My initial thoughts about this article are that the amount of students that hardly know anything about credit cards who have them are insane. I don’t understand how you can just go get one when you know nothing about what you have to pay. This only makes me want to be more educated about having a credit card before I get one so I’m not in debt the rest of my life like some of these people will. I don’t have credit cards now, but I know eventually I will. Not of course until I know all the facts.
Three facts that stood out to me were that more then 90% of the students they surveyed are carrying credit card debt because they think they know what they’re doing when by the time they’re 50 they will owe way more then they spent to begin with. Another fact was how from 2003 to 2009 the rate of credit card debt went up from $946 to more then $4,100. In only 6 years the rate went up tremendously. The last fact that stood out to me was that only 9.4% of the students surveyed paid off their credit cards in full every month. This is insane especially because most of these students don’t even know how much they are being charged for paying their card late.
Some wider implications about this issue are that it’s not only these college students that are up to their head in debt and don’t know anything about credit cards, it’s the younger generations. Also the students that study about financial business are in the same boat as the others.
One of the key findings that I found that I thought was interesting was how younger students use credit cards more often then older students because this is an example of how younger people just want to jump onto things that they don’t entirely know about rather than taking their time and learning about it.
1. The “thing” that rich people should stop saying is, “Well, $500,00 a year might sound like a lot, but I’m hardly rich.”
2. “Why, oh why, does the media bolster President Obama’s rhetoric by using his term: ‘the rich’? Would it not be more appropriate to say ‘the successfu,’ or ‘those who work harder?’”
3. “I’m not Paris Hilton! I work 70 hour weeks to make this salary!”
4. I think that it’s crap because they’re saying that they work harder than everyone else and that’s why they make so much money, when they don’t even know or pay attention to how hard anyone else is working. They don’t know that someone is working just as hard or harder and makes 10 times less than them.
1. -1 in 4 teenagers 16-19 were unemployed in February 2012
-since mid 2008, the unempleyment rate for teenagers has been up to 23%
-american students have a students loan debt of 870 billion dollars ini 2011
-teen unemployment shoots up during recessions and shadows that of the adult unemployment rate but much higher
-the hispanic teen unemployment rate was 27.5% and the black teen rate was 34.7%
The fact that stood out to me was how high the minority unemployment rate compared to the general teen rate because it is a lot higher
2. three effects of teen unemployment are that they don’t get the opportunity to learn how to work with a team, be on time, and recieving the feeling of compensation for the work they are doing. the second is that they miss out on learning the feeling of being in a proffesional work environment and the third is that if they do work, they are expected to gain larger pay 6-9 years after high school.
3. three suggestions that this article provides are to keep the minimum wage lower so that prices for products don’t have to go up during tough economic times, another study says that minimum wage should actually be higher because we’re giving it to people who need it and in turn they are spending more which “increases economic activity and generates some jobs”. the last is to “get back the health in the labor market” which means getting more people working and shortening the lines of unemployment.
I think that it is important for us to work and learn how to be in a professional work environment. I know for me personally that it has taught me a lot and I’ve learned how to be much more patient with people and how to control the feeling of being irritated or annoyed of something. I think that it’s really good for us to have to learn how to hold the responsibility of both working and going to school, it helps with priorities and prepares us for a more professional job. Also it’s good for us to be able to have a little money for ourselves, it makes us feel better when we spend our own money on what we want rather then asking our parents and face being turned down.
1. Panem’s economic situation is unusaul because on one side they have all these people suffering and starving while on the other they have all these technological advances. It’s like jumping from the past to the future at the same time.
2. Economic theory says that prosperity is driven by capital accumulation and the solow residual of technology. This works becuase as well as having the physical things, which sometimes aren’t available, they have the resources and knowledge of making and surviving off of what they can.
3. They are so poor becuase the main things that they make and export can only be sold in one place and that makes it less expensive so the workers get paid less. They are so rich in knowledge because they have been learning all these things over the course of the establishment of these districts. Also this article states that many places that are poor now once weren’t and were in fact rich- “the reversal of fortune”.
4. It is the theory that countries that used to be rich are now poor and countries that used to be poor are now rich. It also says that this is not a coincidence.
5. The problems are that they are extremely corrupt. The reason they stay corrupt is that we need the extraction companies so they won’t get better and they are very difficult to leave.
Some of the main ideas in this article are that even if we drill more in the U.S. gas prices will still have to go up becuase we only have 2-3% if the oil supply here. All the tension in the middle east isn’t helping either becuase they have the majority of the oil supply but aren’t on good terms with us so won’t be much help. Either way, gas prices have to go up.
I think that we need to somehow find an alternative to gas because eventually it won’t be an option anymore and we’ll be screwed. If we start looking into an alternative, then we won’t just run out and have nothing to use. We will have another option that could be much better then using oil and could possibly be more price efficient for us.
I think that she may be able to have compassion like she said she does, and may be being truthful about most of the things she is saying, but to flaunt it by driving “a couple Cadillacs” doesn’t show that you don’t consider yourself wealthy. I think it’s better to acknowledge that you are wealthy, but not take advantage of it. Maybe if she was giving a lot of money to charities or good causes (which I don’t know if she is) then it would be different. Also her statements completely contradict what her husband has been saying. I don’t really think this was taken out of context, but it might have and if it was then it would be a lot easier to judge with the whole story. I don’t think that what they said he said was out of context, but maybe they did take out of context what his wife said.
1. I think that him using contraceptives in his campaign is weak. If he can’t get people to vote for him for a better reason, he shouldn’t run at all. Obviously the majority of the people who don’t want contraceptives to be used or supplied by insurance are older religious men which is who he is convincing to make sure contraceptives are not supplied by insurance. He is covering up the views of women and not allowing everyone to see that we as women want contraceptives, and not because we are “sluts” or “prostitutes” but because we are human like everyone else and have sexual desires.
2. Neologism is the coining of new words or expressions. Dan Savage is an author, media pundit and journalist. He writes a sex column for a newspaper and makes homosexual jokes about Santorum, being a homosexual himself.
3. I think that no one should be able to limit what people can find about them on the internet. I think that it’s unfair because that’s what google is for anyways right? To search things and find answers. I think he must have given them a ton of money for them to clear all search data of him.
4. I found the results for the campaign, his bio on wikipedia and articles about the campaign.
5. I didn’t hear about the new definition of Santorum’s name, but I thought it was pretty funny.
To be bearish in this artice means that you believe that the U.S. stock indexes will be lower then their bear market lows from March 2009.
To be bullish means that you are an optimist from Wall Street, and believe that the stock market will not crash or be worse then it was during the last crisis.
The first expert is Harry Dent, he believes that there won’t be a crash in 2012, but that in 2013-14 there will be a big one. He states that this crash will be bigger then the one in 2008-09.
The second expert is Gerald Celente. He believes that there will be an economic 9/11 and that there will be “social unrest and anti-government sentiment” he says that the unemployment rate will go up and the U.S. dollar will have less purchasing power.
The third expert is Robert Pretcher. He believes that the U.S. stock indexes will be lower then they were in 2008, and when we try to save it, it will fail like it did in the 1930s.
The bullish outlook is much more optimistic, they don’t believe that there will be a crash anywhere near what these three think if there is one at all. I think that the most accurate is Harry Dent’s outlook. It seems more realistic because although we are in a bad economic situation, I don’t think that it will be as bad as the one in 2008 or anywhere near the one in the 1930s. I think that even though we have let it get this bad, there will be no way that it will get as bad as it was before.
The bears fear that the trial of saving the stock market will fail causing the stock prices to drop by 50%.
Dunsmore’s thesis is that Obama could not have caused the spike in gas prices. I agree with him because first of all prices that high could not just be him saying hey lets make people suffer and make them pay $5 a gallon for gas. Second of all he stated many reasons for why he couldn’t be at fault for the prices going way up.
My thoughts on the price of oil and gas are that they are insane. People aren’t making enough money to spend so much on gas especially if they have a car that holds 40 gallons. To a point, it’s inevitable to spend more but to spend so much money so you can drive around for a day is crazy. I think that before the prices went up would have been a great time to invest in gas. Maybe even now but I’m hoping that it’s a bad time because the prices will go down, which is unlikely.
I think that oil is more of an economic issue because it’s so much harder for us to get it from a different country then our own. We have to have money to buy it or something that the other country wants to trade for it.
I think that I would definitely choose using cheaper materials to make coins then to stop making coins altogether. I think that because coins have been part of our money for so long that people would be confused and that people would kinda freak out because this thing that has been around so long is now gone. Also if we stopped making them, we still have all these coins that have just gone to waste. I think they need to find a way to make them with a different material but clearly there’s more to it then that.
Newt Gingrich’s net worth is between 6,7000,000 and 30,132,000
Mitt Romney’s net worth is between 190,000,000 and 250,000,000
I think that neither of them really care about helping the poor or doing anything of the sort. I think that just because Romney had already stated that he was “not concerned about the very poor” Gingrich took that opportunity to “prove” that he’s better because he supposedly does care about the poor. He wanted to make himself look better so that we believe what he is saying when in reality it’s a bunch of crap and manipulation.
I think the use of technology in politics is incredibly helpful because everyone around the world can see what’s happening. If we didn’t have technology then the people in Egypt that were protesting for occupy Oakland wouldn’t know what is going on there. It spreads the word in less then a second. The general strike in Oakland was established only 2 weeks before the actual day, the use of technology made it possible for all those people to go.
Paul Krugman is totally for the OWS, I agree with his arguments because the protesters are there to show the banks and the government how unfair it is that 1% handles the money of the rest of the 99%. So many people are losing homes and jobs while very few are living in luxury.
“…the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn’t a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million.”
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody,” she declared, pointing out that the rich can only get rich thanks to the “social contract” that provides a decent, functioning society in which they can prosper.
How do you get rich thanks to the social contract? Wouldn’t people just be more equal?