2018 NCAA Tournament: Estimated $10 billion to bet on March Madness

Link
Summary: The month of March is known for two things: Saint Patrick's Day and March Madness. The phenomenon of 64 college basketball teams battling it out for the top spot in the NCAA tournament is met with extreme amounts of illegal gambling. It is estimated that this year the total amount of money bet is $10 billion dollars, with only a third of this coming from legal means in Nevada. Geoff Freeman, the CEO of American Gaming association attributed the illegal betting to be not practical and works against the country as a whole stating "The failed federal ban on sports betting has created an illegal, unregulated sports betting market that offers zero consumer protections and generates zero revenue for state and tribal governments."

Analysis: Making a bracket is part of many American's experience with watching the NCAA tournament as it makes them more invested in teams that they may not have an outside attachment to, making every game important to their brackets success. From a marketing standpoint this is a great way for stations to pull in viewers as they would be drawn to games that they would not necessarily be interested in. Betting seems to be inevitable and to not address the issue in a reasonable manner by providing easier legal ways of betting they are perpetuating the issue. Through legalization the government would better able to monitor the betting and could provide ways of mitigating the issues associated with betting. 

Questions:
1) Should betting for amateur sports be legalized?
2) Is betting morally just?
3) Who do you have winning the tournament? =)

Walmart to Offer Home Delivery of Groceries to 100 U.S. Cities

Article Link

Recently, shopping services that deliver goods ordered online have been gaining in popularity with many emphasizing the idea of same day delivery. This has been especially important in the grocery business. Costco announced their own grocery service in October and Target said in December it would purchase the same day delivery service Shipt. Notably, Amazon acquired Whole Foods last year and earlier this month said that they would begin a same day grocery service in 6 cities. With so many corporations fighting to get into the industry, Walmart has also decided to expand its grocery deliver services from 6 cities to around 100 cities across the US. They plan to use the stores as places to fulfill customer requests and also plan to partner with Uber and other driving services for delivery.

Questions:
1. Do you think Walmart will be able to compete with Amazon in the grocery delivery industry?
2. Is Walmart's planned partnership with Uber and their large amount of stores give them a leg up in the race to control the grocery delivery industry?
3. How much of an impact will these new delivery services have on physical stores?

Trump 'admitted making up figures to Justin Trudeau'

Another link you probably won't click on

Summary:
At a private fundraiser, Trump said that he told Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that the United States has a trade deficit with Canada. He later defended the point in a tweet, arguing that Canada is just one of many nations that we had a trade deficit with. In fact, Trump came out saying he had no idea if this was true. However, according to the Department of Commerce, we have almost a three billion trade surplus with Canada. Trump later came out and tried to clarify his point, arguing that if we ignored services and only looked at goods there would be a trade deficit. However, services make up almost 80% of the American economy, and the structure of the Canadian economy is quite similar. Trump’s administration has yet to release a statement on why he lied to Trudeau, but analysts have seen this as part of his approach to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Analysis:
I am quite surprised by Trump’s actions. It is amazing that he made up facts to argue with another world leader—especially one that is historically allied with America. I don’t know why he couldn’t say he wasn’t sure, and after Trudeau called him out on it he continued to defend his unbiased argument. In my opinion, his backpedaling is not much more effective, and once again he could have simply apologised and moved on. I am unsure of the benefits of lying to other leaders, but perhaps there is a merit that I am unaware of.

Questions:

1. Will this be beneficial for the new NAFTA in any way? If Trudeau believed him for a time, would the situation be different?
2. If this situation involved another country that we were less friendly with, would the situation be better? Would it be worse?
3. Does Trump’s arguments of “goods not services” hold any traction? Should it?
4. Do facts even matter now? 

How 'Icarus' Accidentally Exposed A Major 'Ocean's Eleven-Style' Doping Scheme

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/05/590869276/how-icarus-accidentally-exposed-a-major-ocean-s-eleven-style-doping-scheme


Bryan Fogel's movie Icarus just won Best Documentary Feature at the oscars, driving new public attention to Russia's Olympic doping scheme.  I highly recommend this movie.

Summary:
Bryan Fogel set out to document his experience using blood doping to excel at an Amateur bike race while passing all drug testing performed by race officials. After seeing Lance Armstrong win medals while passing drug tests, Fogel wanted to document this process for public eye. However, his inquiry into the world of blood doping uncovered surprising secretes. Fogel's doping advisor was Grigory Rodchenkov, a Russian scientist who was in charge of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited lab in Moscow. Throughout the movie, the plot diverges from Fogel's bike race, and focuses on Rodchenkov, and the crimes he divulges. He claims he was in charge of a state sponsored doping program that broke Olympic Anti-doping rules to get athletes to win. The state sponsored cheating program was started in the 60s and has been ongoing ever since. Fearing his life was in danger due to his friend dying form a sketchy heart attack(suspected to be an assassination), Rodchenkov escaped to the US, where he is now in protective custody. This movie highlights for public view the corruption in the Russian government, and the extent the Russian government used cheating to boost Putin's popularity for a swift invasion of Ukraine.

Before the Sochi Olympics Putin had an dismal approval rating, below 30%. So, Rodchenkov claims he set up a system to switch out drug testing vials at Sochi, tampering with results and allowing Russian Athlete to continue to take performance enhancing drugs throughout the competition. Russia won 13 medals, Putins approval rating went to 85%, allowing him to invad Ukraine with little pushback. Rodchenkov told his story because he felt he was no longer a scientist, rather a cheater, using KGB agents and dummy walls to cheat an international system.

Analysis:
With winning an oscar, the movie further highlights for public view the extent Russian corruption. Corroborated with the recent Russia suspected attacks in England, the movie shows to the public the willingness for Russia to assassinate and cheat their way to the top. After seeing this movie, Russian meddling in the election seems definite. 

Questions:
Have you seen this movie? Has it changed your perspective on Russia?
Where Russia's consequences in the last Olympics justified?
Should Rodchenkov be punished for his role int he scheme? Or commended for telling the truth to the world?
Now that the world has this information. What should be done? What will be done?

California Parents Killed In Car Crash After Fleeing ICE Officers Who Mistook Father For Arrest Target

Link to article 

Summary: A mother and father of 6 children were killed in a car crash in an apparent attempt to flee Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, who pulled them over after mistaking the father for an arrest target. Santo Hilario Garcia and Marcelina Garcia Profecto were both pronounced dead at the scene after officers arrived. The Delano police department said in a statement that the couple had been stopped by the ICE agents, who turned on their emergency lights to pull them over. However, they fled once the agents exited their vehicle. Police were saying the vehicle was driving at high speeds and eventually lost control, slamming into a power pole. The ICE confirmed that they not only pulled the couple over, but mistook Garcia for a target they planned to arrest.

Analysis: I think the ICE agents were at fault because of their false allegations; however, the parents faced this issue haphazardly. The ICE agents should have payed more close attention to the details of their target. The parents should have faced the agents instead of driving away recklessly, that could have also ended someone else's life. This miscommunication has led to a tragedy, and this problem should be brought to attention by the ICE agents and those affected by this.

Questions:
Who should be blamed for this incident?
Should there be changes in California's sanctuary policies?

United announces new in-cabin animal policy after puppy dies in overhead bin

article

A 10 month old puppy was found dead during a flight from Houston to New York after a flight attendant required the family to place the puppy in the overhead bin. After the incident, the flight attendant claimed she was unaware that there was a dog in the bag, but the family claims that she repeatedly told the flight attendant there was a dog and barks were clearly audible. In response to this unfortunate death, United announced that they will be distributing brightly colored tags that customers place on the bags containing their pets that will fly in-cabin.

I think the flight attendant wasn't sure about what to do in this situation and just treated the bag like any other cargo. However, there needs to be a protocol for in-cabin pets that are flying with families to prevent this from happening again, not just a brightly colored bag tag. Pets are part of families and they shouldn't be treated like extra baggage.

1. Do you think the flight attendant and/or United should be charged with animal cruelty?
2. What more can be done to protect pets and animals on planes?
3. How should United compensate for the family?

US punishes 19 Russians over vote meddling and cyber-attacks

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43419809

The US has imposed sanctions on 19 Russians for interference in the 2016 election and alleged cyber attacks. Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller charged 13 of those individuals. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also accused the Russians of cyber attacks and hacking infrastructure. The Russian military intelligence agency GRU, the St Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, and the Russian Federal Security Service are targeted under the sanctions. The Treasury Department said the IRA created an managed a large number of fake personas, which of all posted as legitimate US grassroots organisations, interest groups, and a state political party on social media. By doing this, the IRA posted thousands of ads to millions of people online. The sanctions involve freezing any assets those individuals may have in the US and prohibits American citizens from doing business with them. The administration also accused Russia of an ongoing operation to hack and spy on the US power utilities. According to Interfax new agency, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Moscow was calm about the new sanctions. He said that Moscow has already begun planning out counter measures. Yevengy Prigozhin said that he was unconcerned about the sanctions because he had no business plans in the US.

Questions:
1. Do you think these sanctions will be effective?
2. How do you think these sanctions will effect Russia?
3. What do you think about the possibility of collusion between Trump and Russia?

2 California schools could not participate in National Walkout Day because they were on lockdown

Article

School walkouts occurred all across the nation today to protest gun violence and to remember the 17 that died in the recent Florida school shooting. However, two schools in California- San Leandro High School and Righetti High School - were unable to walk out because they had their own school lockdowns due to threats made prior to the walkouts.

At Righetti High School in Santa Maria, students were on lockdown because of anonymous texts mentioning a weapon on school campus. In San Leandro, the graffiti shown in the photo was marked on a bathroom stall which prevented students from walking out. The threat caused the principal of San Leandro High School to even cancel school for tomorrow (Thursday, March 15) for the safety of the students and faculty.

Imagining walking into a bathroom and seeing this right before I was going to walk out to protest gun violence is a scary and ironic situation. It's disheartening to see that some may take these shootings like it isn't a big deal but there is a great number of students worried that anything can happen at any moment, and this isn't something to joke about. 9/11 happened once and since then, so many regulations were put in place. But how many more school shootings and innocent kids dying have to happen before something is done? This has been an ongoing problem for years, and it's finally the time when our leaders are acting like kids and kids are acting like leaders that change might finally happen.

Do you think the National Walk Out Day was a success?
Why do you think threats are made during national protests and do you think they are ever successful?
If you participated in the Walk Out today, what do you think is the next step in preventing gun violence?

Russian spy: Highly likely Moscow behind attack, says Theresa May

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43377856

Nerve Agent Used in Russian Assassination Attempt

Summary:
Sergei Skripal defected from Russia, seeking asylum in England, due to being convicted of passing secrets to MI6 in 2004. Both he, and his 33 year old daughter were found on a bench in Salisbury. They are now both in hospital in critical condition. On closer examination, the suspected cause of the incident is Novichok, a Russian nerve agent developed in the 70s and 80s. Det Sgt Nick Bailey got sick while attending to them, and is as well quite ill. Interestingly enough, it is reported that "One variant[of Russia's chemical development program] was reportedly approved for use by the Russian military as a chemical weapon," seemingly breaching the Chemical Weapons Convention agreement. Teresa May is outraged, calling this an "unlawful use of force," and requesting an explanation from the Russian Government in the face of consequences. Vladimir on the other hand, when asked about the attack, said "Get to the bottom of things there, then we'll discuss this." Seems pretty shady Russia.

Questions:
Given Russia's history of nationally sponsored assassinations, do you think this is another state sponsored job?
Is May's response acceptable? Should she have taken harsher measures against Russia?
Is this a form of Chemical Warfare?

The Seychelles Meeting

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/the-push-for-a-trump-russia-back-channel-what-we-know.html

Erik Prince, Photo: Chuck Kennedy/TNS via Getty Images

More Information Surfacing about Russian Meetings

Summary:
Special Council Director for the Russian Investigation, Robert Muller, is said to have found evidence of a secret meeting in the Seychelles days before Trump's inauguration between Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev, a Russian businessman, allegedly to set up a backdoor connection between Russia and the Trump Administration. Prince denies any malicious intent, saying he was there to see Zayed from the Emirati delegation, and the Russian just happened to be there. He cited his hopes to join with the Russians to "defeat Islamic fascism.” However, Muller is not entirely convinced. This, after reports of calls and meetings between Sergey Kislyak, Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn is starting to seem quite sketchy. In that meeting, Kushner talking about setting up direct communications between Russians and Trump through the embassy, while Kislyak preferred using an unidentified Russian contact in a third country. Muller is also said to be looking into whether or not foreign money was used to fund Trumps campaign.

Analysis:
All of the secrecy surrounding Russian meetings, though said by the cabinet to be virtuous, could have been set up though official channels rather than secret backdoor conversations, suggesting there is something else going on in those conversations. That, along with Flynn's resignation from the Trump administration imply wrongdoing. Given Flynn plead guilt to lying, he and Kushner are for sure in deeper water than they are letting on. Yet another meeting in June of 2016 between trumps son and a Russian Lawyer were said to be “primarily discussing a program about the adoption of Russian children.” I'm not buying it. All the meetings between Trump officials and Russian Businessmen, validated by shady excuses, seem to have a nefarious undertone.

Questions:
Do you believe the Trump administration in believing these meetings are righteous?
Do you believe Muller in saying there may be something more going on here?

Stephen Hawking, science's brightest star, dies aged 76

Website

Summary:
Early this morning, Stephen Hawking’s family released a statement confirming the great scientist’s death. Hawking was diagnosed with motor neurone disease in 1963 when he was 21. He was given two years to live, but as we know live over fifty more years. He claimed that an eminent threat of death actually inspired him, and “although there was a cloud hanging over my future, I found, to my surprise, that I was enjoying life in the present more than before.” Hawking went on to make numerous breakthroughs in the field of physics and was decorated with many awards to signify the progress he made for humanity. However, Hawking was by no means a perfect man. Many of his claims were quite controversial: he starkly refuted religion as simply a comfort for those who need it, and he stood by many of his claims long after most physicists disregarded them. He was also regarded as sexist and misogynistic by some, including his first wife, who felt she became a slave as his health conditions worsened. The article details some of his discoveries, but I feel the specifics would not add much substance to our discussions.

Analysis:
Hawking’s achievements truly evolved the world of physics. Much of his discoveries may have stemmed from his illness, a concept I find intriguing. He has a checkered past, but I feel that many still see him as a great figure in physics and his personality has little weight for those who regard him as such a hero. However, with the growth of many progressive movements, there seems be decreasing tolerance for the private misdemeanor of public figures.

Questions:

1. Does a threat of death in the near future serve as a motivator, or does it seem more as a cause of surrendering and accepting death? Would Hawking make the same discoveries if he were perfectly healthy?
2. Does Hawking’s misogyny detract from his discoveries, or should his professional life stand isolated from his private life? Should this shadow last in his legacy for generations to come?
3. What are your general feelings about Hawking as a scientist and the position he held in the academic world?

Bruno Mars Accused of Cultural Appropriation

Link


Summary: Following Bruno Mars´ success at the Grammy Awards winning 6 of the awards he is facing backlash from African American activists as his music is perceived to be cultural appropriation. Mars is described to be at the cross section of multiple music genres such as funk, soul, R&B, reggae and hip-hop which are all historically dominated by African American artists. People are frustrated with his success winning album of the year while Prince a former artist that was a pioneer in the musical genres Mars has found success in, never won the award. Several African American artists have come to support Mars stating that he is allowed to sing how he chooses and according to his race.

Analysis: Hip hop has recently overtaken rock as the most popular genre of music as is a lucrative area. One of the major criticisms of Mars is that he overplays his racial ambiguity in order to have a different perception to different demographics. Critics claim that white people are not threatened by Mars and therefore have different feelings towards him than African American artists. Tastes are an important part of every industry and for music, hip hop is increasing in popularity becoming more and more relevant for all demographics. Bruno Mars being a Filipino and Puerto Rican artist does not face racial discrimination in his music as other artists may and should not be playing up his racial ambiguity to enhance these differences.

Question:
1) Is there legitimacy in the argument that Bruno Mars is appropriating in his music?
2) To what extent is it alright for artists to use singing styles that are not of African American heritage to be recording these genres of music(Ex:Post Malone)?
3) Would it be alright for a Caucasian person rather than a person of color to be singing in the same manner and playing up their racial ambiguity?

ICE Spokesman Resigns, Bashes Trump Administration On Immigration Raids

Link to article

JIM WILSON, NYT

Summary: A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Francisco resigned after the Trump administration's handling of the recent immigration raid in the Bay Area. James Schwab told the San Francisco chronicle that President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions exaggerated the amount of undocumented immigrants that avoided arrest, after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf publicized the raids to begin on February 25. Schwab added that if there were no prior warning to the raids they would not be able to capture 100 percent of the target list (which were stated by the ICE to be dangerous criminals). The ICE stated they've arrested 232 people, but originally claimed the number could have been higher. They later on stated Schwab's allegations were inaccurate.

Analysis: Major props to Mr. Schwab for standing up for what he believes in! He did this very maturely and brought much attention to the ICE that's much needed. His reasons for resigning were completely valid. His position had so much authority and with this recent incident, media attention will surely increase. Overall, I think Mr. Schwab did the right thing. 

Questions: 

What's your opinion on Mr. Schwabs' resignation?

Do you think his reasons for resigning were valid?

Whole Foods Addresses Efforts to Centralize Its Merchandising

article link

Summary: On March 19, Whole Foods Market will have a meeting with their key vendors that will address tensions concerning their move to centralizing merchandise. Normally, most food grocers pay brokers to manage the process food merchandise go through. However, Whole Foods is taking their own route to control this process themselves.  By April 2018, all suppliers are required to use SAS for in-store demonstrations, as their single provider of in-store merchandising services. Most of their large suppliers will have to bear the cost of outsourcing, which means a mandatory 3% discount on food products and 5% discount for health and beauty products.

Analysis: I don't particularly mind Whole Foods' decision to centralize their merchandise. I do still think most Whole's Foods' key venders will continue their business with them because customers will become more open to purchasing their product for a much lesser price. Especially, when Amazon began putting the Whole Foods private-label on their site, they are much more exposed to customers.

Questions:
1. What do you think about Whole Foods centralizing their merchandise?
2. Do you think Whole Foods' key vendors will continue their business with them? Or do you think they will seek business somewhere else?

Elon Musk: Mars rocket will fly 'short flights' next year

Link
Summary:
Currently, Elon Musk has announced plans of entering the space exploration industry. He recently launched a “falcon heavy” rocket, which can be landed and reused for later missions—unlike previous rocket designs. Now, Musk has announced plans to begin providing transportation on earth with this type of reusable rocket within the next year. This ship would be able to travel from Shanghai to New York in thirty minutes, significantly quicker than what airlines can promise.
However, this just serves as a stepping stone for SpaceX, who plans to colonize Mars. Musk plans to begin missions in 2022 and soon establish a direct democracy. Along the lines of Martian governments, Musk said “‘Maybe it requires 60% [majority vote] to get a law in place, but any number over 40% can remove a law…’ It should be ‘easier to get rid of a rule than to put one in.’ The text of the laws should be short and easy to understand, he added…According to Musk, too many regulations can be harmful and keep a society from moving forward. It leads to a ‘hardening of the artery of the civilization,’ he said.” Musk also pointed out the entrepreneurial benefits of colonizing Mars, as they will need their own industries, both those that are necessary and those that provide entertainment.
Despite the lofty goals, SpaceX has been known for missing their deadlines by long periods of time. For example, the rocket they just launched last year was supposed to be done in 2013.

Analysis:
Elon Musk plans to take great leaps in moving humanity to space. The rocket launched last month was already a big deal, but he calls for huge history-making events. A colony on mars will have unprecedented effects on humanity, both economically and psychologically. But if SpaceX was five years late for one rocket test, it seems that colonization may not actually be in the near future. His policy ideas seem interesting, but I don’t think he has the experience necessary to govern an entire planet.

Questions:

1. How do you feel about the privatization of space travel, and Musk’s progress in general?
2. What are your thoughts on Musk’s government ideas? Should he be the one deciding how Mars should be run? If not him, then who?
3. Do you think his plans will run on time? If not, when will we see the colonization of Mars?

Lotto Tickets Are Nice, Boss, but Can I Have My Bonus?

Article Link

After significant backlash online, United Airlines paused its lottery system replacing the past bonuses awarded to employees. The system would give a few lucky United employees rewards like large sums of cash or expensive cars based upon a lottery system instead of bonuses to employees who worked exceptionally well. This specific instance revealed the rise in popularity of more game-like systems as ways to motivate workers and lower production costs. But despite what appears to be a flawed system, a 2012 experiment showed that workers were more willing to complete a health risk survey when given a chance to up to $125 through a lottery than just receiving a $25 gift certificate. Other studies also revealed that cash rewards are poor motivators and many other companies besides United like T-Mobile and Uber have experimented with game like systems.

Questions:
1. Do you think the backlash to United's lottery system was deserved or do you think that their attempts to lower costs were justified?
2. How will the backlash to United's system in this instance impact other companies?
3. Is it worth it for companies to let their reputation take a hit in order to lower monetary costs?

Trump Chastises California for Immigration Policies

Article link

                                          Photo: Evan Vucci, Associated Press

In a rare visit to California, President Trump took the opportunity to lambaste the Governor Brown and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf for their handling of immigration, which he says endangers the nation. More specifically Trump believes taxes are way too high in California and was irate that Schaaf publicized Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids before they happened. The main purpose for his visit was to gather support and consider prototypes for his much publicized, but largely unpopular border wall.

Discussion Questions
1. Does California deserve criticism for challenging national immigration policies?
2. Is the border wall that Trump proposes a good long term investment as he suggests?
3. Are high taxes in California a point of concern as the President suggests?

As Bots Flourish on Instagram, Companies Form to Fight Them

Article Link

With social media being one of the most used platforms of this generation, more and more businesses are turning to popular social media personalities for sponsorships and advertisements. But with social media being filled with bot accounts, the numbers for determining how much they should pay get distorted. In order to separate what accounts are bots from which are real, Dovetale, a software company founded in 2016 has developed a method to identify in large numbers what accounts are or aren't real people. They then send the information to marketers who are able to better determine how much money should be payed to social media stars for advertisements or sponsorships. This service is becoming increasingly popular as a recent investigation showed a booming industry of people selling fake followers to distort viewership numbers.

Questions:
1. Is there enough of a demand for companies like Dovetale to survive?
2. How do you think these strategies to identify bot accounts will impact those selling fake accounts? Will people continue to purchase bot services or will the industry die out all together?
3. Should the owners of the social media sites intervene? How would they prevent the creation and use of bot accounts?

Trump defends White House gun proposals that back off new age limit

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/politics/gun-proposal-donald-trump-white-house/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43369991


In a Fox News interview on February 24, Trump previously said that he would support raising the age limit for certain firearms. Following the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, the White House described its plan on Sunday to fulfill the Presidents call for action. Their plan is to set up a new committee, fund programs to train school staff to use fire arms, encourage military veterans and retired police officers to become teachers, and improve background and mental health checks. The White House said the new federal commission for schools will deal with the age limit issue. Although, after chief NRA lobbyist Chris Cox visited the White House to speak with the president and vice-president, he tweeted that neither of them wanted gun control. The NRA also sued the state of Florida after its governor signed Senate Bill 7026, which raised the legal age to buying firearms to 21. The NRA argued that it is against the constitution. Survivors of the Florida shooting have been pressing for a complete ban on assault fire arms to the public.


Questions:
1. What do you think of the idea of concealed carry for teachers in schools?
2. What would be your proposals for gun control at schools?
3. Do you support raising the age limit to buy firearms?

EU 'will stand up to trade bullies'

Article link

More on the tariffs

Summary:

Trump’s plans for a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminium is designed to promote American business, but may result in adverse repercussions from our trade partners. Despite requests for an exemption by the European Union, only Canada and Mexico are exempt from the new policy that will take effect on the 23rd. In fact, Trump stated that exemptions may take place in the future, but not for our allies. He argued that “many of the countries that treat us the worst on trade and on military are our allies.” This means that the European Union may not see the exemptions that they requested, so they may plan to take matters into their own hands.

The European Union has responded to steel and aluminium tariffs in a symbolic way, planning to place tariffs on symbolically American products such as blue jeans and bourbon. Other nations have replied to this tariff similarly. China threatens an “appropriate and necessary response” to any American tariff, and others have claimed that the tariffs violate the World Trade Organization decisions and that the United States should be taken to court. A notable fact, however, is that both China and the European Union have called for Trump to trade peacefully instead of beginning a trade war.


Analysis:

I believe that Trump’s decision to mandate tariffs will not be beneficial to the American industry. In addition to the international outcry, the tariffs will shift the American steel and aluminium market more towards a monopolistic structure as international competitors will be weakened. As we learned in our reading last week, a monopolistic approach is not beneficial to the consumers, and the government’s role is generally seen as protecting consumers.


Questions:

1. Is the international community just in their retaliation to the tariffs?
2. Is it more beneficial to stimulate the American steel and aluminium industry or protect consumers from a monopolistic shift?
3. Will this be an isolated issue, or is America starting a global trade war?

The DOJ Is Suing AT&T to Prevent Its Merger With Time Warner

Christian Hansen for The New York Times

link to article

Summary: In October of 2016, AT&T agreed to buy Time Warner for $85 billion. The two companies have come to agreement to position this move as a merger of two complementary companies. However, critics are assuming this action can hurt non-AT&T users by increasing prices or limit access to media content. The DOJ is using this argument to further reveal that AT&T will have the ability to charge more for the viewing of valuable programming like the N.C.A.A. men's basketball tournament, which is broadcasted as a large part on Turner's networks. Nonetheless, AT&T continued to argue that the merger is "Not about making Time Warner programs less accessible or more expensive. Just the opposite: It is about making Time Warner and AT&T more competitive during a revolutionary transformation that is occurring in the video programming marketplace." They continued to argue that the DOJ's suit was a case of "selective enforcement"- where by the government is essentially blocking the deal between the two companies due to President Donald Trump's hostility towards Time Warner, CNN's parent company. The trial between the DOJ and AT&T will take place on March 19, and is expected to last about three weeks.

Analysis: There's no doubt that this merger will somewhat increase consumer prices. However, President Trump's affiliations with CNN has raised some interest regarding this particular issue. Trump has engaged in a highly publicized battle with CNN for quite some time, often dismissing the network as "fake news" and criticizing its coverage. This may raise concerns in the judge's mind because of Trump's battle with CNN may undercut the seriousness of the case. It could color it with politics rather than applying the law. 

Questions:
Do you think this merger will lead to increase consumer prices?
Do you think the government singled out the company's deal due to presidential interference?
What's your opinion about this case?

In Oregon, pushing to give patients with degenerative diseases the right to die

Article

Summary: In 1997, the state of Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act permitting medically assisted suicide for those with terminal illness. But this does not include degenerative illnesses like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's which aren’t considered fatal. Many Americans have begun pushing for the law to be widened to include some degenerative diseases and ensure living wills that may result in death are honored. For example, one person said in her living will to not feed her if she lost the ability to feed herself, but she was still spoon fed until her death. Oregon’s current law requires patients be diagnosed with a terminal illness with 6 or less months to live, and must ingest the drug themselves. But surprisingly, many right to die organizations have opposed expanding the laws in states where medically assisted suicide is already legal as they fear that such a push might give critics ammunition and ruin their efforts in other states.

Analysis: I generally am for medically assisted suicide and agree with Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act. It allows people to avoid a painful death when they are able to consciously make a decision and are already going to die. But it is difficult to decide if medically assisted suicide should be allowed when illnesses are degenerative like Alzheimer's and Parkinson as it may impair judgement. I think that if the victims write a living will requesting to let them die, the will should be honored. But it is definitely more complicated once the disease has been diagnosed and its symptoms start to appear.

Questions:

1. Should medically assisted suicide only be allowed for people with terminal illness?
2. Should people have the right to medically assisted suicide with non-terminal illnesses?
3. Do you think living wills that may result in the person's death should be honored?

Elon Musk, Trump and the Challenges of Selling Cars in China

Elon musk's tweets regarding the issue of selling cars in China.












http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/08/news/economy/elon-musk-trump-china/index.html

Summary:
The U.S. currently has a $379 billion trade deficit with China, exporting way less than it imports, and the Trump administration is trying to decrease that amount by $100 billion this year (Trump seems to have accidentally tweeted an incorrect number of $1 billion). After Trump tweeted yesterday about reducing the trade deficit with China, Elon Musk responded today by asking if "the US & China should have equal & fair rules for cars." Currently, our cars exported to China face a 25% import tax, while Chinese cars face only a 2.5% tax in the U.S. Trump read the tweet aloud in a speech today and stated that he might eventually raise our tax on imported Chinese cars to match what China has for us. Trump and Elon Musk both seem to want fairness, and seem to believe that tariffs may help those issues.

Analysis:
I believe Elon is a fiscal conservative, so it's not too much of a surprise for him to be on the same page as Trump. I don't really see a clear cut solution, as if we raise our tariffs, we risk a trade war, and there will definitely be a large outcry just like the steel and aluminum tariffs, but if we don't there is a major discrepancy between us and China. This issue is obviously one that relates to competition, especially the government's role in it.

Questions:

1. Is it justifiable for us to raise our import taxes on automobiles? Is this the same as the situation with steel/aluminum?

2. Is there a chance that China could lower its tariffs against us? Would it be mad if we raised ours?

3. Would balancing out the car industry improve our trade deficit?

Gary Cohn to Resign as Top-Economic Adviser for Trump Administration

Summary: 
Gary Cohn, one of Trump's top economic advisers, had made the decision to resign from the administration amidst the metal tariff policy controversy being promulgated by Trump. Cohn along with other advisers have been steering Trump away from enacting tariffs from the beginning of the administration. Cohn and other economists are understandably frustrated with Trump went through with the tariffs despite bipartisan consensus that they are a poor idea. 

Cohn was also a head strategist on the tax cut plan as well as the proposed infrastructure update Trump called for in his State of the Union address. Cohn has been called a "steadying hand" and "a voice of reason and sanity" as a part of the Trump administration. Many fear that what is already an administration that lacks depth and opposition voices will fall further behind with Cohn's absence. 

Questions:
Although Cohn obviously has free will to leave his job at any time, consider his role as a civil servant. Do you believe he is justified in leaving the administration instead of sticking it out despite disagreements?

Is it at all worrying to you the sheer number of overturning positions this administration has seen?

How can the Trump administration fairly represent the economic views of the opposite party now with Cohn, a Democrat, gone?

New York Times Article

Washington Post Article

Washington Becomes First State to Approve Net Neutrality Rules

(Image from article, captioned "Washington Gov. Jay Inslee speaks after signing a net neutrality bill. (Ted S. Warren / Associated Press)")

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-washington-20180306-story.html\

Summary:
Last November, the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality, and there was a lot of anger over that vote. On February 22, the vote was made official in the Federal Register, and as of now, the repeal will be in affect by April 23rd.

Washington, however, has become the first state to take net neutrality issues into its own hands, enacting its own rules to protect net neutrality in their state. According to Jay Inslee, the decision only makes sense as "we know that when D.C. fails to act, Washington state has to do so." Washington's bill prevents internet provider from blocking content or interfering with traffic, which is essentially what net neutrality is. Oregon has passed similar legislation, although not with many of the requirements in Washington's bill. Several other states have also introduced legislation that has not passed, and in January, 20 states sued to try to prevent the net neutrality repeal. Governors in Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York and Vermont have signed executive orders that to some degree protect net neutrality (or at least highly incentivize companies to follow it).

Big telecom companies have stressed that net neutrality rules "could undermine investment in broadband and introduce uncertainty about what are acceptable business practices," while net neutrality advocates say the FCC decision harms innovation in internet companies, may make that market less competitive, and pits consumer interest against big business.

Analysis/opinion/connection to econ:
This issue has a lot to do with what we have been covering in class -- the ideas of market structures and competition. Both arguments for and against net neutrality revolve around the health of the market, the ability for companies to compete and enter those markets, and the ability for innovation.

An argument for net neutrality is that it allows new businesses to grow unimpeded. They can compete on an equal playing field and help grow the economy. Without protection from net neutrality laws, those businesses could fall prey to a pay-to-play system -- because small businesses do not have the deep pockets of established ones, they cannot pay as much to have their websites and data prioritized over the Netflixes and YouTubes of the world. If smaller businesses cannot reach potential customers or viewers, it cannot succeed. This difficulty in entry would make internet content a very monopolized or "oligopolized" industry, where the biggest sites would win.

On the other hand, net neutrality hurts the industry of internet service providers. It outlaws competing business models, which are good for customers and the economy, and just limits what ISPs can do. If net neutrality would go away, neutral business models could still work, it just opens the door for more.

I personally do not think that the average consumer will be worse off without net neutrality. Perhaps the average user could experience lower rates that suits their particular usage, as removing net neutrality regulations can allow internet providers to experiment with different methods and business models that can better compete with each other for purchase. If everyone really wants neutral service, they can pay for neutral service, but perhaps if people want better prices, they can prioritize the large websites that they already use anyway. The main hostility towards the legislation is probably for internet content providers who would need to pay more to give their content a greater reach, and as users, we can be easily brainwashed by what we read on those sites. I personally don't see it as a bad thing for the internet, especially in the long run (I guess this also relates to high elasticizes of markets in the long run).

Questions:
1. I did not talk about this above, but I think the question about who has power to regulate online activity is important. Can states have their own internet regulation? Should they just follow federal guidelines? Will a commerce or supremacy clause argument override what Washington has done?

2. Why do you think net neutrality has become such a political issue?

3. What do you think about net neutrality and it's pending repeal?

Trump Administration Stalls Largest Tech Merger in New Sign of Protectionism

(From article, captioned "Qualcomm’s headquarters in San Diego. Broadcom, which is attempting a hostile takeover of the chip maker, said it was informed Sunday night that Qualcomm had asked regulators to review the bid.")

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/business/dealbook/broadcom-qualcomm-cfius.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness

Background:
Qualcomm is America's biggest computer chip maker, and Broadcom, a company headquartered in San Jose but incorporated Singapore, is also a titan in the semiconductor industry. Since late last year, Broadcom has had its eyes set acquiring Qualcomm. Doing so would give Broadcom a huge influence on chip manufacturing, a chance to cut costs for Qualcomm, and allow the merges company to be a one-stop-shop for phone manufacturers (basically horizontal integration). Broadcom is now attempting a hostile takeover of Qualcomm, by consulting directly with shareholders, who will vote to add 6 Broadcom members to Qualcomm's Board. If that is done, Qualcomm would gain a majority in the board, who would vote to allow a buy out and merger of the two companies. A successful deal would be the biggest ever made between tech companies, with influences on a wide range of markets and industries.

Summary:
The Trump administration stalled the move, however, citing security concerns. According to Senator Tom Cotton (R, Arkansas), “Qualcomm’s work is too important to our national security to let it fall into the hands of a foreign company." The decision was made by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which typically reviews deals only after they are announced, but in this case reviewed the deal before the shareholder meeting occurred. Broadcom was ordered to delay the meeting to give the CFIUS more time to investigate, a decision that most likely will end the deal. This action coincides perfectly with Trump's "America first" push, and perhaps more will be expected.

Analysis/opinion/connection to econ:
This issue connects economics to government because of the discussion on the role of governments (specifically the U.S.'s) in monitoring markets. The government is reaching a little bit from what it has done in the past, and the issue is more controversial because it pits the United States government against foreign business.

This issue also relates to the subject of competition of markets, which we covered in class today, as a Qualcomm-Broadcom merger would hurt the competition in many industries. In the chip industry, Broadcom will obviously gain a lot of control in the global market, but this influence extends to other manufactured electronics that rely on it for parts, as Qualcomm does businesses with smaller phone makers, but a merger would resolve its relationship with Apple and supply chips to Apple while ignoring smaller companies. This would turn the phone market into practically a monopoly, making it very difficult to enter and compete in that industry and justifying higher phone prices. It is for this reason that I believe the CFIUS's decision was a good one, even though I don't think there is a real security risk as stated.

Questions:
1. Did the Trump administration do too much in this situation? Should they have waited for a shareholder vote?
2. What do you think the economic effects of the merger would have been?
3. Do you think Trump's aggressive approach to international business is a good idea? Can he successfully put America first without facing retaliation or punishment?

Steel Tariff Could Cost Ford and GM $1 Billion Each

http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/05/news/companies/tariffs-gm-ford/index.html
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/03/05/tariffs-trump-impact/395314002/ for some quick background)

Summary:
Last Thursday, Trump announced his plan to impose a 25% tariff on foreign steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum. The move is scheduled for this week, and this controversial stance has been at the forefront of financial news. Even Paul Ryan has denounced this move, but the White House has remained rigid in his decision, which is clear in Trump's tweets and words form his administration.

According to Goldman Sachs, however, Ford and General Motors could each lose $1 billion a year in revenue if the tariffs are imposed, which is 12% of Ford's profit from last year and 7% of GM's. Both manufacturers say that they mostly use American-made steel, but they also do rely on foreign-made steel, as Ford believes the tariff would harm "the competitiveness of American manufacturers." Steel and aluminum prices are low because of global competition, and when that is removed, an American market would have a smaller supply and greater prices. The steel and aluminum industries in the U.S. would benefit, but all U.S. steel-using industries will either have to lay off people, produce less, and lose profits. The American International Automobile Dealers Association warns that automobile prices will rise, and also cautions that Trump my be furthering trade/tariff wars, causing other members of the global market raise their tariffs against the U.S.

Analysis/opinion/connection to econ:
I do think certain aspects of Trump's arguments are reasonable, although his personality makes his every move seem aggressive. The U.S. does have trade deficits with other countries, and many countries have higher tariffs against us than we do for them, so it is fair for us to want to help out our industries. Trump has also said that these high tariffs would give him leverage in NAFTA negotiations, which is not unreasonable, although it is a gamble. An idea from our econ class that could relate here is the "invisible hand" theory, which suggests that if every country puts itself first like Trump wants to do with the U.S., it could perhaps be to the benefit of the global market as a whole.

One issue with Trump's tariff is that he seems to be protecting one group at the cost of others. I have read that the amount of workers that use steel is 50 times the number that produces it, so we would be hurting way more people than the few in the industry Trump wants to help. Trump could be prioritizing steel because it is produced in states he needs to win in 2020, or because he wants to take a bottom up approach in fixing all of our nation's industries. If the latter is true, Trump would be better off gradually increasing the tariff to what he wants, allowing a longer time horizon for the steel market to adjust, as supply and demand are both more elastic over longer periods of time. Then, other industries that rely on steel, such as car manufacturing, could operate without any factors (such as input costs) shifting their supply and influencing their revenue, and predicted car price increases and revenue decreases would not occur.

Questions:
1. If Trump only intends to use these tariffs as leverage in NAFTA and other trade discussions, is it a smart choice? Do these tariffs give the U.S. more power as intended?
2. Could these tariffs have important political implications for 2020? Why do industrial state Democrats support the tariffs, and why is Trump's own party leadership not on his side?
3. Would a lower tariff or a gradually increasing tariff be any better?
4. In the global market, can the "invisible hand" work? Is putting the U.S. first right or wrong?

Meth Ignored in the Opiod Crisis

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/us/meth-crystal-drug.html?emc=edit_ta_20180213&nl=top-stories&nlid=67571846&ref=headline



At least in Oregon, methamphetamine-related deaths vastly outnumber deaths related to heroin, and meth is cheaper and more lethal than ever. And while in 2006 Oregon required prescription for the nasal decongestant used to make meth, and the number of domestic meth labs has decreased, the amount of meth on the streets has increased.

Questions
- What is your opinion on the government's war on drugs? Do you think it is effective? Is there a better way to decrease drug use?

Dick's Sporting Goods Gun Policy Changes

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/28/589436112/dicks-sporting-goods-ends-sale-of-assault-style-rifles-citing-florida-shooting

Image taken from article

Dick's Sporting Goods, one of the major sports retailers in the country, has changed its gun policy in the wake of the recent Florida shooting. In addition to ending sale of semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, the company now requires all customers to be 21 or older in order to make a purchase. This change came after hearing that the shooter purchased a firearm from Dick's Sporting Goods last November, even though it wasn't the weapon that was used in the event. The company had already pulled assault rifles from the stores after Sandy Hook in 2012, but it will now also stop selling in its Field & Stream stores.

Questions:
- Do you think that this policy change at Dick's will do anything? Or is it just the sentiment that matters?
- Since the event, people have been "buycotting" Dick's Sporting Goods, as opposed to a backlash of boycotting that they expected. Do you plan on shopping there anytime soon, or are the nearest locations too far away from San Mateo?

Lowering the Voting Age

Summary: A recent study from Denmark highlights two reasons why the voting age should be lowered. First, lowering the voting age allows people to develop lifelong habits of voting consistently. Second, allowing more kids to vote encourages their parents to vote. Ultimately, allowing kids to vote at a younger age will "boost political participation" on two fronts since more young ones will develop the habit of voting regularly, and their parents will vote more as well. These studies were backed up by other countries, such as Austria and Scotland, where kids as young as 16 can vote in primary elections. While some believe that kids will not be able to make mature and informed decisions, the teens who are advocating for stricter gun legislation following the Parkland shooting are proving that kids can be articulate and powerful in the way they fight for what they believe in. Since the shooting directly affected them, shouldn't they have a voice in the kinds of laws related to guns that are passed?

Discussion Questions:
1. What do you think the voting age should be?
2. Is there a way to only allow some qualified teens to vote? Would this make more people open to allowing younger people to vote?

Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/02/28/the-surprising-consequence-of-lowering-the-voting-age/?utm_term=.f466e0cd46c9

Google Gets Sued Over Rampant 'Bro Culture'

Summary:
A former Google engineer filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming that it "failed to police an out-of-control 'bro culture'" that lead to her being frequently sexually harassed. Loretta Lee worked at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, CA for 7 years and throughout those years, she was often bullied and touched inappropriately by her male colleagues. They would regularly "spike her drinks with whiskey and laugh about it" and shoot Nerf balls and darts at her on a daily basis. They would send her disturbing messages, show up to her apartment with alcohol asking to help her fix her devices and hide under her desk. When she brought the issue to HR, her male coworkers retaliated by refusing to approve any of her work, which led to her being labeled a "poor performer" and her termination in late 2016. "We dispute the allegations made in Ms. Lee’s complaint. We have strong policies against harassment in the workplace and review every complaint we receive,” a Google spokesperson told The Post. “We take action when we find violations — including termination of employment.”

Questions:
1. Do you think this "bro culture" is apparent in places such as high school as well?
2. What do you think must be done to put an end to sexual harassment in the workplace?

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/03/02/google-gets-sued-over-rampant-bro-culture.html

New Fed Chairman Says Amazon Helped Keep Inflation Low

Summary:
When Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was asked why inflation has been so low since the financial crisis, he stated that a big part of what has been keeping inflation low is the weakness of the economy. "You had a lot of slack and the economy has not been tight," he claims. He believes that there is "global slack" and this worldwide problem is what has affected the tightness of the US labor market. Additionally, Amazon has had an increase in US retail sales. It generated 44% of all US e-commerce last year, as consumers have gravitated towards online sales due to their low prices and wider selections. He also cited currency and energy commodity prices as factors for low inflation.

Questions:
1. Do you agree with Jerome Powell's beliefs on the cause of low inflation?
2. Are there any other factors that you think may have contributed to America's low inflation in the past decade?

Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/new-fed-chairman-says-amazon-helped-keep-inflation-low.html

Trump Divides the Evangelicals

Summary: With Billy Graham's (the pastor and evangelist) recent passing, the question of why some evangelical Christians support Trump has risen again. Since 2006, the number of white evangelical Christians has been decreasing while the number of non-white, younger evangelical Christians is increasing. Throughout his presidency, Trump's main line of support has come from white evangelical Christians who have stood by him despite his many personal failings to ensure that a culturally conservative nominee was appointed to the Supreme Court, "with the broader goal of keeping America an essentially Christian nation with the moral values that white Christians support." What has not been highlighted is that non-white evangelicals have been calling out their fellow Christians for hypocrisy. Some white evangelical leaders are listening. Russell Moore has called on evangelicals to support the Dreamers who are increasingly making up a big part of their congregations. Ultimately, the growing population of non-white Christians is giving "pastors a reason to reflect on what policies and politics best suit their congregants." 

Discussion Questions:

1. Will the growing number of non-white evangelical Christians force the broader evangelical community to rethink their support of Trump?

2. What more would it take for Trump to lose the support of the white evangelicals? Do you think evangelicals will become increasingly Democratic?

Link: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trump-and-race-are-splitting-evangelicals/

What Hollywood can Teach Trump About Trade

Summary:
Trump recently announced that he would be instituting steel tariffs, in an attempt to make good on his "America First" agenda. However, a smarter way to promote this agenda would be through the Hollywood industry, which employs 2 million people and produces $121 billion in income. These services are part of the "creative economy" and have allowed America to be the leading country in cultural exports. China has become America's largest export market for these items and had even yielded a trade surplus in 2012. Trump has always cited China as taking advantage of America through trade, but America would have the opportunity to make lots of money from China by using Hollywood as trade. In April, Trump made an agreement with the Chinese president to increase the number of American movies that are released in China from 38 to a "number to [be] determined later." If Trump works to raise this number to 100, America will be able to make a revenue of $10 billion, since 20 films created a revenue $2 billion. "Because of Hollywood's high visibility, such a deal with benefit President Trump's America First economic agenda by helping to narrow the trade deficit." However, Trump continues to criticize Hollywood stars, such as Meryl Streep, Whoopi Goldberg and Alec Baldwin, instead of taking advantage of the Hollywood industry for the country's economy.

Opinion:
I think using the Hollywood industry for trade is something that Trump should consider and possibly implement in the future. His decision to put in place steel tariffs has clearly caused a lot of controversy, as it will affect many steel companies and their employees negatively. However, using American Hollywood movies for profit will likely not cause any harm to anyone. I think mending his ties with the industry will allow him the possibility to take on this opportunity in the future.

Questions:
1. Do you think taking advantage of the Hollywood industry for trade would truly benefit America's economy?
2. Do you think this is an opportunity that Trump should/will take in the future?
3. Do you think that using the Hollywood industry for trade would be more effective than the steel tariff?

Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/02/what-the-academy-awards-and-hollywood-can-teach-trump-about-trade-commentary.html

Americans Borrow Record Amounts for Auto Loans Even as Interest Rates Rise

Summary:
Although interest rates are rising for auto loans, there are more people than ever that are borrowing to pay off the payment for new and used automobiles. The average new vehicle loan hit a record of $31,099 and the average used vehicle loan hit a record of $19,589. Melinda Zabritski, Experian's senior director of automotive finance solutions shocking, finds this shocking, since these payments are much higher than someone with the average individual income would be able to afford. However, there seems to be a trend where consumers pay more but pay it off over a longer period of time, generally 65 to 70 months. The reason people are spending more could be attributed to either the fact that people are buying more trucks and SUVs, which are more expensive, or because the interest rates have significantly increased. "We're starting to see a trickle-down effect from the rate increases happening at the federal level," said Jessica Caldwell, executive director of Industry Analysis for Edmunds.com.

Question:
1. Why do you think there has been an increase in the number of people that are buying vehicles, despite the rise in interest rate?
2. What do you think of the trend among consumers to pay more for a vehicle but pay it off over a longer period of time?

Link: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/americans-borrow-record-amounts-for-autos-even-as-interest-rates-rise.html

Apple and Other Phone Companies Struggle to Sell As Many New Model Phones

Summary: As Apple, Samsung, and other big name phone companies are coming out with new models, they are finding that their customers are not willing to upgrade their phones as frequently. Apple's newest iPhone X was about $1000, and while some may be willing to pay to have the latest technology, others are doing a cost benefit analysis and making the decision that the upgrades do not justify the price tag. Instead of paying for the latest phone, many are turning to buying refurbished phones, leasing phones, or holding onto their phones longer (8 months longer this year and an estimated 33 months next year). This has led to decrease in demand, with the article stating that "new smartphone shipments plunged to historic lows at the end of 2017." Anticipating the decreasing demand, phone makers had "banked they could compensate for slowing volume by pushing up prices." However, the increase in price may have been too much since not as many customers seem to be showing interest in the new models. According to CNBC, the demand for iPhone X models since the holidays has "slowed dramatically."

Analysis: This article highlights the fact that consumers make some very practical decisions. Even though we seem to be inundated with messages that we must get the latest and greatest technology, there appears to be definite price points that change the behavior of consumers in a way that companies do not anticipate. The companies then have to change their strategies to continue to meet their financial goals, or they will face the consequence of a steep decrease in their stock prices. Samsung is looking into whether they should "push refurbished flagship devices...over new releases" and Apple is continuing to grow their services like the "App Store and its music and payment services." 

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you  think it is worth the money to keep updating your phone models each time a new one comes out? Why? Is there a price point that would change your behavior as a consumer?

2. What do you think phone companies will and can do in order to increase the demand for new phone models when they come out?

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-love-of-your-old-smartphone-is-a-problem-for-apple-and-samsung-1519822801

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/02/apple-gets-two-downgrades-due-to-dramatically-slowing-iphone-x-demand.html

Corporate Impact of #BoycottTheNRA movement

Summary: 
The aftermath of the Parkland School shooting has lead to scrutiny of many gun lobbyist groups, most notably the NRA. Protesters have called for the boycotting of the NRA, its programs and its membership, starting the online hashtag #BoycottTheNRA. Because of this social movement, as of Feb 28, 24 major companies, including United, Delta, and Hertz, have withdrawn support of the NRA and in effect joined the #BoycottTheNRA movement. The Washington Post analysis details how companies are effectively riding social movements to reap the publicity benefits, and to paint themselves as being "the good guys." 

Opinion: 
The support of social movements is without a doubt a smartly calculated cost benefit analysis that I argue is ultimately beneficial to corporation. I believe the 5 million membership of the NRA has exaggerated importance economics wise, and a company making the choice to support anti-NRA social movements likely acknowledges this too. Far more than the 5 million customers lost are gained simply by not being labeled one of the big, bad NRA supporting corporations. Even those who have never explicitly had a position on the NRA get  "'free rider' publicity benefits" if a rival company continues to support the NRA.

Of course, there is a ceiling to how far a company should go to ride social trends. Consider Pepsi ad controversy of 2017, where Pepsi was accused of pandering to activism in an incredibly non-genuine way. I suspect advertisers brand leaders have learned from this over extension. 

Questions:
1. Do corporations joining social movements ultimately help or hurt the movement as a whole? Are grassroot movements more genuine?

2. Are you personally more likely to support a product if they have come out as being for a policy you agree with? Would you accept an inferior good in order to support said company?

3. Consider the 5 million NRA members who have in effect been boycotted against... is unification with them possible?

Washington Post Article

Slate Article