User:LewisH

View the original article here

ABC Family, Save ‘Bunheads’!

Yesterday brought the news that HBO had cancelled Enlightened, Mike White’s brilliant series about how to live in accordance with your principals in a corporate world—particularly when you have a lot of debt, or the costs of activism have grown extraordinary. For all that I’m disappointed in the decision and think that it was a mistake for HBO’s brand—despite Enlightened‘s extremely low ratings, it was the kind of show that couldn’t have been produced by any other network—I don’t see it as a tragedy for the story White was telling. After Amy Jellicoe blew the whistle on Abaddon Industries and was fired, Enlightened had her walk off into a sunny California day, anonymous again among the crowd, alone with the knowledge of what she’d accomplished and unsure of what came next for her. But her time at the company was finished, and Amy had decisively acted in accordance with her beliefs. That story was concluded.

But there’s another brilliant, strange, female-centered show that’s still awaiting a decision on whether it will be renewed or cancelled. And I dearly hope that ABC Family decides to make the right decision and save Bunheads, Amy Sherman-Palladino’s dramedy about the proprietors of and students at a California ballet school.

Bunheads has a less determined story arc than Enlightened, and by design, smaller stakes. It follows Michelle (Sutton Foster), a Vegas showgirl who marries a fan, moves to California with him, and ends up owning a great deal of property when he’s suddenly killed in a car accident—and tied to his mother, ballet teacher Fanny (Kelly Bishop), as well. Her students Boo (Kaitlyn Jenkins), Sasha (Julia Goldani Telles), Ginny (Bailey Buntain), and Melanie (Emma Dumont) are intelligent, idiosyncratic young ladies who find themselves galvanized by Michelle’s arrival, which coincides with them reaching the stage of life where they’re deciding how serious they want to be about dance, whether they want to have sex, and what their relationships to their parents are going to look like. The characters don’t have life-or-death problems—at least not after the fatal car ride in the pilot—but they don’t lack for gravity.

Bunheads is a relentlessly female show, more so than any other program on television, and therein lies many of its strengths. Where Girls, after the fight that fractured Marnie and Hannah’s relationship in the first season, has moved its focus away from female friendships, the relationships between women are always primary in Bunheads. Much of the first half of the season followed Michelle and Fanny attempting to navigate an exceedingly difficult situation. Fanny was surprised by the arrival of Michelle as her daughter-in-law and even more disconcerted when her son’s death left Michelle the owner of Fanny’s home, business, and land. Gradually, they’ve navigated a professional and personal partnership, finding a way to run Fanny’s ballet school together and to build an amphitheater on the land left to Michelle. That amphitheater brings them into collaboration with two sisters, the constantly self-deprecating Truly (Stacey Oristano) and bulldozer Millicent (Liza Weil) Stone, who, in one scene, explains to Fanny that she doesn’t actually want to know about the arts, she just wants to be perceived as cultured. Truly and Milly’s rivalry is one of the best examples I’ve seen of exaggeration serving the truth: there’s no way to make a relationship between sisters stranger and more hilariously tortured than they can be in real life.

And the friendships between the students have delightfully specific, and believable, contours. Ginny is hurt when Melanie hides from her that she’s joined the roller derby in addition to ballet. Sasha calls Boo, rather than her parents, when she finds the door to her apartment open and is afraid to go inside. Ginny, Melanie, and Boo feel betrayed when Sasha makes a foray into cheerleading. The four research sex from every conceivable angle together when they’re considering sleeping with their boyfriends, only to be stumped by the condom options at the local drug store. And they’re all invested enough in Michelle to follow her on a road trip when they catch her sneaking off to Los Angeles for a dance audition. Michelle may not be the mentor all of them need in matters of the heart or how to run their lives—judging by her brief, impulsive marriage, she has enough trouble of her own. But they need creative inspiration as much as they need basic life skills advice, someone who can act as a reminder to them that the world is bigger than a little town in California, and that they’ll face bigger decisions than whether or not Boo and her boyfriend Carl should jump up their timetable for the first time they have sex. I could spend an infinite amount of time with these clever young girls and their daily dilemmas.

All of this would be enough to make a specific, brilliant, rare show. But Bunheads is something more. Its characters have pop culture addictions that rival Community‘s. It’s the unusual show about women that has good male characters—Carl, Michelle’s maybe-boyfriend bartender Godot, Michelle’s hilariously shiftless brother—but that hasn’t subverted its female characters to their development, creating an unusual degree of gender balance. And it’s a show that’s not afraid of real sadness, but that doesn’t need to beat up on its characters to let them fail: when Michelle accidentally pepper-sprayed her students on the eve of a critically important performance for the school’s financial health, we were allowed to feel the weight of her accumulated past missteps without being disgusted by or feeling distanced from her. That’s a deft balance.

And if ABC Family wants to level up on its brand, to be something more than the network where Shailene Woodley worked before she got famous, it should keep it up, and renew Bunheads.

View the original article here

Rush Limbaugh Hilariously Misinterprets Beyonce’s ‘Bow Down / I Been On’ As Ode To Wifely Submission

I wouldn’t say I exactly feel sorry for Rush Limbaugh, but it’s pretty embarrassing to comment on something in a way that reveals you literally didn’t consider the material at hand for more than 30 seconds. Or 29, to be exact. Limbaugh went on the air to praise Beyonce Knowles’ latest single “Bow Down / I Been On” for what he thinks is the song’s ode to submitting to your husband. “She got married, she married the rich guy, she now understands — she now understands it’s worth it to bow down,” he says. Listen to the segment here:

But if Limbaugh had listened to the song for fifteen seconds, he’d know that it’s addressed to the women Knowles addresses in the opening lyric, when she sings: ““I know when you were little girls/ You dreamt of being in my world.” and if he’d gotten all the way to the 29-second mark, he’d have heard Beyonce remind listeners, some of whom have been perturbed by her plan to tour as Mrs. Carter—her husband’s legal name—for her next album, “I took some time to live my life / But don’t think I’m just his little wife.” Now, I’m aware that Mr. Limbaugh is a busy man with a lot of time to fill, and that being sexually nasty to women in public life only goes so far, but you’d think that he has enough money to at least pay a staffer to listen to popular music he’s going to natter about on the air.

And part of what’s funniest about this is that if Limbaugh wanted to make a case that Beyonce’s an advocate for women making efforts to please their husbands, it wouldn’t have been too hard—he just needed to pick a different song. In “Countdown,” for example, Beyonce pulls out the Betty Draper drag to tell her listeners that “I’m all up under him like it’s cold, winter time / All up in the kitchen in my heels, dinner time / Do whatever that it takes, he got a winner’s mind / Give it all to him, meet him at the finish line”:

But then, maybe Limbaugh’s not ready to tell his female audience “Ladies, if you love your man show him you the fliest / Grind up on it, girl, show him how you ride it.” Though given the way he’s willing to talk about the sex lives of women he’s never met, and about which he knows precisely nothing, I’d hardly put it past him.

View the original article here

Economics Lecture Thirteen

(Difference between revisions)== Review: Different Types of Markets ==== Review: Different Types of Markets ==You instructor wonders what topic will maximize our marginal utility next.  About 20% of the exam is devoted to questions about different types of markets, ranging from the most advantageous for the public (perfect competition) to the least advantageous for the public (monopoly).  That's a large chunk of questions, and with some extra review here we can probably potential convert wrong answers to right ones.You instructor wonders what topic will maximize our marginal utility next.  About 20% of the exam is devoted to questions about different types of markets, ranging from the most advantageous for the public (perfect competition) to the least advantageous for the public (monopoly).  That's a large chunk of questions, and with some extra review here students can convert potentially wrong answers into correct ones.The key to answering these questions correctly is to realize that the more competition there is, the lower the price of the goods and services and the lower the profits for the firms.  Some of these questions are special cases and should simply be memorized:  a cartel is an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) its prices, and an oligopoly is an industry where just a few firms dominate the market.  When given a grid about where an oligopoly ends up selling its goods (its Nash Equilibrium), the answer is always symmetric (all firms sell at the same price) and usually not the highest price that a monopoly could sell at.The key to answering these questions correctly is to realize that the more competition there is, the lower the price of the goods and services and the lower the profits for the firms.  Some of these questions are special cases and should simply be memorized:  a cartel is an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) its prices, and an oligopoly is an industry where just a few firms dominate the market.  When given a grid about where an oligopoly ends up selling its goods (its Nash Equilibrium), the answer is always symmetric (all firms sell at the same price) and usually not the highest price that a monopoly could sell at.There can be general questions about these markets.  A perfectly competitive market uses resources in a perfectly efficient way.  At the other end of the spectrum, a monopoly uses resources the least efficiently of all.  Its high pricing causes a huge social loss ("deadweight loss") by eliminating consumer surplus.  The monopoly reduces output in order to cause a scarcity that increases the price to an artificially high level.  This is bad for everyone, except the owner of the monopoly, who enriches himself.  This is how Bill Gates became the wealthiest person in the world.There can be general questions about these markets.  A perfectly competitive market uses resources in a perfectly efficient way.  At the other end of the spectrum, a monopoly uses resources the least efficiently of all.  Its high pricing causes a huge social loss ("deadweight loss") by eliminating consumer surplus.  The monopoly reduces output in order to cause a scarcity that increases the price to an artificially high level.  This is bad for everyone, except the owner of the monopoly, who enriches himself.  This is how Bill Gates became the wealthiest person in the world.Here is a puzzle to leave you with.  What is the impact on quantity of a price ceiling in a competitive industry compared to a price ceiling in a monopoly?  In which one (competitive v. monopoly) might a clever price ceiling actually increase quantity?  Think about it, and learn to ask yourself questions like this in order to master economics.  The answer is in this footnote.A price ceiling is a maximum price limitation, just as a real ceiling in house limits the height.  A perfectly competitive industry is already selling at its maximum output, so a price ceiling can't help there.  But a monopoly increases its price by reducing its output.  If a price ceiling is imposed against a monopoly, then it must reduce its price and increase its output, which benefits the public.Here is a puzzle to leave you with.  What is the impact on quantity of a price ceiling in a competitive industry compared to a price ceiling in a monopoly?  In which one (competitive v. monopoly) might a clever price ceiling actually increase quantity?  Think about it, and learn to ask yourself questions like this in order to master economics.  The answer is in this footnote.A price ceiling is a maximum price limitation, just as a real ceiling in a house limits the height.  A perfectly competitive industry is already selling at its maximum output, so a price ceiling can't help there.  But a monopoly increases its price by reducing its output.  If a price ceiling is imposed against a monopoly, then it must reduce its price and increase its output, which benefits the public.Be sure to spend time on the review sections in the prior lectures for more information about this and other topics on the exams.Be sure to spend time on the review sections in the prior lectures for more information about this and other topics on the exams.:(E) increase labor until the ratio of the price of the output to labor's marginal product equals the wage rate:(E) increase labor until the ratio of the price of the output to labor's marginal product equals the wage rateThis type of question benefits from being reread.  “Capital is fixed,” according to the question.  So capital cannot be increased.  Answers (A) and (C) can be eliminated that easily.  Many students miss the obvious sometimes on economics exams.  They fail to read and understand the question.This type of question benefits from being reread.  “Capital is fixed,” according to the question.  So capital cannot be increased.  Answers (A) and (C) can be eliminated that easily.  Many students sometimes miss the obvious on economics exams.  They fail to read and understand the question.Only labor can be increased, which is possible under answers (B), (D) and (E).  We've improved our odds of success to a 33% chance.  Those are good odds on a difficult question like this.  But we can improve our chances even more.Only labor can be increased, which is possible under answers (B), (D) and (E).  We've improved our odds of success to a 33% chance.  Those are good odds on a difficult question like this.  But we can improve our chances even more.

Economics Lectures - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14]

This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam. A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:

My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly .... Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics[1] which are taught [in college].

Let's begin this lecture by summarizing the percentages the CLEP exam devoted to particular topics. This will help organize the material we have covered in this course. Our online final exam next week will use a similar distribution in topics as the CLEP exam, but without over-emphasizing government policy as the CLEP exam does.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:

cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output. Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down. price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital costs and profits and price are lowest for this type of market. P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC. what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand marginal revenue is the increase in total revenue due to selling one more unit; profit maximized where MR=MC marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition. For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it. think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth") what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost nation with lower production costs should do what it does best only a few firms, like two gas stations at an intersection far away from any others; usually one Nash Equilibrium-type exam question P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively inefficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility. Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility. Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a different good keep in mind that "economic costs" include opportunity costs in addition to actual out-of-pocket (accounting) costs think ketchup with French fries in the long run all costs are variable and can be minimized; short and long run mentioned in 20% of questions, to distinguish between quick changes and permanent ones two types: positive (music in an open-air park) and negative (pollution) when income goes up, demand for an inferior good or service goes down (e.g., demand for bankruptcy services) substitution and income effects increase in price means less demand because public uses substitutes (substitution effect of price increase) and becomes poorer (income effect of price increase) an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price

Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law. The reason is exam bias. For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much! Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good. But other than bias in the selection of question, bias is rare in answers to economics questions. Pick the answer that you think is correct, without worrying about bias.

As always, be sure you fully understand the question before you answer it, and use common sense and logic. In fact, many economics questions can be answered correctly with patience and basic reasoning skills.

Let's put our knowledge from this course to good use in studying for our final exam, and preparing for the CLEP exam. We maximize our utility by scoring as high as possible on these exams. To do so, we need to maximize our marginal utility in allocating our time towards the exam topics listed above. If we spend all our studying time on "price discrimination," which is only 1% of the exam, then we are not maximizing our marginal utility and will not reach our full potential.

This is similar to our homework problem earlier in the course about maximizing our marginal utility with respect to hiking and reading. This time, however, the decision each student must make is which topic to focus on first in the above list, and how much time to spend on it before moving on to another topic in the list. The answer may be different for each student.

This same challenge in optimizing strategy could be expressed as a problem of "allocative efficency": allocating resources (time and information) in the most efficient way. Just as efficiency is essential to successful businesses, efficiency is also important to becoming a successful student. Spending your time efficiently in preparing for the final exam, and preparing for the CLEP, is crucial to your ability to do well on them. Look at the above list of topics and how often they appear, and ask yourself: where should you focus first in order to pick up the most points in the shortest amount of time?

Should you simply start reviewing at the top of the list and work your way down to the bottom? That strategy has the advantage of focusing on the most important topics first. If you run out of time in reviewing, then you will miss only the less important topics. But you might improve further on that strategy by moving more quickly through topics that you already understand well. Alternative, there may be topics that you find too difficult to understand, and you might give up some points there in order to focus better on topics where you can pick up more points.

For the rest of this class this lecture will focus on topics which might provide the greatest marginal increase in your exam scores. This takes into consideration the topics we have already reviewed (you have the materials for those), and avoids duplication of that review. You may, however, decide for yourself that you can benefit most from reviewing those prior topics.

Your instructor emphasizes studying strategy for a reason. The biggest reason why some students do not succeed is a lack of effort. But the second biggest reason is poor studying and test-taking strategies, like a football team that runs ill-advised plays. Education, like business and perhaps even life itself, rewards good strategies and punishes misguided ones.

For many students, the most additional points can be obtained by reviewing the "Inputs to a Firm" category. It will be on 10% of the questions on the final exam and the CLEP exam. That's a significant chunk of these exams. Without review, these questions look hard and are easy to miss. But with some extra preparation, you should be able to answer nearly all of them correctly. In maximizing your score and making the best use of your time, this category may result in the biggest increase in correct answers with the least amount of effort. That's what maximizing marginal utility is all about.

Accordingly, in economic terms, the greatest marginal utility from studying for the exam is probably obtaining by focusing on this topic first. We've already covered the other two topics comprising 10% apiece of the exam (cost measures and government regulation), so there may not be many more points to pick up there. Realize that you will probably get some exam questions right without additional studying, and other questions you may get wrong no matter how much you study. But in this category of "inputs to a firm," you can pick up some points that you would otherwise miss. Let's review it now.

Questions about inputs to a firm focus on what a firm will do with its inputs (typically labor, but sometimes capital) in order to maximize its profits. The questions usually concern the following:

impact of improvement in technology on the production by a firm adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output the effect of minimum wage on the competition for labor comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand" what causes an increase in demand for labor the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages

Review the above list now. How many of the above 8 topics do you know well enough to answer a question about them correctly? Let's briefly review each of these concepts so you can maximize your score on this big part of the exam.

1. "the impact of an improvement in technology on the production by a firm"

If technology improves, as in helpful new inventions or advances in communication (like the internet), then this helps shift the Production Possibilities Frontier (Curve) outward. A firm can produce more output now. So an improvement in technology enables a firm to increase its output or its supply to the market.

2. "adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output"

How does a firm adjust its inputs (e.g., workers or equipment) so that the firm reaches its lowest possible overall cost? By making sure that the firm is getting the most for each input. In other words, the firm makes sure that each input is producing the most marginal product per dollar spent on that input. If one worker is producing more than another worker, and both are being paid the same, then the owner has not lowered his costs to a minimum. He could fire the lazy worker and hire a part-time worker like his good one, and then produce the same output at less cost. Summarizing the above, a firm minimizes its overall costs by making sure the marginal product per cost for each input is equal. If one input (e.g., one worker) is producing more marginal product per cost than another, then the overall costs are not minimized. The unproductive worker is wasting the firm's money.

3. "the effect of the minimum wage on the competition for labor"

Increasing the minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. Workers who have jobs make more money when the minimum wage is increased, but firms can afford to hire fewer people. The number of the unemployed (the people who cannot get jobs) increases when the minimum wage is increased. Also, although this will never be asked on a CLEP exam, raising the minimum wage causes more high school students to drop out and pursue jobs rather than stay in school, which would enable them to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future. Sometimes the CLEP exam will twist the question about minimum wage to obscure its harmful effect, by asking what happens when the labor supply increases when there already is a minimum wage. This makes it look like the fault is an increase in the labor supply rather than the minimum wage law. The correct answer is the same in both cases: unemployment increases.

4. "comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results"

This type of question probes how a firm increases its inputs in relation to the additional revenue that results from such an increase. The key here is to be very careful and very logical. A firm will increase an input (such as labor) until the value of the marginal product of that input equals the marginal cost of that input. Read that sentence over and over until you understand it. It simply means that the firm will equate the marginal cost of the additional input (such as an additional worker) to the marginal revenue that the additional input produces. Often students miss this type of question because they are not careful to compare dollars to dollars. If you have the marginal cost in terms of dollars (such as a wage rage for the additional worker), then you need to equate it to the marginal value of the marginal product of the labor (value is in dollar units), not the marginal product itself (which is a unit quantity).

5. "why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand"

This is an easy point to pick up on an exam. A firm's demand for an input (such as labor) is called a "derived demand" because it depends on the demand for the goods produced by that input. For example, a restaurant's demand for waitresses is entirely dependent on the public's demand to be served at the restaurant. If there is no public demand to be waited on at the restaurant, then the restaurant (the firm) has no demand for waitresses!

6. "what causes an increase in demand for labor"

This is another easy issue, similar to the prior one above. If the public demand for the product of the labor increases, then there is an increase in demand for the labor itself. If more people want to eat McDonald's hamburgers, then there is more demand for workers to make McDonald's hamburgers. How do we know when the demand by the public for the product of certain labor increases? When the price of the good or service produced by the labor increases. When that price goes up, then there is an increase in demand for the workers who make that good or service.

7. "the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost"

This is a more challenging issue that requires two steps rather than one in order to answer correctly. Marginal cost is additional cost to a firm for making one more unit. It is measured in dollars, not in units. Making sure you have the right measure (dollars or units) for your answer will help you reduce mistakes. The answer for any question about marginal cost must be in dollars (or cents) per unit. Accordingly, if you are told how many additional units are produced by each additional worker, then calculating the marginal cost requires dividing the cost of the additional worker by the additional number of units he produces. The more units an additional worker produces, the lower the marginal cost that results from adding that worker. Example: suppose a firm hires Tom and sees the output increase by 20 units, and then hires Mary at the same wage and sees the output increase by 15 units. When is the marginal cost of the firm the lowest? After it hires Tom, but before it hires Mary. That's because the marginal cost of hiring Tom is his wages divided by 20, while the marginal cost of hiring Mary is the same wage divided by 15. A wage divided by 20 is less than the same wage divided by 15, so the marginal cost to the firm after hiring Tom is less than after hiring Mary.

8. "calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages"

The key here is simply to be careful in doing the calculations, and then double-check your answer. You need to be sure you are using the correct level of output before you calculate the total cost (TC) and average variable cost (AVC) at that level of output. To find the total cost, add the fixed cost (FC) to the variable cost (the variable cost is usually the labor cost: total wages times the number of workers), for a given level of output. Then, to find the average variable cost, find the total variable cost (TVC=TC-FC) and divide by that level of output. Example: a firm can produce 100 units with 5 workers and 200 units with 10 workers. Its fixed cost is $50 and its wage rate is $20 per worker. What is its total cost and average variable cost to produce 100 units? Answer: notice first that the question asks about the costs at 100 units in output, not 200 units. Total cost at 100 units is the fixed cost ($50) plus the labor cost ($20 times 5 workers, or $100), for a total of $150. The average variable cost is the total cost ($150) minus the fixed cost ($50), divided by the output (100), for a total of $1 per unit.

Master the above eight issues, and you'll convert 10% of the exam from wrong answers to correct ones. That could enable you to earn college credit.

You instructor wonders what topic will maximize our marginal utility next. About 20% of the exam is devoted to questions about different types of markets, ranging from the most advantageous for the public (perfect competition) to the least advantageous for the public (monopoly). That's a large chunk of questions, and with some extra review here students can convert potentially wrong answers into correct ones.

The key to answering these questions correctly is to realize that the more competition there is, the lower the price of the goods and services and the lower the profits for the firms. Some of these questions are special cases and should simply be memorized: a cartel is an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) its prices, and an oligopoly is an industry where just a few firms dominate the market. When given a grid about where an oligopoly ends up selling its goods (its Nash Equilibrium), the answer is always symmetric (all firms sell at the same price) and usually not the highest price that a monopoly could sell at.

The monopoly questions look harder than they really are. The monopolist sets his price higher than marginal cost, which would be the optimal price from the standpoint of the public (or government). Instead, the monopolist price sets his price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (MR=MC). If shown a graph, you may have to find the quantity where MR=MC, and then find the corresponding price on the demand curve. Notice that a monopolist has no supply curve, because a supply curve represents many firms in an industry and a monopolist is the only firm in the industry.

There can be general questions about these markets. A perfectly competitive market uses resources in a perfectly efficient way. At the other end of the spectrum, a monopoly uses resources the least efficiently of all. Its high pricing causes a huge social loss ("deadweight loss") by eliminating consumer surplus. The monopoly reduces output in order to cause a scarcity that increases the price to an artificially high level. This is bad for everyone, except the owner of the monopoly, who enriches himself. This is how Bill Gates became the wealthiest person in the world.

Here is a puzzle to leave you with. What is the impact on quantity of a price ceiling in a competitive industry compared to a price ceiling in a monopoly? In which one (competitive v. monopoly) might a clever price ceiling actually increase quantity? Think about it, and learn to ask yourself questions like this in order to master economics. The answer is in this footnote.[2]

Be sure to spend time on the review sections in the prior lectures for more information about this and other topics on the exams.

A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and nondepletable. The first condition means that it is impossible to exclude consumers from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others. An example of a public good is national defense, as it protects everyone and its benefits to one person do not diminish its benefits to others.

Other examples of public goods are law enforcement (protection by the police), public fireworks, clear air, street lights, radio and television transmissions, lighthouses, and some inventions. Some of these examples, such as lighthouses, are contested as to whether they must be a public good, as it is possible to charge ships port fees to pay for them. Also, while radio and television transmissions are available to all to receive them, it does cost money to buy radios and television sets, so these are not truly public goods either.

Liberals like to emphasize the concept of public goods on exams in order to support the argument for more government. Under this view public goods represent market failure and the need for government services supported by taxes.

Good test-taking techniques are particularly important to doing well on an economics exam. Simple questions are often intentionally disguised as something more complicated. It is easy to become confused and misguided in analyzing economic issues. 99% of the public would say that we would be better off if Congress put a price ceiling or cap on gasoline at $1 a gallon. It takes a bit more thought to realize that massive shortages would result, and we would all have to waste hours each week waiting in line for gasoline. Some who really need gas in hurry, such as people trying to take someone to a hospital, may not be able to obtain gas in time.

The ability to eliminate wrong answers can help. Let’s try the elimination technique on these questions:

Question: Consider the poverty-level of income for a family of four in America. Which of the following can be said about how the government defines this specific income level?

(A) It helps determine who is eligible for Social Security benefits. (B) It decreases when there is an increase in welfare benefits. (C) It proves that 50% of Americans live in poverty. (D) It is determined by tripling the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet by three. (E) Government does not adjust this number due to changes in the cost of living (inflation).

Virtually none of you would know the answer to this question at first glance. This question is not really appropriate for a "micro"-economics exam ("micro"-economics concerns individual buying and selling decisions), but CLEP asks it anyway. Questions about poverty, gaps between the rich and poor, and government programs are always favorites among liberal educators. You will see many more questions about these issues than about the invisible hand or the creation of wealth.

So what do we do when faced with this question? Simply give up? Move to the next question and hope it is easier? Blindly guess at an answer? None of the above.

We can narrow the choices, and thereby reduce our risk of error, by eliminating wrong answers. Basic economic principles (or common sense) serve as our guide.

Let’s start with choice (C). Think about it: is half of our nation living in poverty? What would that mean for elections? Who would pay to run government? If we called half of us "poor", then what word would be use for the really poor? Choice (C) can't be true. Using common sense, we can eliminate this answer.

Let’s turn to choice (E). Why wouldn’t it be adjusted? Poverty must be relative to the cost of living. If the cost of living doubled, then the numbers in poverty would increase greatly. But failure to adjust for the cost of living would miss that effect. Again, common sense leads us to eliminate this answer.

Next we can turn to choice (A). That doesn't work either, because everyone who pays into Social Security has a right to receive benefits when they grow old, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. “Social security” is not “security only if you’re poor.” We can eliminate this choice.

We’re left with only two possibilities: (B) and (D). Realize that has increased our odds of choosing the right answer to 50% now. If you took the CLEP and at least narrowed every difficult question down to two choices, then you would likely pass the test. How do we next make our best choice among these final two options?

Option (D) seems to have the right amount of detail, and fits the question well grammatically. In contrast, Option (B) does not fit the question as well or make as much sense (definition of what the poverty level is should not change based on distributing some benefits). Even if you had no idea between (B) and (D), (D) is a better fit. It’s our best guess. (D), indeed, is correct.

It helps to choose an answer that gives the most meaning to the purpose of the question. The purpose of this question is to ask about how poverty-level income is calculated. Answer (D) most directly furthers that goal. It makes for a good guess if you did not otherwise know. You won’t always be able to guess the right answers, but by increasing your chances you can significantly increase your overall score.

Let’s try one more CLEP-inspired question, this time relating to labor:

Question: Assume a perfectly competitive market for both inputs and output. If capital is fixed and the price for the output increases, then a firm in the short run will increase its production by which of the following ways:

(A) increase capital until P=MR (B) increase labor until the value of the marginal product for workers equals the wage rate (C) increase capital until its average product equals the price of the additional capital (D) increase labor until its marginal product equals the wage rate (E) increase labor until the ratio of the price of the output to labor's marginal product equals the wage rate

This type of question benefits from being reread. “Capital is fixed,” according to the question. So capital cannot be increased. Answers (A) and (C) can be eliminated that easily. Many students sometimes miss the obvious on economics exams. They fail to read and understand the question.

Only labor can be increased, which is possible under answers (B), (D) and (E). We've improved our odds of success to a 33% chance. Those are good odds on a difficult question like this. But we can improve our chances even more.

(B) and (D) look similar so let’s turn to (E) first. The “marginal product of labor” is the additional units (“product”) produced due to an additional unit of labor. Remember “MP”? The term does not include “revenue” or “price”, so it only gives you the quantity. We need to multiply that quantity by product price to obtain revenue, what the firm owner cares the most about. Choice (E) makes no sense by dividing terms that should be multiplied together. We can eliminate it.

Back to (B) and (D). The only difference between the two is the term “value of” in (B). Think about what “marginal product” is. It is a quantity, not a dollar amount. Yet we are comparing it to “wage rate,” which would be in dollars. We need to insert “value of” to convert a quantity into equivalent dollars. (B) is must be the correct choice because it compares dollars to dollars, while choice (D) does not.

The key to good test-taking, particularly on economics exams, is to make sure you fully understand each question before trying to answer it.

There are only two or three questions (out of nearly 100) on the CLEP exam that have biased answers. They concern regulation and efficiency. You can expect to see one or two CLEP questions where the correct answer is to support government regulation against pollution. The best way to think about pollution is in terms of its "negative externality," but the CLEP exam writers cast the issue in terms of an efficient use of resources. Under this view, pollution is inefficient because it results in inefficient harm to the environment. Laws against pollution supposedly increase efficiency by preventing harm to the "resource" of the environment. These regulations that prohibit pollution cause less output but supposedly ensure a more efficient use of environmental resources.

While most of us support a cleaner environment, efficiency is usually associated with greater output, not less output. Government regulations almost never improve efficiency; the free market does that best without government interference. That said, you can pick up one or two easy points on the CLEP exam by assuming that environmental regulation increases efficiency by protecting the "resource" of the environment for its better uses.

When companies are allowed to pollute without paying for it, their marginal cost (MC) is artificially lower than it should be. These companies are avoiding the cost of their own pollution. A lower MC means they will produce more goods than if their MC were higher. The term “marginal social cost” is used by economists to represent the true cost of their activities, including the cost of their pollution. Because companies produce more than they would if they had to pay for the cost of their pollution, some consider this to be inefficient. On the CLEP exam, it takes regulation to make it efficient by preventing the companies from putting out the pollution.

You might wonder what a conservative, free market approach to reducing negative externalities (like pollution) would be. One approach would be to require full disclosure to the public by companies of their negative externalities, so that the public could stop buying the product if the public was concerned about the negative externalities. That would enable the free market to solve the problem in an efficient way.

Outside the topic of government regulation on the CLEP exam, there are no biased answers. Do not choose one answer instead of another for reasons of bias except in one or two rare cases.

In areas unrelated to pollution, government establishes price floors, supports and ceilings. Do we all recall the differences? Price “ceilings” (or controls) are the easiest: the government says that the good cannot be sold for a higher price. Just as you cannot reach above your ceiling, the price is prohibited from rising above the ceiling that the government sets for it. It would be requiring gas to be sold for no more than $1.50, for example. The quantity supplied will decrease (move down the supply curve), while the quantity demanded will increase (move up the demand curve). Shortages result from price ceilings.

What is a price floor? Just the opposite of a ceiling. We cannot reach below the floor, and a price floor prevents the price from falling below a certain level. It would be a government law that prohibited milk from selling for less than $2 a gallon, for example. It would be intended to help the suppliers, such as dairy farmers. What happens when government imposes a price floor? There is a surplus of the good, as supply exceeds demand.

Now, how about a price support? That occurs when the government buys large quantities of good, such food, at prices higher than the competitive equilibrium. The government does this to “support” a higher price, instead of passing a law to require a higher price. A price support is designed to help the firms producing the goods, such as farmers. The rationale is that farmers are politically important and that pure competition is too brutal on their business and their lives, and also that foreign countries engage in the same practices. The effect of a “price support” is similar to a price floor: it creates a surplus of the good when the support is above the equilibrium price

When government regulates labor, the analysis is similar to its regulation of price. A “price floor” is created by the minimum wage: the buyer (an employer) must pay at least a certain amount for a service (labor). The minimum wage creates an oversupply of the service: too many workers. Not all of them will be able to obtain jobs at a wage higher than equilibrium. Unemployment results from a minimum wage that is higher than the equilibrium wage.

You have all learned a great deal of material in this course, information that will help you the rest of your lives. The insights and powerful concepts covered by this course can yield greater and greater benefits the more you think about them. Every week I see still something new and helpful in concepts taught in this course. Many students say that this is the best course they took from me, among other helpful courses. Use this course for your benefit.

If there is one unifying theme to this course, then I suggest it is summarized in Jesus's Parable of the Talents. Be productive, and God can multiply the benefits of your work. If you reach out, if you do more, if you make good use of your time, if you maximize your efficiency, if you consider the opportunity costs, and if you increase your output, then you give God more to work with. But if you bury your talents in the ground or if you are like the tree that does not bear fruit, then you give God less for His purpose.

Carpe diem. And be the good that drives out the bad as we discussed in connection with Gresham's Law.

Read this lecture and study for the final exam, which will be the first week in June. It will be 30 multiple-choice questions, similar in format to the quizzes.

? "Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard. Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem.? A price ceiling is a maximum price limitation, just as a real ceiling in a house limits the height. A perfectly competitive industry is already selling at its maximum output, so a price ceiling can't help there. But a monopoly increases its price by reducing its output. If a price ceiling is imposed against a monopoly, then it must reduce its price and increase its output, which benefits the public.

View the original article here

Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Kenny at St. Patrick's Day Reception

Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Kenny at St. Patrick's Day Reception | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Easter Egg Roll

Be Healthy, Be Active, Be You: April 1, 2013

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Speeches & Remarks   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 19, 2013 Remarks by the President and Prime Minister Kenny at St. Patrick's Day Reception East Room

5:47 P.M. EDT
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody!  (Applause.)  Good evening, everybody.
 
AUDIENCE:  Good evening.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Welcome to St. Patrick’s Week here at the White House -- not just today, we get a week.  
 
I want to welcome back our good friend Taoiseach Kenny and his wonderful wife Fionnuala.  We are so glad that they are here, and we want to thank them for bringing some genuine Irish shamrocks.  I want to say a special thanks to Michael Collins, who has done such an outstanding job here as the Irish Ambassador to the United States.  This is his last St. Patrick’s Day in America before heading to Germany, so we want to wish him and his lovely wife all the best.  (Applause.) 
 
I also want to welcome First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness of Northern Ireland, who are with us here today.  And as I said earlier, I am very much looking forward to visiting Northern Ireland for the G8 Summit in June.  (Applause.) 
 
We have way too many Irish and Irish American and wannabe Irish Americans in the house for me to name -- (laughter) -- but I will say that the next four years are shaping up to be very green ones here in the White House.  (Applause.)  My new Chief of Staff is a McDonough.  My National Security Advisor is a Donilon.  Our new CIA Director is a Brennan.  My new head speech writer is a Keenan.  And Joe Biden has very kindly agreed to stay on as Irishman-in-Chief.  (Laughter.) 
 
Joe couldn’t be here tonight because he is on his way back from the installation of Pope Francis in Rome.  For those of you who know Joe, literally the only thing that could keep him away from St. Patrick’s Day at the White House is the installation of a new Pope.  (Laughter.)  So he sends his best. 
 
Ever since the first son or daughter of the Emerald Isle set foot here on American soil, this day has served as a reminder of just how many threads of green are woven into the red, white, and blue.  And in times of war and peace, good times and bad, Americans have always found a way to celebrate that heritage. 
 
During the Civil War, a quartermaster for the Irish Brigade was sent to Washington to secure a St. Patrick’s Day dinner consisting of a side of roasted ox, a pig stuffed with boiled turkeys and 35 hams.  And even during the Great Depression, when food was scarce and families were struggling, a judge in New York informed the district attorney that he would not try any cases on St. Patrick’s Day in which the defendant or the lawyers were Irish.  (Laughter.)   
 
Now, just to be clear, I looked into continuing some of these traditions -- no, I could not get the White House chefs to go along or the Attorney General to go along with these traditions.  (Laughter.)  So tonight, we’re going in a slightly different direction, but we do so mindful of the fact that even in times of trouble, if we’re lucky enough to be Irish –- even if it’s only in spirit –- then we’re lucky enough.  And that’s reason to give thanks.
 
Looking out on this room, it’s clear just how much America owes to our brothers and sisters from across the Atlantic, and how many of us -- myself included -- wouldn't be here if it were not for the brave souls who set off for the New World with no earthly idea of what awaited them on the other side.
 
And it’s a reminder of just how many trials the people of Ireland have endured, from hunger and troubles, to the economic challenges of recent years.  It’s yet another reason why we need to build an immigration system for the 21st century -- (applause) -- one that works for families and businesses and our economy.  But it’s also a tribute to the incredible resilience of the Irish character and the enormous power of faith -- in God, in one another, and in the possibility of a better life. 
 
It was that faith that brought millions of Irish to our shores, but that faith alone didn’t join our two nations in common cause.  It was how the Irish put that faith into practice in their new nation.  They wanted a government of and by and for the people, so they helped us design one.  And they understood the importance of saving the Union, so they fought and died for the cause.  They saw potential in our railways, bridges and skyscrapers, so they poured their sweat and blood into building them.  And they believed that each of us has an obligation, not just to ourselves, but to each other and to our country.  So that’s how they lived their lives here in America.
 
A great nation is one that contributes more to the world than it takes out, and by that definition, America owes a profound debt of gratitude to the great nation or Ireland.  And together, our people have never stopped dreaming of a better future and never stopped working to make that dream a reality. 
 
We saw that again in October, when Hurricane Sandy set off one of the worst residential fires in New York City’s history.  Hundreds of homes were left charred and flooded, and many families were suddenly faced with the task of picking up the pieces and rebuilding their lives, including in Breezy Point, a neighborhood with a large Irish American population.  In fact, more than half of Breezy Point residents can trace their families to the old country, and the folks back in the old country were not about to sit by and watch their American brothers and sisters struggle alone. 
 
So they pitched in.  Gaelic rock stars raised money.  Athletes from the Gaelic Games did construction work and brought the Sam Maguire chalice with them to lift spirits.  The Irish Tenors came over to sing Christmas carols.  The Irish government pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars, not just to help the residents of Breezy Point, but to help folks rebuild across the region.  And the Taoiseach himself was in Breezy Point on Sunday to attend mass.  (Applause.)
 
As one official said, New York has been very good to the Irish; now the Irish are giving back to New York.  And that’s the story of America and Ireland:  We look out for each other, we have each other’s backs, and we recognize that no challenge is too great and no obstacle is too high if you’ve got a friend beside you and a nation behind you.  That’s been our history; that will be our future.
 
So I hope everyone has a wonderful time.  There’s an old Irish saying that the recipe for a long life is to leave the table hungry, leave the bed sleepy, leave the bar thirsty.  (Laughter.)  We’ll see if that works tonight.  Happy Saint Patrick’s Day, everybody.  (Applause.)
 
And now I’d like to introduce my good friend and our honored guest, Taoiseach Kenny.  (Applause.)
 
PRIME MINISTER KENNY:  (Speaks Irish.)  Mr. President, First Lady, Happy Saint Patrick’s week to you, your families and the American people.  I’m delighted to be here.  I want to join with the President in wishing Ambassador Michael Collins and his wife, Marie, the very best.  Thank you for your service to this country and to Ireland.  (Applause.)
 
I’d like to add to that the service given by Ambassador Dan Rooney and his wife, Patricia, from the United States to Ireland.  Two wonderful people also.  (Applause.)  And thank you, Mr. President, for your warm welcome that you’ve given to Fionnuala and to me, to the Tánaiste and Carol, and indeed everyone in the Irish delegation.  It really is a privilege, and wonderful to be back.  Our warmest congratulations on your second term.  (Applause.)  Perhaps there will be a second visit home in due course.  (Laughter.)
 
For generations, now, there’s been a very special relationship between the President of the United States and the Irish people.  In fact, if the truth could be confirmed -- and it’s difficult to do so -- there are reports that President Lincoln himself is living in County Wicklow -- (laughter) -- and he’s married to Arthur Miller’s daughter.  (Laughter.)
 
In 1963, President Kennedy came home to Ireland.  He told our parliament about the Irish Brigade, the Fighting 69th.  Thanks to him, that brigade’s green flag speaks almost as eloquently as he did, at Leinster House today.  From Bull Run to Fredericksburg to Gettysburg, the Fighting 69th distinguished themselves on the battleground, showing outstanding courage and resilience and intelligence.  And for you, Mr. President, their battle cry in Irish was, “Fág an Bealach.”  "Clear the way."  Can you say that?  Fág an Bealach.
 
THE PRESIDENT:  Fág an Bealach.  (Applause.)
 
PRIME MINISTER KENNY:  Generations on, it rings out loud and clear on the other side of the Atlantic, because after difficult years, we, the Irish people, are at last clearing the way.  Táimid ag fágaint an bealach:  To a brighter, better, more prosperous future, both this time for all our people. 
 
Mr. President, a chairde Gael, we’ve still a long way to go on our journey to national recovery.  But tonight I’m proud to say here in the White House that confidence is returning to our country and to our people. 
 
Here this evening with this bowl of shamrock that contains traditional Irish shamrock, we’ve got a perfect example of that new confidence and that new hope.  Because unlike the bowl that James Joyce spoke of at the Atlantic, “the bowl of bitter tears,” or President Kennedy, this bowl here was made by Sean Egan, unemployed four years ago.  He spent 300 hours creating this in a labor of love.
 
It sparkles with the story of who we are now.  It glistens with the story of what we once brought here on the risky yet life-giving journey to America, not only those memories of place and home and family, but our songs, our music, our stories, sung and recited until they were threadbare so that new generations -- many of you here -- could actually make them your own. 
 
Just as we Irish made our own of America, today in Ireland, we do as we have always done.  As a nation, we make joy from sadness.  As a country, we forge success from difficulty.  As a republic, we create ourselves anew.  And as we do, we remember and we honor the old. 
 
They say that if you laid out a timber memorial for every Irish man, woman and child buried at sea on the Famine Crossing that you could walk from Cork to Boston.  They say, as we say in Irish, that they’re “idir eadartha” – “in between” -- between past and future, between two nations, two republics who stand proud and determined and strong either side of the Atlantic Ocean; exhilarated indeed by the possibilities of science, intrigued by the potential of discovery, and curious about the secrets and the powers of invention; united in our passionate belief in the capacity of experiment and thought and imagination and, indeed, intuition itself to transform our world.
 
And when the crew of the International Space Station -- who are on Twitter -- (laughter) -- these days, when they look on this world, on our planet and see it go a little greener, chances are they don't just think American, they don't just think British or Indonesian or any place else, they might well think that down there, that's our human family, the family of man, and they are at home. 
 
And because we are, Mr. President, for all we build, for all we make in finance, in politics, in business or economics, we know because of these connections that our real wealth are the reserves of love and kindness and insight and understanding and courage and compassion that were so carefully attained and accrued over those many long years.  And as we celebrate St. Patrick and St. Patrick’s Week, let us build on those reserves to build better nations, better people and a better world.  They're here, Mr. President.  The sun is new every day.  And may it shine brightly on our peoples and on all that we undertake together in the cause of each other.
 
So in your responsibilities all around the world, the many onerous responsibilities you carry, we wish you good fortune and good health and success.  In the words of the Fighting 69th, "Our union, our country, and Ireland forever.  Fág an bealach.  (Applause.)
 
END
6:00 P.M. EDT
 

Blog posts on this issue March 20, 2013 3:19 PM EDTPresident Obama Tells Israeli People: The U.S Is Proud to Be "Your Strongest Ally and Your Greatest Friend"

The first stop on President Obama's trip to the Middle East marks the first time the President has visited Israel since taking office, and comes as its citizens celebrate the 65th anniversary of a free and independent State of Israel.

March 20, 2013 11:30 AM EDTHealth Care Law 3rd Anniversary: Paying for Quality Saves Health Care Dollars

On the third anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius lays out some of the ways in which the health reform has lowered costs.

March 20, 2013 10:29 AM EDTWatch Live: President Obama's Middle East Trip

We will be posting regular updates from the road and livestreaming several of the President's events on whitehouse.gov/live

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

House Republicans’ Final Written Argument Against Marriage Equality: Nuh-Uh!

House Republicans' Attorney Paul Clement

House Republicans have filed a reply brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, but the arguments boil down to “nuh-uh” or “just because” responses to Edie Windsor’s attorneys. Though it reiterates many of the arguments made in their initial brief, here’s a summary of the final written arguments against marriage equality in the DOMA case:

Same-sex marriage is still an “experiment,” so Congress was allowed to be cautious: “But when Hawaii was poised to become the first jurisdiction in the United States to deviate from the traditional definition, there was nothing incautious about retaining the traditional definition as the federal definition while states began a process of experimentation. That approach was a rational exercise in caution and a rational approach to the issue given our system of dual sovereignty.”It’s more “uniform” to ban all same-sex marriages than to recognize all valid marriages: “But the federal sovereign has a unique interest in treating a survivor of a same-sex relationship in New York the same as a survivor of a same-sex relationship in Oklahoma. And DOMA rationally furthers that uniquely federal interest in nationwide uniformity.”Most states ban same-sex marriage, so it’s rational that Congress did it too: “It bears emphasis that the traditional definition was the only definition at the time of DOMA’s enactment and remains the rule in more than 80% of the jurisdictions.”Children are better off with their biological parents: “DOMA’s opponents challenge as irrational the long-held cultural judgment that a child’s biological parents are, other things being equal, the child’s natural and most suitable guardians.”Only straight couples need marriage because only they have kids accidentally: “Marriage as an institution is linked to the unique tendency of opposite-sex couples to produce unintended offspring and the societal interest in providing a stable structure for raising such children.”DOMA doesn’t deny marital eligibility to same-sex couples: “DOMA defines terms for purposes of federal law; it does not deny marital eligibility— which remains a matter of state law—to anyone.”Gays aren’t politically powerless like women because women were discriminated against under the law: “The Court’s application of heightened scrutiny, despite the majority status and substantial achievements of women, was explained instead by over a century of official disenfranchisement that left the statute books littered with laws based on outdated stereotypes.”Sexual orientation is a behavior, not an identity: “Unlike the recognized suspect classes, sexual orientation is defined by a tendency to engage in a particular kind of conduct.”Let democracy play out on same-sex marriage so opponents aren’t called bigots: “The democratic process requires opposing sides to attempt to persuade each other, to understand each other’s positions, and perhaps, at least temporarily, to reach compromises that both sides can accept. A constitutional right to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, could be achieved only by marginalizing, as bigoted at worst or irrational at best, the ‘profound and deep convictions’ of those who disagree.”

Some of these arguments are simply rhetorical speculation (“experiment,” “uniform”), others are completely untrue (DOMA rejects states that recognize same-sex marriages, gays do have a history of disenfranchisement under the law), and others defy the lived experiences of gays and lesbians and their families (children who are adopted, sexual orientation as an identity). None of them reflect reality, and none of them should survive the scrutiny of the Court’s questions next week.

(HT: Kathleen Perrin.)

View the original article here

User:SelmaIAIH

View the original article here

How Kansas’ Anti-Abortion Bill Launches A Sweeping Attack On Women’s Rights

Not to be outdone by states like North Dakota and Arkansas that have recently passed record-breaking abortion restrictions, Republicans in Kansas are advancing a stringent anti-abortion bill that combines several attacks on reproductive rights into one omnibus measure.

HB 2253 is a 70-page piece of legislation that failed last session, when the Senate was more moderate — but since anti-choice state lawmakers won big victories in the 2012 election, Kansas’ abortion opponents are seizing the opportunity to push it through this year. The House approved the bill by a 92-31 vote on Wednesday afternoon, and it’s also expected to pass in the GOP-controlled Senate, where Republican leaders have promised to “violating medical privacy laws by allowing state auditors to demand access to individuals’ medical records. The bill would also target groups affiliated with abortion providers by preventing them from receiving the same tax breaks that other organizations do.

3. Requires doctors to give women biased information about the dangers of having an abortion. Under the omnibus bill, doctors would be required to provide women with disputed information about abortion risks. Of course, every patient undergoing a medical procedure should be fully educated about the risks — but these kind of “informed consent” sessions are a popular anti-choice tactic specifically designed to dissuade women from terminating a pregnancy. Doctors would need to tell women about a potential link between abortion and breast cancer, even though medical experts don’t believe there’s a connection between the two.

4. Doesn’t include exceptions for victims of rape or incest. One Kansas lawmaker attempted to amend the bill to include a exception for some of Kansas’ existing abortion laws — including the state’s late-term abortion ban, restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion, and a requirement for minors to get parental consent for abortion services — in cases of rape or incest. Women’s health advocates call such policies “common-sense, compassionate exceptions,” particularly for minors who may have become pregnant from incest and can’t get permission from a family member to terminate the pregnancy. But Republicans in the House voted it down on Tuesday, saying they weren’t interested in revisiting the details of the nearly two dozen abortion restrictions that are already on the books.

5. Restricts the use of comprehensive sex ed resources in public schools. The bill contains a clause that prohibits anyone who works for an abortion provider from also working in a school — a provision intended to specifically target Planned Parenthood and prevent the women’s health organization from providing students with any comprehensive sexual health instruction. Originally, it was so broadly worded that it would have also prevented any parent who works for an abortion provider from volunteering at their child’s school. It’s since been tweaked to specify that volunteering is okay.

Kansas’ omnibus bill is similar to a controversial package of abortion restrictions that Michigan lawmakers forced through their lame duck session at the end of last year. Women’s health advocates warn that HB 2253 represents the “biggest threat this year” to Kansas women’s access to reproductive rights.

View the original article here

REPORT: Kids Ingest Potentially Poisonous Medication 500,000 Times Per Year

According to a new report by the children’s medical safety advocacy group Safe Kids Worldwide, “a parent or caregiver calls a poison control center after a young child gets into medication, or is given the wrong dose of medicine” every single minute due to unsecured pills and bottles.

In a press release accompanying the report, Safe Kids Worldwide CEO Kate Carr said, “Ask any parent, and they will tell you they store medicine where children can’t get them. But they might not be thinking of pills stored in purses, vitamins left on counter tops or a diaper rash remedy near a changing table.” The findings, summarized in a report infographic below, support results from a 2012 study by the group finding that child poisoning deaths from medications doubled between 1979 and 2006:

View the original article here

UPDATE 2-FDA reviewers say Titan drug dose may be insufficient

* Review comes ahead of advisory committee meeting on Thursday

* Probuphine is experimental drug to treat opioid addiction * Titan stock down 41 pct at $1.20 in over-the-counter trade

(Updates with background on existing products, drug figures)

By Toni Clarke

March 19 (Reuters) - Titan Pharmaceuticals Inc's experimental drug to treat opioid addiction was less effective in a clinical trial than might have been expected, suggesting the proposed dose could be too low, reviewers for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in documents published on Tuesday.

The commentary was published on the FDA's website ahead of an advisory panel meeting to be held on Thursday and sent the company's stock down 41 percent to $1.20 in over-the counter trading at midday on Tuesday.

The reviewers said they would ask the advisory panel whether Titan should explore dosing further before the drug, Probuphine, is approved.

Probuphine is a long-acting version of buprenorphine, a drug sold by Britain's Reckitt-Benckiser Group Plc under the brand names Subutex and Suboxone.

Unlike Subutex and Suboxone, which are dissolved daily under the tongue, Titan's drug is implanted under the skin of the upper arm during a 10-15-minute office procedure and delivers a continuous supply of buprenorphine for six months.

Clinical data shows Probuphine to be more effective than placebo in curbing addiction, but the results were still not particularly robust, the reviewers said.

Only 8 percent of patients provided opioid-negative urine samples for at least 80 percent of tests, while roughly a quarter of Probuphine-treated patients were unable to provide four opioid-negative samples over the course of six months, the reviewers said.

"While the placebo group had even more discouraging results, supporting the conclusion that Probuphine does have an effect on drug use, overall, the response was not what one might hope for given that the product ensures compliance with the medication for six months," the reviewers said. "It prompts speculation that the dose is simply not high enough."

Drug overdose death rates have more than tripled since 1990, according to federal data. In 2008, more than 36,000 people died from an overdose, mostly caused by opioid painkillers, which outpaced deaths from heroin and cocaine combined.

ADDITIONAL SAFETY CONCERN

While the safety of Probuphine appears largely in keeping with that of other buprenorphine products, it presents an additional safety concern, reviewers said. It must be implanted, potentially leading to surgery-related complications. They said the product is in some ways similar to Norplant, an implantable, progestin-releasing contraceptive which is no longer marketed in the United States.

Even though insertion and removal of Norplant was performed by trained healthcare providers, there were cases of implantation and removal-related complications, some with disabling consequences, the reviewers said. They will ask the advisory committee whether it believes the company has adequately addressed these concerns under its proposed risk mitigation plan and whether the drug's benefit is enough to outweigh the potential risks.

In December, Titan licensed the U.S. and Canadian rights to Probuphine to Braeburn Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by the venture capital firm Apple Tree Partners. Titan received an up-front payment of $15.75 million and will receive up to $50 million if Probuphine is approved.

Reviewers noted that the dose of buprenorphine delivered by four Probuphine implants is less than a third of the dose delivered buprenorphine tablets.

"Potentially, Probuphine could deliver just enough buprenorphine to allow patients to continue to use illicit opioids without experiencing withdrawal when they stop," the reviewers said.

RECKITT DOMINANCE

To date, the market for buprenorphine has been dominated by Reckitt, a consumer goods company whose products range from cleaning supplies to condoms. Subutex and Suboxone generated sales in 2012 of roughly $1.3 billion.

Suboxone and Subutex lost market exclusivity in 2009, and while generic competitors promptly introduced cheap copies of Subutex they were slow to develop alternatives to Suboxone. In the meantime, Reckitt persuaded many physicians to switch from Suboxone tablets to Suboxone Film, its newer, patent-protected wafer-like strip that patients dissolve under the tongue. At the end of 2012, according to Reckitt, Suboxone Film had captured 64 percent of the market.

Even as it switched patients to Suboxone Film, Reckitt aggressively fought to block generic competition to Suboxone tablets. In a move generic drug critics claimed was designed to thwart competition, Reckitt produced a report showing that children were eight times more likely to be accidentally exposed to Suboxone tablets than to Suboxone Film.

It petitioned the FDA to reject all generic versions of Suboxone tablets unless packaging safety standards were improved. The company said it could not ignore the danger posed by the tablets it had been selling for a decade, and in September said it would only sell Suboxone Film.

The FDA rejected Reckitt's petition, saying there was not enough evidence to support the need for stricter packaging rules. And it expressed skepticism over Reckitt's motives, saying the timing of its decision to stop marketing the tablet, "given its close alignment with the period in which generic competition for this product was expected to begin," could not be ignored.

Earlier this year the FDA approved generic versions of Suboxone tablets from Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Actavis Inc .

(Reporting by Toni Clarke in Washington; editing by Gerald E. McCormick, Alden Bentley and Matthew Lewis)

((toni.clarke@thomsonreuters.com)(202-898-8340)(Reuters

Messaging: toni.clarke.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: FDA TITAN/

View the original article here