Updates from Mr Hemphill Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Mr Hemphill 11:40 pm on 2015-09-29 Permalink  

    Government involvement in economic activities has always been both beneficial and hindering because the government provides grants, aid, and subsidies as a relief; government also puts taxation, regulation, and ceilings on economic activities. Government spending is the biggest issue that has hindered the American economy because there is more cash outflow than inflow from the economic activities that the government has put as high priorities in addition to the consistent imbalance between the United States exports and imports.

  • Mr Hemphill 11:19 pm on 2015-09-29 Permalink  

    Wars are very damaging to an society but war also comes with productivity and the productivity from the war seems to be the stimuli for the economy. America has been involved in many wars, America has experienced great post-war development, the American economy has been revived by productivity from war, and war seems to act as an investment.

  • Mr Hemphill 6:10 pm on 2015-09-14 Permalink  

    The development of an Market Economy seemed to have shifted focus and emphasis from an overall advantage for everyone to benefit from trade, to an personal advantage for only a limited number of individuals to benefit from trade, the objective was wealth but the issue was real income, there was an influx of material things but a variety of goods were more crucial, barriers-to-entry spurred competition, competition spurred greed, greed caused unnecessary fatalities/casualties through war and oppression, and there was much exploitation. Everyone wanted the same thing, everyone wanted to be wealthy and healthy, everyone was willing to work. Each side (the east, west, middle america) were rich in some aspect of trade because the east seemed to have an advantage in material, america had an advantage in agriculture, and middle america had an advantage with crops/goods, and technically each side needed each other in order to advance. Empires put innocent lives under cruel conditions and they still fell, the inhumane activity wasn’t needed, war happened for rights and territorial reasons, and in the end you have a majority of people with one common interest, the common interest is wealth and health. A national/global economy was going to form regardless because each side had something that another side wanted, no one had it all.

  • Mr Hemphill 5:34 pm on 2015-09-14 Permalink  

    For the Manorial/Feudal System Period,

    The Lords and authoritarians in that time period seemed to depend on their ideal lifestyle of having a fixed economy and it seems as if they assumed that everything would remain constant. Their dependence/reliance resulted in an economic shock because their should have been much anticipation or speculation that the population as they knew it would change and more likely increase. The subsistence level was their benchmark/indicator for production needed for survival versus the production opportunity that serfs needed for personal security and the heightened inequality of income began to widen more rapidly as the population continued to grow which led to an overflow of laborers and a declining contribution to real output.

    Looking at the Malthusian Theory,

    He gave an temporary explanation about the scarcity pattern he knew to be true in the period of time he grew up in but an excerpt of his theory still holds some validity in the current economic climate because going into the future the earth’s biological state, if it continues to worsen, can result in somewhat of an geometric rate which is why technological advances are vital to the economic climate.

  • Mr Hemphill 6:23 pm on 2015-09-11 Permalink  

    I will never understand why slavery was created as a strategy to combat the labor shortages,

    Prior to 1492, before the malicious invasion of Columbus and his associates, the groups/societies of blacks in Africa (from Egypt to the Nile) had created the blueprint of economics through trading goods and materials with those on other continents, they were already developing and civilizing others, Europe had been civilized socially and economically by the groups/societies of blacks who invaded and conquered the empire that had resided in the European continent, there wasn’t any clear rationale behind choosing an inhumane course of action, skill, intelligence, and knowledge was already being traded, shared, and given to those who needed to be advanced/modernized, and economies were established. Columbus and his associates along with other colonials were apart of the percentage of Europeans/French/Dutch that were fascinated by the advancements, that were fascinated by how advanced the groups/societies of blacks in Africa were, that were laggards, that were in dire need of knowledge, intelligence, and skill, so they became unnecessarily deceitful.

  • Mr Hemphill 5:32 pm on 2015-09-08 Permalink  

    Hello All,

    I’m late with this post but I would still like to introduce myself.

    My name is Jie Hemphill, I’m from Detroit, and I am a Junior at MSU. I am taking Econ 213 because I would like to understand the logic of how the blueprint of this economic system formed, why it has become centralized, what has changed, and expose the flaws this system has. The U.S. has become increasingly dependent on globalization and the U.S. also has an reputation of manipulating business or imposing its business & ethics system in other countries.

    I look forward to the dialogue that this course will foster throughout this semester.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc