Sunday, June 16, 2013

President Obama Announces A Key Administration Post

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:

• Cathy Russell - Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, Department of State

“Cathy is a longtime advocate for justice and fairness and has worked on preventing violence against women here in America and around the world,” said President Obama. “She served as Chief of Staff to Dr. Jill Biden for my entire first term, and has worked tirelessly alongside Michelle and Jill to make sure our military families get the honor and support they’ve earned.  I’m certain that Cathy will continue to be a powerful advocate for women and girls in her new role.”

President Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individual to a key Administration post:

Cathy Russell, Nominee for Ambassador at Large for Global Women’s Issues, Department of State
Cathy Russell is the Chief of Staff to Dr. Jill Biden.  Previously, she served in the U.S. Senate on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as the Senior Advisor on International Women’s Issues from 2007 to 2008.  She served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Justice Department from 1995 to 1996.  From 1993 to 1995, she served as the Staff Director of the Senate Judiciary Committee and from 1989 to 1993, she was Senior Counsel to Senator Patrick Leahy for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Technology Subcommittee.  She was also a member of the Communications Advisory Council of Women for Women International from 2006 to 2008.  Ms. Russell received a B.A. from Boston College and a J.D. from George Washington University.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President 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.

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.

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

View the original article here

Indianapolis 500

(Difference between revisions)The event has been run for a hundred years and has a massive attendance on race day with as many as 400,000 attendees.The event has been run for a hundred years and has a massive attendance on race day with as many as 400,000 attendees.The defending champion is [[Dario Franchitti]] the husband of [[Ashley Judd]]. The 2011 champion was killed in an accident at the [[Izod Indycar World Chamionship]] at [[Las Vegas Motor Speedway]] in [[Las Vegas]], [[Nevada]].The defending champion is [[Tony Kanaan]] who won after years of near misses in the event.

The Indianapolis 500 is a car race held in Speedway, Indiana. It is one of the best well known events in American racing. The race is held every Memorial Day weekend at the 2.5 mile racetrack. Cars are purpose-built race cars with 800 horsepower V8 engines mounted behind the driver. The engines run on American-grown ethanol supporting American farmers.[Citation Needed] Despite being a very American tradition, there are many successful foreign drivers, including Dario Franchitti from Scotland, Scott Dixon from New Zealand and Helio Castroneves from Brazil.

The event has been run for a hundred years and has a massive attendance on race day with as many as 400,000 attendees.

The defending champion is Tony Kanaan who won after years of near misses in the event.


View the original article here

Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland at a St. Patrick's Day Luncheon

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.

1:05 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you so much.  Please, everybody, have a seat.

To our host, Speaker Boehner, to the distinguished members of the House and the Senate, thank you all for having me here today.  Obviously, we are thrilled to have the Taoiseach back, and his lovely wife and his delegation.

But before I begin, I just want to say a few words about a tragic accident in Nevada that took the lives of seven U.S. servicemembers and wounded several others yesterday.  All of us share our thoughts and prayers with their families.  And I think this should serve as a reminder that even as we’re able to gather today in tradition and in friendship, it’s the extraordinary and enduring sacrifice of our men and women in uniform that make this possible, and the sacrifices that their families make as well.  And all Americans stand united in grateful support of all that they do.

Now, I know I speak for everyone when I say we’re pleased to welcome Taoiseach Kenny and his wife, Fionnuala, back to Washington.  They are just wonderful friends.  I also want to welcome First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness from Northern Ireland.  Where are Peter and Martin?  There they are right here.  (Applause.)

We spend the whole year trying to bring this town together, and these leaders are able to do it in a single afternoon.  They even get us to dress alike.  (Laughter.)  So my question is how long can you stay?  (Laughter.)  Because we’ve got some budget discussions coming up.  Perhaps you can be helpful. 

Now, even though most of the debate in Congress on this day is about who is more Irish than whom, that doesn't make it any less heated.  But no matter how much green is in your family tree, remember that Speaker Boehner is part-Irish and spent much of his childhood surrounded by characters in his father’s bar, so the rest of us are probably playing for second place in this contest. 

I will say that after visiting my ancestral hometown of Moneygall two years ago, I’ve now seen the official Irish records proving my Irish heritage on my mother’s side.  I thought that would come in handy more often, but it turns out that on St. Patrick’s Day, people just take your word for it.  (Laughter.)  I’m keeping all my records.  (Laughter.)  Just in case.  (Laughter.)

The truth is we have plenty of Irishmen and women here today, but not just today, here every day.  They represent the latest in the long line of sons and daughters of Erin who have walked the halls of Congress and who’ve occupied the Oval Office.  To adapt an old saying, the curse of the Irish is not that they don't have an opinion about anything, it’s that they have an opinion about everything.  So it’s not hard to see why politics has always been a good fit.

But no matter how far Irish Americans travel, or how high they climb, the Emerald Isle always has a way of pulling at their heart strings.  President Kennedy once joked that he would support any presidential candidate who offered him an ambassadorship to Ireland after he left office.  His younger brother Teddy Kennedy remembered walking along the beach as a boy and hearing Jack tell him that on a clear day you could see all the way to Ireland.

And then there was President Reagan, one of the founders of this gathering.  During his time in office, he made a pilgrimage back to his home county of Tipperary, and walking through the ruins of an ancient cemetery, Reagan came across a large stone with the following inscription:  “Remember me as you pass by, for as you are, so once was I.  But as I am, you will be, so be content to follow me.”

And apparently, one visitor could let that stand because below the inscription, somebody had carved:  “To follow you I am content, I wish I knew which way you went.”  (Laughter.)

For my part, I will never forget the magical day that Michelle and I spent in Ireland.  The Irish people were incredibly warm and incredibly gracious, even with a little mist falling.  They made Michelle and me feel right at home, and we both left with thousands of new friends and dozens of new relatives.  And I’m very much looking forward to visiting Northern Ireland for the G8 summit this June.

So on this St. Patty’s Day, let’s remember the Irish -- both those who have left us and those who are with us today, who have fought and bled and labored to make this country a better place for their children and for ours.  Let’s give thanks for the men and women who proved that through hard work and perseverance, anybody can earn themselves a piece of the American Dream.

And let’s welcome our Irish brethren who have welcomed so many of us -- not just as allies and as friends, but as family as well.

So to our guest, the Taoiseach of Ireland, I would like to propose a toast:  To the eternal friendship between our two countries.  

(A toast is offered.)

And with that, should I go ahead and just introduce him, or you got something to say?  (Laughter.)  With that, let me introduce Taoiseach Kenny.  (Applause.)

PRIME MINISTER KENNY:  Please, I am not the President of the United States, I'm a visiting Taoiseach from Ireland.  Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Tánaiste Gilmore, ambassadors, First Minister, Deputy First Minister, ladies and gentlemen -- you have no idea of the impact that a day like this makes on us and the honor that is bestows on us for our people.

I want to thank you for your grandmother’s recipe for the spinach.  It’s absolutely delicious.  (Laughter.)  So it’s a privilege, actually, to come back here again to Capitol Hill on this St. Patrick’s Week, the extension of a tradition going back for very many years to celebrate Irishness and the connection between the United States and Ireland in so many forms over the years.

When I came here two years ago, I was able to report that we had come through very challenging times and were starting on the implementation of a strategy and a program to rescue our public finances, to restore our economic independence, to put our people back to work, to restore our integrity and credibility internationally.  And I’m very happy to be able to say to you that two years on, despite the enormous challenge that this has presented, Ireland has made very steady progress.  We hope to exit the IMF-EU program later this year and be able to be back fully in the bond markets next year and play our part as a constructive, competent country in the interest of our people.  (Applause.) 

So to have our third consecutive year of economic growth, a return to the bond markets has been on a phased basis.  We had a $5 billion sale with yields down from 14 percent to just over 4 percent in less than 15 months, which was quite a significant move for Ireland. 

But I also come here not just as an Irishman or as Taoiseach, but as the presidency of the European Union.  I did say to the President that I'll only get this chance once, because the presidency revolves through the Union on a six-monthly basis, so it will be 16 years or thereabouts before it comes back to Ireland again.  It’s a great thing that as the President of Europe, I can meet the President of the United States on our own ground, both Irishmen.  (Laughter and applause.)  Think about that. 

But to be serious, may I say, I want to thank America and the United States for their continued interest, for their support -- for their tangible support in respect of Northern Ireland and the difficulties that we’ve had there over the years.  And in the presence of the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Tánaiste, and the Speaker and the President, I want you all to understand that this a time of great fragility in Northern Ireland.  It’s a time for clear political leadership.  And we as a government in the republic together with the executive First and Deputy First Minister, the British government and all the parties want this to succeed.  We want it to succeed.  We do not want a situation where those minority who have bad thoughts and bad blood want to turn the days back to the dark days of the troubles.  We do not want that to happen.

As we approach the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, as one of the co-guarantors of that agreement, we, together with the British government, the executive of the elected assembly in Northern Ireland, will walk with all of these partners to restore a clear sense of political leadership and progress for peace and continued peace. 

And that’s why, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, it’s absolutely critical that the American administration continue to show the support that they've always done down through the years, and there are representatives here from Congress and from the Senate who have demonstrated that more than amply. 

So my plea is to keep that interest very much alive, because we intend to work very diligently on that in the time ahead, both the Tánaiste and I.  I might say that this year we mark the 50th anniversary of the visit of President Kennedy to Ireland in 1963.  And as he said, it was his words and his visit that time when he said, "We are divided by distance, but united by history."  And these things are so true. 

And that’s why the year of the gathering in 2013 is Ireland's call to people from all over the world to come back in the year of 2013 to sample the delights and the hospitality of our country if they choose to do so.  We don’t want them all to come together, because 75 million might be a bit too much to arrive at one time.  (Laughter.)  That’s why I know that the President was happy to speak about the Ryanair deal with Boeing.  Even all those planes fully laden flying 24 hours a day wouldn’t be able to get that diaspora in there fully.

So let me just say that this is a time of great confidence returning to our country.  Yes, fragility and obstacles up ahead, but as a small country, we want to play our part in the European Union with our great friends here in the United States.

On Thursday -- on Sunday, I had the privilege of going to Breezy Point to see the devastation wreaked by Sandy, but also to see the spirit of the community which is focused on being -- rebuilding that community stronger than ever.  I admire their courage.  I admire their consistency.  And there is a word for it, Speaker, in Ireland, when communities come together with a common objective, support and assistance is given pro bono -- we call it the "meitheal" concept -- m-e-i-t-h-e-a-l.  It means that when communities are down, communities rally together and our sense of values and conviction and belief are stronger than ever.  I was very happy to go to Breezy Point and see that.

Now, the news is not out yet, but on some golf course in Ireland, some morning, the local greenkeeper is going to wake up, and he says, a three ball gone down there and they're not sure who it is.  None of them are really good golfers, though, they could have impact in other places.  This match has yet to be arranged.  It's between the Speaker of the House here, Mr. Boehner, who proclaims that he's the best of the trio --

SPEAKER BOEHNER:  I do.  (Laughter.) 

PRIME MINISTER KENNY:  -- the President of the United States, and the Taoiseach of Ireland.  And we can't go on Air Force One -- it's too obvious.  We can't go on a military machine, because they would know it's from the U.S. Air Force.  So you're going to have to arrive by Irish style, and in that sense, we have our own ways of getting onto golf courses that nobody knows about.  (Laughter.)  And if they find out, you'll understand what the digital communications system is able to do, because I doubt if you'll get off the place without having to sign thousands of autographs.

Listen, thank you, here in Congress, Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, for your diligence, for your friendship, for your courtesy.  We love this country and want to work with you for the benefit of so many people.  So we've spoken about immigration, Northern Ireland, EU-U.S. trade -- that’s where the future is.  And, after all, the future is the only place where we all have to live.

Thank you very much, indeed.  (Applause.) 

END 
1:19 P.M. EDT

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President 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.

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.

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

View the original article here

Template:Mainpageleft


Conservapedia: Over 450 million Views & 1,000,000+ Edits. Free courses are here. Or join our discussion of the Origination Clause.

Jellyfish

101 evidences for a young earth

Comprehensive resource to refute the claims of evolutionists

Question evolution! campaign - worldwide anti-evolution campaign featuring 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]

The Question evolution! campaign is a worldwide anti-evolution campaign and is primarily being conducted in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and South Africa.[1] The focus of the campaign is on 15 Questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer. The 15 questions can be found HERE.

10 reasons why 2013 will be a BAD year for Darwinism

January-blue-calendar.jpg

5 strategies to collapse Darwinism

Five.pngChina location.png

Can social unrest in Europe lead to a change of their religious landscape? Are creationists poised and in a position to take advantage of this unrest to further grow biblical creation belief in Europe? [2][3]

Europe map.png

Essays on atheism and evolution

Good person test

"I do not seek. I find."

Pablo Picasso

If you want the present to be different from the past, study the past.

Baruch Spinoza

Kind words do not cost much. Yet they accomplish much.

Blaise Pascal

Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith through logical arguments. The term comes from the Greek word apologia, which means "defense".

"To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven." - Ecclesiastes 3:1 (NKJ)

“when the wicked perish, there is song,’’ but later warns, “If your enemy falls, do not rejoice.” - The Book of Proverbs.

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing, But the righteous are bold as a lion." - Proverbs 28:1 (NASB)

Though translation of the New Testament is complete, improvements and ideas are always welcome, and much work remains in the Old Testament.

Find your favorite verses and join the Best of the Public in translating a few!


View the original article here

John Bolton Calls Israeli Support For Obama ‘Propaganda’

John Bolton

John Bolton — a self-appointed supposed strong supporter of Israel — accused the Israeli government on Tuesday of lying in expressing its support for President Obama.

The Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C. produced a video welcoming Obama on his visit this week to the Jewish state. The unusual video depicts cartoon-like versions of the president and Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu shaking hands to the tune of the “Golden Girls” theme song “Thank You For Being A Friend.”

Fox News host Greta Van Susteren wondered why then, if things were so bad between Obama and Israel, that the Israelis would make such a video. Bolton could think of only one answer: It’s propaganda:

VAN SUSTEREN: The Obama administration saying the president’s trip is mostly a fence mending mission, but it looks like [referring tot he video] the Israelis are welcoming him with open arms. Ambassador, what do you think about this?

BOLTON: I’m glad the Israeli government has enough budget surplus that they can produce propaganda like that. The president has Israel back, the bonds are strong. What could possibly go wrong?

Watch the clip:

Israeli President Shimon Peres will give Obama the Presidential Medal of Distinction during his trip to Israel this week. As Bolton would have it, that’s probably a bogus gesture as well.

But the former Bush administration U.N. ambassador is a regular in the Obama-hates-Israel circuit, the presumption being of course that Bolton is more friendly to the Jewish state than Obama is. But apparently that friendship doesn’t go too far as there’s nothing like having a good buddy who calls you a liar on national television.


View the original article here

How Reddit Could Compete—Or Work With—Netflix And Amazon

As television networks have struggled with their ratings this winter, online content distributors have heated up. House of Cards has succeeded in making Netflix look buzzy, at least for a cycle—even if the show isn’t a candidate for the pantheon, it was a demonstration that a distributor could put up the money to make something that looked attractive on a big screen or a computer monitor, and to attract strong acting talent to a project. Amazon is investing in a range of shows it’ll test for audiences before greenlighting a few of the products for longer seasons. YouTube, which has been investing in content channels, had one of its mini-networks, WIGS, enter into a partnership with Fox. And now the network’s discovered an even more intriguing content partner, Reddit, which has just launched its first series:

Reddit general manager Erik Martin tells The Hollywood Reporter that the series, which is funded by YouTube, marks an experiment to encourage the site’s users to create web video rather than a larger foray by the company to get into original web programming. “For us, it’s more about encouraging the Reddit community and bigger community of producers, filmmakers and animators out there to create content, video, web series, shows … based on Reddit content,” Martin says. The “Explain Like I’m Five” subreddit, which the company says gets an estimated 4 million page-views monthly, was chosen because its discussion concept seemed fit for a video series.

What makes Reddit fascinating as a potential developer and tester of content is very different from other outlets who are getting into this business. Amazon and Netflix are both content distributors with an advantage over television networks, which have to set one schedule for all viewers. Amazon and Netflix viewers can program their own sequences of content, and Amazon and Netflix use sophisticated content ratings algorithms to help those viewers find content they might like based on what they’ve consumed before.

Reddit lacks that algorithm, but it has communities that are extremely good at tearing apart content and analyzing ideas. Most of the time, they do that for content that members bring in from the outside, though things like Ask Me Anything sessions are organically generated for Reddit in particular. Those communities could be repurposed as test audiences on a large scale—and a test audience that’s attracted to that content in particular, rather than picked by networks to see how content will appeal to a large range of viewers. It’s an enormously valuable resource, a chance to float a series, get both broad reactions and particular notes (if you’re willing to pick through the comments), and then go back and revise content either to continue distributing on Reddit and YouTube platforms, or to sell up the ladder to Netflix or Amazon. Netflix and Amazon are alternative distribution channels. Something like Reddit could give them a truly alternative development system.


View the original article here

Law of biogenesis

(Difference between revisions)Nevertheless, many people continued to believe that microorganisms, such as [[microbe]]s, spontaneously generated.Nevertheless, many people continued to believe that microorganisms, such as [[microbe]]s, spontaneously generated.This idea was put to rest with experiments done by [[Louis Pasteur]] in 1864, and the ''law of biogenesis'' was born.This idea was put to rest with [[experimental science|experiments]] done by [[Louis Pasteur]] in 1864, and the ''law of biogenesis'' was born.This law is put to the test every day, in the [[food preservation]] industry.This law is put to the test every day, in the [[food preservation]] industry.

The Law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life (in latin: Omne vivum ex vivo).

As long ago as ancient Greece, people believed that small creatures spontaneously appeared, such as mice appearing from grain, or maggots from rotting meat. However, in 1668 Francesco Redi conducted experiments showing that maggots came from eggs laid on the meat by flies.

Nevertheless, many people continued to believe that microorganisms, such as microbes, spontaneously generated. This idea was put to rest with experiments done by Louis Pasteur in 1864, and the law of biogenesis was born.

This law is put to the test every day, in the food preservation industry. Food that is to be kept in good condition for an extended period of time is sealed in cans, bottles, or other containers, and sterilised to kill any organisms that might be in it. Because all life in the container has been killed, and because the container is sealed to prevent any microorganisms getting in, the food is kept in good condition. The law is accepted so thoroughly that if a container is found to contain living organisms, investigators will look for a hole in the container, a failure to properly sterilise the food, or tampering. They never conclude that the life in the container arose spontaneously.

Despite this law, many scientists believe that the first life arose from non-living matter. In proposing this, they speculate that although life has never been observed to spontaneously arise, it must have at some time in the past. Being a unique past event, the speculation cannot be tested or refuted, thus remaining an article of blind faith for those who reject the idea that life was created.

Creationists believe that the first biological life did not come from non-life, but from the living God.


View the original article here

Statement by the President on the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War

Statement by the President on the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama The White House Emblem 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

2012: A Year in Photos

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

President Obama greets White House visitors

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

Now Is The Time

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

Immigration Reform

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

We the People

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

Download our mobile appsEaster Egg Roll

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

White House Easter Egg Roll 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 HomeBriefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 19, 2013 Statement by the President on the 10th Anniversary of the Iraq War

As we mark the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, Michelle and I join our fellow Americans in paying tribute to all who served and sacrificed in one of our nation’s longest wars.   We salute the courage and resolve of more than 1.5 million service members and civilians who during multiple tours wrote one of the most extraordinary chapters in military service.  We honor the memory of the nearly 4,500 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice to give the Iraqi people an opportunity to forge their own future after many years of hardship.  And we express our gratitude to our extraordinary military families who sacrificed on the home front, especially our Gold Star families who remain in our prayers.      

The last of our troops left Iraq with their heads held high in 2011, and the United States continues to work with our Iraqi partners to advance our shared interest in security and peace.  Here at home, our obligations to those who served endure.  We must ensure that the more than 30,000 Americans wounded in Iraq receive the care and benefits they deserve and that we continue to improve treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder.  With a strong Post 9/11 GI Bill, we must help our newest veterans pursue their education and find jobs worthy of their incredible talents.  And all Americans can continue to support and honor our military families who are pillars of so many of our communities.  On this solemn anniversary, we draw strength and inspiration from these American patriots who exemplify the values of courage, selflessness and teamwork that define our Armed Forces and keep our nation great.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

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"President Obama Tells Israeli People: The U.S Is Proud to Be

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 The White House Emblem En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

Utah Schoolchildren Asked To Celebrate Fossil Fuels And Mining On Earth Day

Earth Day is April 22, and today is the last day children in Utah can send in their submissions for the state-sponsored Earth Day poster contest lauding fossil fuel production.

This year’s theme is “Where Would WE Be Without Oil, Gas & Mining?

Last year’s theme was “How Do YOU Use Oil, Gas, and Mining?”

The contest is literally made possible by fossil fuel interests. This year’s sponsors include the Salt Lake Petroleum Section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining. Last year’s sponsor list was longer, including Arch Coal, Anadarko Petroleum, and Rio Tinto/Kennecott Utah Copper.

Any child in Utah between Kindergarten and sixth grade is eligible. The contest’s primary objective is “to improve students’ and the public’s awareness of the important role that oil, gas, and mining play in our everyday lives.” Last year’s contest winners made posters that detailed how dependent we have become on fossil fuels. To their credit, the grand prize winner detailed both ways we use products created by fossil fuels and ways we can reduce our consumption.

The children were not asked to make posters about the climate impacts caused by those same fossil fuels: drought, wildfires, and warmer winters.

Some parents are not happy, as this letter to the editor by Colby Poulson makes clear:

Why is the state backing an “Earth Day” contest that celebrates fossil fuels, while completely ignoring the adverse effects that their use and extraction can too often have on our air quality, water quality, public lands and the other organisms we share the world with? Shouldn’t Earth Day be about championing things that can help reverse the negative impact of our dependence on fossil fuels?

Frankly, I’m disgusted that the state is backing propaganda like this in our schools.

Why allow a contest like this to run two years in a row? The state could be taking its cues from its Congressional delegation, one of whom runs the House Science subcommittee and denies the reality of human-caused climate change. Or its state legislature, which in 2010 adopted a resolution doubting the reality of climate change.

Perhaps they missed the Salt Lake Tribune‘s editorial, “A killing climate: Global warming unchecked,” or those Utah scientists who reported:

Based on extensive scientific research, there is very high confidence that human-generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for most of the global warming observed during the past 50 years. It is very unlikely that natural climate variations alone, such as changes in the brightness of the sun or carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes, have produced this recent warming. …

Utah is projected to warm more than the average for the entire globe and the expected consequences of this warming are fewer frost days, longer growing seasons, and more heat waves.

Appropriately, the winners of the Earth Day poster contest will be notified on April Fool’s Day.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

User:Nethorn9


View the original article here

Even Texas’ Conservative AG Supports Required DNA Testing In Capital Cases

Even in death row cases, criminal defendants have no right to test potentially exonerating DNA evidence. In a move to prevent wrongful convictions in the state with the highest number of both executions and DNA exonerations, a Texas legislator is proposing a measure to require prosecutors to test available DNA evidence before seeking the death penalty. The bill’s chances of success were significantly bolstered with the unlikely support of one of the state’s most prominent and conservative legal figures: Attorney General Greg Abbott. The Dallas Observer’s Eric Nicholson reports on the move, in an aptly titled post, “Greg Abbott Backs DNA-Testing Bill, Continues Unprecedented Streak of Reasonableness”:

“There’s no reason to test these items more than a decade after the crime was committed,” Abbott said Tuesday at a news conference alongside the bill’s author, Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat. “We shouldn’t live with suspense. The family of the victim shouldn’t have to through this time after time after time in order to get certainty.”

Abbott is careful to frame his support for Ellis’ bill mainly as an effort to help victims’ families, but it comes, of course, in the wake of an embarrassingly high number of overturned convictions. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 53 prisoners have been freed by DNA evidence, two of whom were serving on death row.

Nicholson points out that Abbott may also support the bill as a means of strengthening support for the death penalty, which Ellis also supports. There are ever-growing reasons to believe that the death penalty is not a good idea in any case. But Texas, home to one-third of the entire country’s executions, should at the very least test defendants’ DNA before seeking to take their lives. And they should do more. Earlier this month, the chief justice of the state’s supreme court once again called for a commission to investigate all wrongful convictions, many with defendants who could have benefited from DNA testing whether or not they faced the death penalty, and many more in which DNA evidence was never available to begin with.


View the original article here

User:Netflight7


View the original article here

Why Progressives Need To Talk About Economic Mobility If They Want To Fix Inequality

The conservative trickle-down approach to the economy assumes that maximizing rewards for those at the top is the path to both growth and prosperity for the society as a whole.  If inequality rises, that does not matter, runs the conservative argument, because absolute levels of prosperity will rise for everyone even if the top gains more.

The progressive approach to the economy is radically different.  This approach posits, based on a mass of accumulating evidence, that inequality is not a benign byproduct of growth, but rather a toxic barrier to both middle class prosperity and strong growth in general.  In other words, high levels of inequality interfere with the both the quality and quantity of growth experienced by a society.  Hence the idea that an economic agenda  must concentrate on lifting up the middle class to generate both broadly-shared prosperity and fast growth.  The two goals are inextricably linked and one cannot be attained without the other.

Of course, the progressive agenda may be the correct one, but that does not mean it can be easily sold to the public and politicians.  It would require a serious reorientation of national priorities and considerable investments in areas like education and infrastructure–spending that is likely to meet considerable resistance in the current environment.  Therefore, the question of how to frame the agenda in the political marketplace is key.

One obvious approach is to frame the agenda directly as a means of reducing inequality.  Call this the redistributionist approach.  This approach is not without merit.  Start with awareness of and views about economic inequality.

There is no doubt Americans are aware of rising inequality.  In the Pew Research Center’s 2012 American Values survey, respondents were asked if they agreed that today the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. About three-quarters (76 percent) agreed, while just 23 percent disagreed.  And the public believes it’s not just the poor who are losing ground to the rich—it’s the middle class as well. In the same survey three-quarters (76 percent) also say the gap between the standards of living of the middle class and the rich grew over the last decade, compared to just 16 percent who think it narrowed.

No wonder that a poll from October 2011 conducted by Pulse Opinion Research for The Hill found that two in three Americans believe that the middle class is now shrinking. And in a Democracy Corps post-2010 election survey, the public endorsed the idea that America is no longer a country with a rising middle class by 57-36.  Finally, an October, 2007 poll conducted by political scientists Benjamin Page and Lawrence Jacobs for their book, Class War: What Americans Really Think about Economic Inequality, found 81 percent of the public saying that the gap in wealth between wealthy Americans and the middle class has grown over the last 25 years, compared to just 10 percent who said it has remained the same and 8 percent who said it had gotten smaller.

Of course high awareness of inequality does not necessarily mean that Americans disapprove of it.  But further data show that Americans’ high awareness of inequality is indeed matched by high levels of disapproval.  For example, in a Pew poll in December, 2011, 61% said our economy unfairly favors wealthy Americans, while only 36% thought the system was “generally fair.”  And in an ABC News/The Washington Post poll from January of this year, 55% of Americans said that economic unfairness that favors the wealthy is a bigger problem than overregulation by the government that hurts economic growth. Only 35% of respondents believed the latter was the bigger problem.

Moreover, in an October, 2011 nationwide survey conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the public expressed the following views:

81 percent of those surveyed agreed that “Regular people work harder and harder for less and less, while Wall Street CEOs enjoy bigger bonuses than ever,”75 percent agreed that “Our economy works for Wall Street CEOs but not for the middle class. America isn’t supposed to only work for the top 1 percent”72 percent agreed that “right now, 99 percent of Americans only see the rich getting richer and everyone else getting crushed. And they’re right.”

In earlier data from the Page/Jacobs survey, 72 percent agreed that differences in income in America are too large, compared to only 27 percent who disagreed.  And 59 percent disagreed that large differences in income are necessary for America’s prosperity.  In an October 2008 Gallup poll, 58 percent thought money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people, compared to 37 percent who thought it was fairly distributed.

None of these survey findings are idiosyncratic.  Careful academic reviews of public opinion on inequality over time by sociologists Lane Kenworthy and Leslie McCall indicate that Americans have typically been aware of inequality, sensitive to its increase over time and generally disapprove of the levels it has reached on our society.

So, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the public is both aware of rising inequality and disapproves of it.  Naturally enough, given these sentiments, the public would also like to see something done about this problem.  In a November 2011 poll from the Public Religion Research Institute, 60 percent agreed that “our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal.” And 63 percent believed that “we need to dramatically reduce inequalities between rich and poor, whites and people of color and men and women.”

But it does not follow from all this–awareness, disapproval and the felt need for action–that the public would necessarily be happiest with a direct attack on inequality as implied by the redistributionist frame.  On the contrary, in the February, 2009 Pew economic mobility survey, by an overwhelming 71-21 margin, respondents though it was more important to ensure everyone has a fair chance of improving their economic standing than to reduce inequality in America.

That preference for economic mobility over direct mitigation of inequality is also suggested by results of another question in the same survey.  By 71-27, Americans agreed that greater economic inequality means that it is more difficult for those at the bottom of the ladder to move up the ladder.  That is what Americans object to most vigorously about economic inequality: that it makes economic mobility more difficult.  In other words, for most Americans what we have is not an inequality crisis but a mobility crisis.  This is confirmed by results of a recent series of focus groups on inequality conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.  Participants tended not to connect their economic difficulties with wealth and income inequality but bemoaned, more than anything else, the rising cost of middle class expenses like housing, transportation, medical care and college relative to lagging wages and salaries.  This middle class squeeze, which prevents them from moving ahead in life, is what primarily concerns them.

The mobility crisis touches something very, very important to Americans.  Americans retain a deep faith in their personal ability to get ahead even in adverse circumstances, provided they have a fair opportunity to do so.  Here are some results from a survey I helped conduct for the Economic Policy Institute in March, 2006.  That poll found that 69% thought they had already attained the American Dream or would attain it in their lifetimes (note: this figure was actually higher–75%–in a CAP poll conducted in February, 2009 after the financial crisis had hit). And while 60% rated themselves between poor and middle class now on a 10 point economic scale (1-5), 59% said they would be between middle class and wealthy (6 to 10) within 10 years. Finally, while 80% described themselves as working class, middle class, or lower class today, 44% believed it was very or somewhat likely that they would become wealthy in the future.

This personal optimism can and does co-exist with negative views about the overall state of the economy.  In the EPI poll, respondents were asked whether economic uncertainty and inequality or success in achieving the American Dream characterizes the economy today.   Here is the choice posed by the question:

Most people today face increasing uncertainty about employment, with stagnant incomes, paying more for health care, taxes, and retirement, while those at the top have booming incomes and lower taxes

OR

Our economy faces ups and downs, but most people can expect to better themselves, see rising incomes, find good jobs and provide economic security for their families. The American dream is very much alive.

By 2:1 (64%-32%), respondents selected the first statement about increasing uncertainty as coming closer to their views. But of that group that said that increasing uncertainty, rather than achieving the American Dream, characterized the economy, an amazing 63% nevertheless thought that they themselves would achieve the Dream.

This personal optimism and aspirational outlook is broadly shared across social groups. For example, 69% of the white working class and 74 % of the white middle class believed they have reached or will reach the American Dream, as did 67% of women, 72% of men, 66% of blacks, and 74% of Hispanics (blacks and Hispanics were less likely than whites to believe they had already attained the Dream, but made up for it by being more likely to believe they will attain it in the future).

This aspirational outlook helps explain a stunning finding from the Page/Jacobs survey.  A whopping 97 percent agreed (including 85 percent who strongly agreed) that everyone in America should have equal opportunities to get ahead.  This is as close to a consensual viewpoint as you find in American public opinion, suggesting the power of a mobility, rather than redistributionist, frame for the progressive economic agenda.

The mobility frame has a strong connection in the public mind to the need for government action. In the 2011 Pew economic mobility survey, an overwhelming 83 percent said they wanted the government to either provide opportunities for the poor and middle class to improve their economic situation or prevent them from falling behind or both.  In the same survey, education, a central part of the progressive economic agenda, loomed especially large as a way the government should  help provide those opportunities.  Ensuring all children get a quality education was rated the highest among options to help people get ahead (88 percent rated it as one of the most important/very important).  And improving the quality of elementary and secondary education and making college more affordable were two of the top four options for preventing downward mobility (84 and 80 percent, respectively, one of the most effective/very effective).

Other options that rated highly in this or the 2009 Pew economic mobility survey included promoting job creation, providing basic needs to the very poor, reducing the costs of health care, helping small businesses and business owners, more job training programs and education for adult workers, making it easier to save for retirement and early childhood learning programs.  All these mobility-promoting steps are central, of course, to the progressive economic agenda.

In conclusion, the mobility frame lends itself to an “aspirational populism” that makes explicit the argument that current levels of inequality are not just unfair but directly interfere with mobility and economic growth.  Not only is there a growing body of economic evidence for the argument but it accords well with the common sense of voters.  And perhaps the common sense of an increasing number of politicians.

As the President himself has remarked (April, 2012 speech in Florida):

In this country, prosperity has never trickled down from the wealthy few. Prosperity has always come from the bottom up, from a strong and growing middle class. That’s how a generation who went to college on the GI Bill — including my grandfather — helped build the most prosperous economy that the world has ever known. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made a point to pay his workers enough money so that they could buy the cars that they were building. Because he understood, look, there’s no point in me having all this and then nobody can buy my cars. I’ve got to pay my workers enough so that they buy the cars, and that in turn creates more business and more prosperity for everybody.

That about says it all.


View the original article here

Presidential Nominations Sent to the Senate

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Patricia E. Campbell-Smith, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a term of fifteen years, vice Lawrence Baskir, retiring.

Elaine D. Kaplan, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a term of fifteen years, vice Christine O. C. Miller, term expired.

Michael Kenny O'Keefe, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Joan Z. McAvoy, retired.

Robert D. Okun, of the District of Columbia, to be an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for the term of fifteen years, vice Linda Kay Davis, retired.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

President 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.

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.

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

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