who rules the world

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.

I think that Mitt Romney will win becuase he is in the lead and already ahead of the other candidates.

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.