blog post #5

The economic principle I’m exploring is scarcity of elite players and its effect on the rest of the league

My research question to help me study the economic principle is why is  creating rosters with multiple all-stars is difficult to develop ?

The article, The Impact of super teams and parity on the NBA.

First, having these super teams all around the league has created a top heavy league where only a small percent of teams have a chance of winning the title, this takes a lot of teams out of the equation for competing for a title, forcing teams to try and establish their own super team

Second,  in able to get these super teams together teams had a big opportunity cost of something, whether it was money or players they had to give up, sacrifices were essential for it to work out.

Third, the warriors which is the super team that everyone is afraid of they had to sacrifice players and money. For example they signed a new all-star that is one of the best players in the league, where he is worth the 100 million mark, took a contract a fraction of the size of this

In my next blog post I will research the question: what effects have super teams had on the rest of the league?

Last Architecture Post

                                                        Source: Julius Evola Library

This post will just be summing up all of the topics I have gone over in my last five blog posts and what I have learned.

In my first blog post I just laid out the general plan for my future posts. The economic principle I choose was that Institutions are the “rules of the game” that influence choices. I decided my three sub-questions would be: 

• How do architects  have to change the way they design buildings in order to impact the environment less?
• What are the economic impacts of designing environmentally friendly buildings and houses?
• How do architects take into consideration societal/cultural trends while designing buildings? 

In blog post number two I talked about the factors designers need to consider when they are designing buildings. I mainly focused on conserving natural resources and paying attention to the environment. I cited a Ted Talk where an architect listed all of the stats saying how much water and electricity we put into our buildings. I analyzed this info and said that it is much better for the planet and conserves a lot of resources if we design buildings with solar panels and special materials.

In post number three I expanded on the idea that we need to design buildings with the planet in mind but, this time I mentioned that doing this has long term economic benefits. By using materials that are friendly to the environment we save money in the long run even though these materials are more expensive.

In post four I wrote about the cultural impacts of our structures and how they can influence their surroundings. I stated that all structures send a message based on how they look on the outside. A structure like Apple Park exclaims innovation when you look at it.

In post five I wrote about a specific design project. In this post I talked about the New Apple Headquarters or Apple Park. This structure was a landmark in the design field for a few reasons. It had a unique design. A giant circle covered in solar panels. I hope to see more projects like this one pop up in the future.

The regulation of PED's in professional sports

Alex Rodriguez (Source: NPR)

With institutions being my economic policy, "rules of the game" so to speak, my previous four blog posts have all covered different sports that have bans on PED's and how it affects the athletes.

Those sports included football, baseball and cycling but those are just a select amount of sports that have issues with its athletes abusing the drug policy. Realistically, every professional sport has athletes that "cheat" and not abide by the rules.

Best said in my last blog post, ATHLETES WANT TO WIN.

We are merely just fans, we should not care what kind of substances they use. In the end, we are not complaining when we get to watch them make one handed touchdown catches or crank 500 yard home runs.

An athlete that is one of my favorites and provides to be a great example is Julian Edelman of the New England Patriots. He has gone to the super bowl almost every year for the past five years. You don't think he wants to be able to compete at his highest level? You don't think he wants another five rings on his fingers?!?

LET EM' PLAY!

How will regulating PED's affect the athletes?

Josh Whitman (Source: Illinois News Bureau)

While it is the belief among many that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in the use of sports is cheating and "unethical", it is also fair to say that many of the people that have this view probably don't play sports, or at least at too high of a level. The man pictured above, Josh Whitman, is the current Athletic Director at the University of Illinois Champaign and is also a former NFL tight end. 

In an article he wrote published by Illinois News Bureau, he talked about the take high level athletes had on PED's. " It is both unrealistic and arguably unfair to ask athletes to protect themselves from the innate parts of their own character that we cheer so heartily while they are within the competitive arena". To break this down, Whitman is essentially saying that why should we care what these athletes are doing when in reality we love seeing them make extraordinary plays on the field. Whitman went on to say that as an athlete, "your primary goal and the only goal is to win". Players should be able to do whatever they want/need to in order to accomplish this goal.

While Institutions being my economic policy, I would like to say that I agree with Whitman that having PED's banned in sports is stupid and quite unfair to athletes themselves.

What role should institutions like Congress, EPA, etc play in promoting the use of renewable energy?

SOURCE: Financial Express

The economic principle I'm exploring is institutions are the "rules of the game" that influence choices.

First, according to the US Energy Information Administration, "renewable energy is energy from sources that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time."

Sounds pretty good right? Then why aren't we taking advantage of these brand new energy sources? There are many reasons why and why not, for my final post I will focus especially on what role institutions like Congress and the EPA should play in promoting the use of renewable energy.

After years of attacks on environmental safeguards, it's time to restore and strengthen the most important protections, and install solutions that benefit all American families, especially those most vulnerable to the effects of pollution and climate change.

The new Congress should make these steps a key part of its agenda, advance towards eliminating climate pollution by 2050, defend the EPA’s capacity to protect the public’s health from pollution and toxic chemicals, and preserve environmental safeguards that protect our air, water and land from polluters.

As far as why the government would invest in renewable energy resources, these would include energy security and affordability, the potential for job creation, future economic strategic positioning, and addressing environmental and other externalities. Having an institution as large and important as the government promoting renewable energy resources would increase the amount of investment put into it by a lot and the whole world would benefit.

Sources:

The Hill

Financial Express

SITN

How will the Tour De France regulate its players from using PED'S?

                                             Lance Armstrong (Source: MarketWatch)

In an article written by Taylor and Francis, it is mentioned that the reason as to why many Tour De France athletes use PED's is because they simply believe they need them to compete and complete the race. With Institutions being my economic policy, "rules of the game", this race is quite controversial. While it is incredible to see people bike 2,200 miles with hardly any rest, it is not so awesome to know that many of them cheat. To add to that, many officials of the race make it publicly clear that "public opinions about doping do not always conform to the prohibitionist line". The significance of this is that the officials believe that many fans of the race do not believe athletes will have the integrity to abstain from cheating while competing.

Doping itself in the sport of cycling sustains and raises performance, but at the same time takes a large toll on the body. Many of athletes that "dope" do such a thing because the peer pressure but also the secrecy that can come along with it if not caught. 

All in all, I believe Cyclists will continue to use performance enhancing drugs in events such as the Tour De France solely due to how hard the event is itself. 

Next Blog Post: How will regulating PED's affect the athletes?

How much more expensive are renewable sources than nonrenewable sources?

SOURCE: ResearchGate

The economic principle I'm exploring is institutions are the "rules of the game" that influence choices.

First, according to the US Energy Information Administration, "renewable energy is energy from sources that are naturally replenishing but flow-limited. They are virtually inexhaustible in duration but limited in the amount of energy that is available per unit of time."

Sounds pretty good right? Then why aren't we taking advantage of these brand new energy sources? There are many reasons why and why not, for my fifth post I will focus especially on how much more expensive renewable energy sources are than nonrenewable sources.

In reality the cost of wind power is about $30-60 per megawatt-hour, and large-scale solar costs about t$43-53/MWh. For comparison, energy from the most efficient type of natural gas plants cost $42-78/MWh; coal power cost at least $60/MWh. So in terms of output and the amount of money you get back most renewable energy resources are way more cost efficient than their nonrenewable counterparts.

New research shows that in the long-run, renewable energy is more cost effective than non-renewable energy. Some energy companies considered costs over the lifespan of energy projects and found wind and utility-scale solar can be the least expensive energy generating sources.

It is true that most renewable energy sources are very expensive to install and may take quite a lot of time until you are able to break even with the money you spent on it but in the long run renewable energy sources are more cost effective and safer for our environment.

Sources:

UCS

Nature's Path

Research Gate