EWOT

It used to be that airlines had very attractive stewardesses, that was par for the course. But today, they're no different from workers in any non-tip-based service industry. This probably ha a little to do with the fact that ideas of gender roles have changed over time, but it probably also has something to do with government regulations. Airlines used to have regulated prices. When the government controlled prices, the airlines had to find other ways to compete. One of the things they ended up competing on was the attractiveness of the service staff, namely stewardesses. Eventually government mandated pricing ended, and flight attendants became what they are now, with more gender equity and less objectivity. One more case where government regulation was the wrong answer.

Marx doesn't really make sense: property isn't important. Everyone needs equal property...huh?
Efficiency - what you want at least cost
You can't eat money

8/12

• Unintended consequences!
• Trade is not zero-sum
• "Pie fallacy" -- there is a fixed amount of weath
•  Zero-sum situations can be exciting! Space race!

10/7

The more you release something the lower its relative value.
Total value of water exceeds total value of diamonds. But lack of scarcity of water drives its price down.
What if it's "water" and "diamonds"
You aren't really buying the physical good (objective reality) you're buying human perspective.

People still respond to incentives.

10/5

Broken Window fallacy
Money gets spend contrary to consumer preference
The individual is worse off because all they've done is kept themselves in a stagnant position by spending money.

Money in pocket + roof VS no money + a roof

Breaking something doesn't actually cause economic growth

Scarcity and other underlying concepts from this part of the course are necessary to get everything out of the rest of the class (supply/demand curves etc)

Equity often comes at the cost of efficiency and vice versa

Opportunity cost, what you must give up to get something else, is the most important thing to consider.

Debate About Happiness

The significance of this debate to me isn't about either side of the argument. I think that both have clear arguments and huge amount of both statistical and anecdotal evidence. This debate in and of itself isn't a place to be able to make a formal decision about the topic. However, both would agree that if you live in a society where most people make $100 a year, and you make $1000 a year, you will be both better off and happier in relation to your own society and at least happier than most of the world. 

1.  The McMansion example where a small house in Aspen would be the last desirable thing and therefore less expensive is obviously wrong, but it could be for more than one reason. What is one that is more in line with Bob's reasoning than Justin's?

2. If money leads to happiness, why do so many wealthy people go to therapists?

3. Would giving a million dollars to a middle-class family from Sierra Leone, or giving a million to a lower class American family be better? Why?