In my opinion, the most important topic this semester was inequality. There is a huge discrepancy in the wealth distribution, where the average American citizen generates a mere fraction of the total wealth. This leaves millions of American families unable to provide much more than necessities, and many more unable to achieve even that. This also puts these families in severe danger in crises like the one we face today, where impoverished families are either unable to provide for themselves or must remain at risk to sustain their family through close-contact work. I also believe that situations like these serve as a solid example of why humans begin to think ‘irrationally’, as people will begin to prioritize differently (say their income over their health or vice versa) than we might assume out of desperation. Using this knowledge, it is important that we begin to dissect the current economic and social systems and target its problems, especially by beginning to invest in public facilities, infrastructure, and other features that will help benefit lower income families.

I was wondering if you could expand on the idea mentioned in the section: "We live in a world in which interest rates are consistently below the growth rate, so that government debt melts instead of snowballing." I don't think I fully understand how this works, and it'd be great if you could explain how it causes a melting effect/why this occurs in today's society. Thanks!

While I wholeheartedly agree that a public surveillance system is an abuse of power and may be far too invasive, my major concern with the article was with Harari's adamant support of more independent reporting. Harari posited the idea that by informing citizens of the science behind a given epidemic, we empower them to decide the proper way to handle it. This concept reminded me of one of our main assumptions of Mankiw's Economics: the idea that all people will act rationally. However, as we have learned, that is never the case. I would argue that by relying solely on independent reporting and the behavior of individuals, we increase the potential for dangerous behavior and thus the elongation of the virus's impact on society. I believe there needs to be some sort of dissuasive method to prevent people from interacting irresponsibly, however I'm fearful of the impacts of a heavily enforced quarantine on society's financial/mental stability. In my opinion, the key topic for debate is how we can promote stricter social distancing without impinging on basic freedoms.