The most important thing I learned this semester is that economics is a lot more complicated than it is presented. The graphs utilized are overly simplified to accommodate for the situation at hand. I feel this realization is more important than one individual topic because it has impacted me for the future. Now, when I read articles or watch the news about the economy, I am more aware of the misconceptions that I would have previously fallen for. For example, the common criticism of our debt raising is not the problem, but rather how it compares to the growth of the nation. Also, the articles provided throughout the semester have allowed me to further comprehend the deep, underlying connection between economic well-being and society’s structure. Racism truly influences the lives of people, as I was impacted by the graph showing the drastic difference between a white and black individual retaining their economic class. Both individuals work equally hard, and yet society has been structured to hinder minorities rather than promote them. This semester has allowed me to learn new graphs and economic terms, but I am more grateful for realizing the unacknowledged and sometimes unfair relationship between economics and every individual's life.

The article by Bouie made me recall a recent message Trevor Noah had on a study found that African Americans are not less likely to get the disease and that "even in times of crisis, racism is still prevalent." However, I think he may have misunderstood and presented the information not in the best manner. The second article made evident that African Americans are more likely to die from the virus, but rather since society is so stacked against them that nothing else could transpire. It pertains nothing to their genes but rather the abandonment of them in our society. The transition to the first article is interesting because debt accumulated would easily hang over the individuals head. This is why when more Conservative politicians talk about overspending on impacting debt, average citizens believe them because debt to us is substantially different to national debt. The article by Krugman was interesting because it is evident in other countries beyond the US. China invested heavily into building mega cities throughout their country, all with metro systems, apartments, and public accommodations. The nation's debt spiked tremendously but the country's GDP is still growing faster. In contrast, it makes me wonder about Japan. Japan has a lot of debt and unfortunately due to their population crisis, the GDP cannot be expected to continually grow about the debt. In this case, what would happen when the rate of debt grows beyond the GDP? Would the country's economy technically collapse?

If all of the members of the Board of Governors are appointed by the President, then would it not assumed they may have some bias towards the Presidents wants for the policies?

This article expands the worry over the economic stimulus package being implemented. If businesses alone are receiving most of the economic relief, then the higher business owners are going to be benefiting substantially more than the workers. There is already a sense of disconnect between CEOs and workers, so I cannot imagine them making decisions solely for the purpose of their employees. I am confused on our health situation. We are technologically advance and yet our life span is no longer rising. Is it truly based on economic factors or possibly political regulation with our processed foods and other outside factors? The one thing I would have liked was for the article to give a quantitative value on who the wealthy are, as in an actually income provided rather than a percentage. This would just provide some further clarity on who is benefiting and who is not.

Why is the slope of planned expenditures less than 1? Does a smaller slope allude to an inelastic relationship between aggregate income and expenditures?

The article says the government does not have to pay back the money it borrows, but I am confused why? The article says the private sector would benefit, but how would they if the government does not pay back what they borrowed? The article makes the solution seem clear with little opportunity cost, but is this actually the case? If the government just needs to borrow money, then why are they not? Is it just political or are there more barriers?

How would the field of private security be graphed, considering the extent of Marginal Social Benefit is questionable? With the rising issue of governments invading people's privacy, it makes me wonder if a new job field will open. The government would have to invest in security companies and therefore their would be a greater demand for high skilled employees. However, the opportunity cost is high with the evidence of government screening being abused, such as China's social point system critizing every action of it's citizens. Economic investement into a nation's healthcare is also essential. After SARS, China's government conducted few actions for the risk of a future health problem while the US just depleted the budget of the CDC. However, Nigeria has been investing tremendously in their health care since 2014 with the ebola outbreak and has not stopped. Now they have facilities planned to take in patients. The Prime Minister of Israel is being trialed on corruption charges while elections were occuring,alluding to possible bias intentions in pushing for the screening. Although Adam Smith never came up with the invisible hand, having governmental screening would truly create an invisible hand on the people.