Define economics. Explain briefly how the economic way of thinking—in terms of rational, self-interested people responding to incentives—relates to each of the following situations.

a. A student deciding whether to purchase a textbook for a particular class
b. Government officials seeking more funding for mass transit through higher taxes
c. A municipality taxing hotel guests to obtain funding for a new sports stadium

Sample Answer

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Economics focuses on the behavior and interactions of economic agents and how economies work. There are three main types of economies: free market, command, and mixed. The chart below compares free-market and command economies; mixed economies are a combination of the two. Individuals and businesses make their own economic decisions.

On one hand, collaboration is celebrated, and then again, it is expelled as irrelevant. I believe that each issue calls for unique idea concerning the viability of arrangements. Cooperation is usually used to comprehend a specific assignment. The basic saying is that, "two hands are superior to one." Though this might be valid in most of cases, it appears there are conditions when this announcement isn't accurate.

For the vast majority of my life, cooperation has been basic in the exercises I appreciate: football, soccer, hockey, chess, training, music, work, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Regardless of whether one is playing alone in a game, for example, chess, the collaboration between the pieces are vital to picking up triumph. At the point when I was a competition chess player, my primary objective was for every one of my pieces to be cooperating—assaulting, safeguarding, and moving along strategic and vital lines that supplement each other's positions. At the point when I was a soccer player, I felt that each position on the field was significant. I wanted to play barrier to breakdown aggressors going to my side's objective. The sentiment of halting a forceful forward was dazzling. Nonetheless, it was the slant of being a piece of a group and adding to a group in my own specific manner that was the most fulfilling. Indeed, even as an author, I comprehend that having a network to incline toward for criticism and consolation helps me in keeping me occupied with my verse, stories, and papers. The majority of my distributed work has been investigated by my friends, and there would have been huge amounts of missteps in my composition without their assistance.

What's more, on the off chance that we take a gander at it all inclusive, cooperation is the best approach to complete things. Organizations work in group situations to finish ventures. A police power has assigned officials to cover various parts of wrongdoing counteraction. The models can continue forever. The fact is that the world runs inside group conditions so as to arrive at objectives. Indeed, even various nations coordinate together to take an interest in war, exchange, settling arrangement issues, and that's only the tip of the iceberg.

This relates to the valuation for extroversion when contrasted with self preoccupation. As a rule, individuals are viewed as weird on the off chance that they abhor associating with others on ventures, or on the off chance that they don't care for gabbing. This is lamentable, as each individual is unique, and ought to be permitted to pick whether the person in question likes to impart in as such without being given a shame. For the majority of my high school life, I was a timid, independent person. I would go through the greater part of my days alone. I would play chess in my room, would make music in my room, would write in my room, and stroll around alone for miles. For what reason would i say i was this way? I think it was a blend of things: I didn't have numerous companions, I loved my own space, I delighted in attempting to improve in something constantly, and I was discouraged. I was seen by a great many people I met as an odd individual because of my way of life. Yet, that was my character—there was no motivation to look down on me. I was not a crook, and I was not doing mischief to any longer. Since I was running contrary to the natural order of things, I was blamed for being as a pariah.

Further down the road, I turned out to be increasingly outgoing. It was a characteristic procedure leaving my downturn. I got more companions, and began living in a public situation. This reshaped my character, and right up 'til the present time, I would see myself as a harmony between a loner and a social butterfly. That implies once in a while I need to be engaged with collaboration and some of the time I don't. Do you believe anybody ought to be compelled to be engaged with collaboration? I don't think it is correct. On the off chance that you trust you will work better alone, or possibly in an increasingly serene climate, at that point your chief, companion, or partner ought to welcome this reality.

At times, cooperation makes the way toward finishing an undertaking untidy and ailing in quality. For example, if an equipped master is matched with individuals that are not educated in an undertaking, the task will turn into a troublesome system. On occasion, it is better for one individual to deal with an errand than a group of individuals, as certain assignments must be finished productively with incredibly skilled individuals.

Cooperation runs the world, as far as anyone knows. In any case, there are interims when collaboration doesn't create incredible outcomes: when an individual is compelled to be engaged with an aggregate movement, and when an undertaking is explicit to the point that lone a specific master would be fit to complete the task. Being thoughtful the majority of my youth, and a specialist in experimental writing, I comprehend that occasionally being distant from everyone else is superior to collaboration.