ECONOMICS 1A: Say you are watching your favorite television
program, and a commercial comes on. A soothing voice begins to
describe your imaginary vacation in the lush, tropical paradise of
Timbucktoo (a remote island in the South Pacific-fictitious of
course), while pictures of rain forests and secluded beaches flash
across your T.V. screen.
The commercial begins to describe your daily itinerary while
showing you the “gentle and friendly” native peoples of Timbucktoo,
performing native dances and other activities to the delight of the
tourists.
You begin to think (sadly enough!) about macroeconomics. You wonder
about these “gentle and friendly” people of Timbucktoo living on an
island thousands of miles away from anything out in the middle of
the South Pacific, and you ask yourself why the people of
Timbucktoo would desire tourism to come to their peaceful and
secluded island? What could they possibly do with that added
aggregate income (generated by tourism) when they are out in the
middle of nowhere. What could they possibly spend their money on?
What about the pollution and the noise? The hustle and bustle, the
crime! And what about their peaceful and gentle way of life? Is it
worth sacrificing for more income?
As we have discussed, increases in GDP and aggregate income do not
always mean the level of well-being and happiness increase as well
for all citizens of a society. With this in mind, please explain
your thoughts or insights regarding this hypothetical
commercial.
In terms of length of each response, I would like to see a minimum of 3-4 well-developed paragraphs per question. Of course the word count may vary. But anything less than 3-4 paragraphs is too truncated in my opinion, and will likely earn fewer points.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.