production, and less money circulating around the economy. Also production possibilities will decrease because companies will not be able to make their quotas as less amount of hours will be worked. As workers don't work the hours that are used to being worked then production will go down due to not enough work being done. As economic growth and production decrease, so will the market mechanism of the U.S. economy. With less hours being worked and less production, then the market will also decrease along with thsoe two. Some people might say that with less hours being worked more people will have more time to be out buying items, but that won't effect the market mechanism like less hours being worked and more vacation time will. Less production and not enough economic growth will cause the market to decrease as there are not enough materials and money circulating.

Response to: Who should pay the external costs of driving?

Pollution is the most major concern that is on the minds of the citizens of the United States. As a result of pollution there are greater chances of consumption of CO2 andn other dangerous chemicals. This can lead to health problems that might not be able to be paid off will just insurance and health costs continue to increase. There was an idea to put a tax on gasoline so that health costs can be paid for by that tax. This has created a controversy and like every argument, there are pros and cons that go along with the subject. The pros for this tax are that if there are any porblems with any person's health then their medical care can be paid for by the tax. Harmful chemicals that are released into the air by the burning of gasoline can cause many different health problems like cancer and birth defects. The procedures that will need to be put in place to fix these health problems will cost a lot of money and with this tax, the people affected can pay for this medical care. Another pro about a tax on gasoline is that with a tax in place for health care other things that need to be paid for with a tax can be funded as more money is going into the economy. Why leave anything untouched that is needed to be funded? This new money could be put into for health care leaving other money left over to provide some help on other problems going on in the country. One con about this tax that is to be put on gasoline is that people will have to more money when they fill up their car at the gas pumps. This tax will cause an out cry from the people of the U.S. as they will complain about the new outrageuos prices that will now be on gasoline. Another con about this tax is that gas prices will increase and new pollution laws will be in place and put a limit on having automobiles on the road that have harmful emissions and use up a lot of gas mileage. Because of this new limitation, thousands of cars will be taken off the road and thousands of families will have to be required to purchase new cars and trucks.

Response to: Should you pay less for your education?

There have always been controversies with subsidies going into something so that it can get funded. The most common controversy is the one on giving subsidies to public schools and public universities. It is argued for schools to get funded because adults don’t want to pay so much money on something that they are a part of. But they a part of the school system as their children go to the schools in their local town and they need a good education for them to be successful in life. That is why education is so important so children and teenagers can learn about life, failures, success, and the courses in their school. Every person wants to live a good life and be successful so they are happy, with a good education that will come as they will be the best at what they have as a career. Without the subsidies from the taxpayers then there will not be a school system in place in a person’s community and there will be no education for the citizens of the town. For universities they need subsidies so that they can stay a college in the town and state that they are in. Also colleges need to keep their campus up to date and looking clean and appealing to people that go there and want to go there. They need subsidies to keep students going there and for students to keep coming in or they will have to stop being a college.

Response to: Should you pay less for your education?

There has always been a controversy on subisides given to certain thigns so that they can be funded. One certain controversy that involves subsidies is on ethanol fuel and whether it should be funded so that it can be in ful stream use. Another subsidy controversy is a funded public school system and public universities. The problem is that people think that taxpayers shouldn't need to pay so much for a school system that they aren't involved in. This shouldn't even be a situation that is argued because we need to educate the future of our nation. Without funds and money from the taxpayers going into the school system in towns then there will be no school system for our children to get educated. The amount of money that is going into the schools is just right because right now, education is at a high level and test scores are increasing along with graduate numbers. There are a great amount of students that are being successful in our schools right now and a lot of students are graduating and for something to be changed it would not be good for the school system. Also for universities, they don't need a good amount of subsidies but as part of a local community or state then there needs to be funds to keep the campus going. Subsidies that colleges receive will make the campus look up to date and not dirt, and it will keep the school in the town and the students

Response to:"Where should we move?"

A) The country that I have picked for the intended to be from is Australia for no specific reason. They should remain in the U.S. because of the U.S. is known for their strong economy and rights for each individual citizen. Also Australia's GDP per capita is low showing that their market for this decade has been weak and there hasn'r been a lot of production. An economy that is weak is not a good sign for the country and if there was a family or a person looking to move to that country, the smart thing to do would be to stay in the United States.

B) Even though the market in Australia is weak and it's GDP per capita is low there are some pros about moving to the coutnry that was founded by Great Britain. One pro is that the life expectancy for the country is high which means that the medical mal practice is strong. Having a high life expectancy for the country is a good thing to look for when wanting to move to that country. Another pro which is big for Australia is that it's unemployment rate is low and it's job market is very strong. The availability for employment in Australia is 113% showing that the chances of getting a good job that will help you raise your family is high and the job market is at an all time high.

C) The problems of looking at GDP and basing a decision of whether to move because of it are that the numbers could be off. This year could be better than the last and the numbers could be from a year that wasn't successful. The economy for any country isn't consistent and you can't base such a big decision of moving to a different country on one year of GDP per capita. Look at other things such as medical, employment, interest rates, and banking systems to base a decision on.

D) The problems of using the UN Human Development Indicator in their decision to move are that the numbers for the data can be off or just plain incorrect. Slso the data that is being reviewed is from the year 2005 which can mean many things such as it was two years ago and the numbers could have shifted immensely from that year until this year. Again an economy isn't consistent just like anything and the numbers for 2005 can be totally different from the next years results and then the year after that.

Response to: "Where should we move?"

Response to: The government should eliminate the underground economy.

As a representative for the Department of Justice and I have to present the advantages and disadvantages of the underground economy, I would give strong argument for both sides. I would start off the presentation by giving the disadvantages of the underground economy. The disadvantages of the underground economy are that it hurts the economy and everyone in the country that contribute to the economy. Those who participate in the underground economy avoid their tax responsibilities at your expense, and place an unfair burden on all law-abiding taxpayers. Unpaid taxes mean less money for programs, such as health care, childcare, employment insurance and pensions. Also the underground economy undermines the competetiveness of businesses and citizens because it takes away their taxes and goes against the legal ideas. The udnerground economy is illegal because of what it does to the economy as a whole and it takes away money from the people and gives it to others that don't deserve it. Again it is against the law because of tax evasion and the result ios lose of job, business, homes, family, and freedom. A long jail sentence and The IRS has access to a variety of tools to detect and prosecute those who do not report all of their income, including information-sharing agreements, on-site visits by officers, information obtained from third party reporting systems, leads from other audit files, and lifestyle audits. There aren't that many advantages of the underground economy and they only involve the people that are in the illegal economy. For consumers, paying "under the table" for a job is not a better deal. If you pay cash you have no warranty, no recourse for poor workmanship, and the added risk of liability if an injury takes place on your property. As a person who is involved in this economy the risk is jail but if they are good at it, there are no taxes to be paid, no insurance or liabilities. Also if a person is good at breaking the law and not getting caught then a lot of money can come out of it because of the high demand for illegal goods that are purchased on the black market. The avoidance of tax is the biggest part as the consumer will avoid a taz on the good and the producer doesn;t have to give any money to the government for the good or anything. That is why it is so illegal for this black market to be occuring underneath the government's nose.

Response to: Is inflation caused by changes in aggregate demand or aggregate supply?

During the periods of 1979-1982, 1995-1999, and the past four years there has been an inflation that has affected the U.S. economy. Inflation describes an increase in the average price level initiated by excessive aggregate demand or excessive aggregate supply. Both supply and demand can cause inflation by either demand increasing too much making high prices or supply decreasing too much causing high prices. What caused this inflation for the past four years is aggregate demand because the CPI, PPI, and GDP for the past four years showing that both demand and supply have increased. But with supply increasing it means that it couldn't have caused inflation because on a graph when supply has increased, the line shifts down. What has increased though is demand and that means inflation because the prices has risen causing inflation. When demand on a graph increases it shifts to the left, meaing it goes upward on the graph meaing that price has increased. In the past four years, the inflation that has occured was caused by too much demand and not enough production.

Response to: What the Best Fiscal Policy

For the past three years the unemployment rate determined from the website: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/10/downloaddata is 4.7 percent. This unemployment rate is good as it is below 5 percent meaning that the country's economy is growing. As long as this rate stays the way it has been for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 the economy will continue to increase and prices will decrease and taxes will be low. If the unemployment rate increases then a expansionary fiscal policy will be in order because the economy is falling. If the unemployment stays the same or gets better there is no need for a policy because the economy is at a rate where it wants to stay so it can continue to rise.
The surplus for the past three years based on the data from the website: http://www.cbo.gov/. The surplus percentage for the years 2005, 2006, and 2007 as an average is 3.1 percent. This is good but not great as the economy is in need of more of a surplus. The policy that is in need is an expansionary policy because the economy needs to get up to 4 percent surplus by lowering taxes and increasing government spending. If this does not change by 2008 then the economy will drop but if there is an expansionary fiscal policy which will end up helping the economy. Demand will increase and production will increase causing there to be a new equilibrium.

Response to: A Balanced Budget Amendment?

1) The Federal budget becoming balanced is a confusing idea that can help the economy or hurt it. One reason that there should not be a balanced Federal Budget because the budget should not be balanced, it needs to be like it is now, low. The federal budget is below balanced and it has kept taxes low and Government Spending high. If a balanced federal budget was required then taxes would have to increase because of a debt that will be caused and needed to be paid off. Also demand will decrease due to the increase in taxes which caused government spending to decrease along with consumer confidence. Another reason why a balanced federal budget should be restricted is because it will cause the economy to fall because of the rise in taxes and low demand. Quantity decreases and price increases, causing the economy to fall. With the federal budget staying below the balanced level, the economy will stay normal and taxes will remain the same.

2) One reason to favor a balanced federal budget is that is it easier to balance the budget. If the FED can control the balance of the budget then it puts then in control and it can make them choose what the amount should be to raise the taxes. Another reason that is beneficial to have a balanced federal budget is that it can cause new economic policies to be made and put forth into action. When a problem like a balanced federal budget comes abroad, new policies like a expansionary fiscal policy or automatic stabilizers that stabilizes the economy. When a problem in the economy comes along, there will always be a way to fix the problem. With a balanced federal budget there will be new policies that can be produced to change the budget.

Response to: A Balanced Budget Amendment?

Response to: Are Banks Special?

1) The risk for the macroeconomy if the banks fail to exist with other businesses is that the economy will decrease because of the decrease in the money circulation. There will be less money going around from business to business becuase the banks are not funding them or getting money from them. My step-brother works at Citi Bank in the marketing department and he drives around from car dealership to dealership promoting Citi to fund their business. If this is forbidden from happening, then businesses will lose money causing the economy to fall and banks won't be able to make the money that they usually receive. This will cause the economy to be shaken up and rattled causing it to fall.

2) If banks can contribute to in other ways for businesses, what will happen is the opposite of if banks were limited on their funding of busniesses. This will cuase the economy to rise as more money will circulate and banks will be able to fund businesses. Businesses will get more money in return as banks have the freedom to control the funding ans ending up controlling the businesses. Businesses might not like this to happen but when the banks control the money, then the businesses don't really have a choice on that matter. This will cause the economy to rise but in the long run, there will be a conflict between banks and businesses on the money situation because when the banks control funding, they will want to control the entire business. The businesses won't like that causing a clash between the two.

3) Overall banks should not control the lines of businesses because of the money issue. Businesses should be able to control their own money and if the banks want to control business's money, it will get out of control. When banks fund a business, they want to control the business as a whole. This is unfair for the business as their freedom is in jeopardy and they need to control their own profits, spending, savings, investment, and money as a whole.

Response to: Are Banks Special?

Response to: The Future of Money and Banking

In the year 2050 the U.S. economy and the country as a whole will be completely different. The money, the technology, the culture, almost everything will be change and be totally different than it is in 2007. The future predicts an increase in the circulation of the U.S. dollar and it has been on the uprise since the beginning of the 20th century. But what is also happening is the value of the dollar is decreasing making paper U.S. currency almost having no value what so ever. As this is happening, the Euro, European currency, is increasing and more countries continue to change their money to the increasing Euro. In the future, as the demand for more U.S. money increases causing the cost to make dollar bills to increase, the value will continue to decrease making the Euro the new currency in the United States. In fact, the majority of the world's countries will transfer to the Euro and the world's currency will be based off of the same rates. In the future, there are predictions that many businesses will converge and be together producing technology that will change the U.S. economy is the upcoming years. As this happnes the Euro will become more valueable and countries whose currency value is depleting, they will convert to the Euro and the United States will follow. This is what the extbooks are going to say about this occurance of the U.S. dollar. The textbooks will describe the fall of the U.S. dollar and they increasing demand and value for the Euro and how the Euro has become the world's curreny. This will cause the U.S. economy to rise as it will become easier to trade as production of exports and imports increase. This will cause the economy to flourish and other countries economies to also increase.