Chapter 3

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20081120/OPINION03/811200315

The News-Star, a Louisiana newspaper, had an article about trying to reduce the impact of youth smoking. It talks about how youth can have a big impact for the people that smoke and how there's going to be a youth-led anti-tobacco movement. Their focus is to keep teenagers from starting to smoke, and one of the campaigns is called Raiseup. The goal of Raiseup is to raise the excise tax on cigarettes by $1, where the revenue would go to Louisiana's budget. The article states that "studies show that for every 10 percent increase in the excise tax, youth smoking decreases by 7 percent."

In Chapter 3, an important concept is about excise taxes, which are taxes levied by the government on the suppliers of certain products. The taxes may be used as a source of revenue for the government. In relation to the article, the revenue from the excise tax on cigarettes would go to the state's budget. Along with that, they're hoping that by raising the excise tax, this will help to stop teens from starting to smoke. With the majority of teens, price is a factor for a lot of things, so raising the excise tax on cigarettes may be the solution to reduce teen smoking.

Everyone's probably been exposed to second-hand smoke at some point in their lives, and for those who don't smoke, it's probably just plain disgusting. I don't encourage smoking either, so I think it's a pretty good idea to raise the excise tax for cigarettes. A lot of teens don't work, and for the ones that do, it would be part time and roughly $10/hour, which doesn't add up to nearly as much as a full-time working adult. If there is a price increase, many teens won't be able to afford it, so hopefully they'll think twice before the start. On the other hand, teens who are already addicted to it will probably find some other way to get it, like sponging them off of wealthier friends or family.

Chapter 2

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=6bbbbce7-4968-4a3e-8766-2fa405aa9eab

This article from The Vancouver Sun talks about the rise of gas prices in relation to hurricanes Ike and Gustav. Back in September, gas prices shot up when hurricane Ike struck, and since then, there had been debates about whether the soaring prices were due to the weather or gasoline companies taking advantage of it. Industry analysts claimed that the blame was to be put on the shortage in supply of gasoline and energy analysts said that it's a matter of supply and demand. Canadian politicians debated this, offering their opinions on what they would do to consumers who were faced with this price hike.

The connection to Chapter 2 of Economics is the concept of supply and demand. Supply refers to those who are willing to sell a good or service while demand refers to those who are willing to purchase a good or service. In the article, Liberal leader Stephane Dion states that "the main reason why the price of oil is set to go up ... is because humanity is asking for more and more oil, [and] you have demand that is booming much faster than the supply." In the case of this article, consumers are demanding for more gas, yet suppliers are more reluctant to sell it at the same price because of the hurricanes, hence the price hike.

I have noticed the significant rise in gas prices since the beginning, but since I don't own a car, it doesn't directly affect me. However, I know that it obviously affects other people who do own cars and rely on it to get to their destinations. Perhaps the whole concept of supply and demand and rising gas prices will make drivers think twice before driving their cars everywhere and also about the impact of driving has on the environment. I do wonder though, if or when I decide to purchase a car in the future, whether or not the price of gas would've skyrocketed some more. If so, is it because of supply and demand or just a way of trying to force people to drive less, and if not, would the demand for gas have gone down?

Chapter 1

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12270990

The main question that this article from Economist.com is asking is whether or not a university degree is really worth the time and money. The point of the article is unclear in the first half, but is more direct later on. It goes on to say that the main reason for students moving on to higher education to obtain a degree is to improve their careers and salary. Far less students wanted a degree because they enjoyed a particular area of interest. There has been a 30% increase for students entering university compared to the 1990s. Aside from students wanting to get a degree, the name of the university matters as well.

One of the introductory concepts of economics is opportunity cost, which is what someone gives up when they make a decision. In this article, the opportunity cost for a student going towards getting a degree would be giving up time that could be spent earning money. However, a student deciding to work right away and not going for a degree would be giving up the chance to further his or her education and landing a job with better pay. Along with that, students would have to consider their field of study and whether or not they would pursue a career in something they enjoy for less money or something they dislike for more money.

Considering I myself am nearing the end of my high school career and I need to start thinking about my future. I have a pretty general idea of what I'd like to do. In my personal opinion, I would go on to post-secondary in hopes of going into a career with a good pay because in the long run, I would probably end up making more money than if I choose not to go with the post-secondary route and work during those 4 years. I may be in it partially for the money, but I would definitely study something I love and going to post-secondary can only increase my knowledge of it.