Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

FLVS ECON Module 6 Project

No description
by

Hannah Epstein

on 10 August 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of FLVS ECON Module 6 Project

B R A I N S T O R M I N G
Speed bumps:
Some citizens aren't for the change and would like to continue living the way they have been.
Speed bumps:
The yearly cost for government curbside trash pickup is $172,000, which would be coming out of the citizens' wallets.
The Problem: Trash Pollution
Question: Should communities world wide consider implementing government run curbside trash pickup systems to help improve the overall health of the environment and potentially increase revenue that may be used for future projects?
R E S E A R C H
SOLUTION A

Enforce government-run curbside trash pickup.
Incentives to act on this solution: With the knowledge that they might be living in a cleaner, healthier environment, the government and it's citizens may be all for the new system.
SOLUTION B
Compromise. Implementing the government-run trash pick-up may not be the best idea. They may need to come to an agreement with the citizens.
Incentive to act on this solution: the government and the citizens may come to the conclusion that they’d like to reach what is known as a “happy medium”. This is where another solution to the problem is found that pleases both parties.
SOLUTION C
Scratch the idea, and allow the citizens to continue disposing of their trash the way they’ve always been doing it.
Incentives to act on this solution: both the government and the citizens may wish to keep things as they are and go about their days as they’d always gone about them. They may think of this as the easiest solution and therefore the right one.
Criteria to evaluate possible solutions:
Cooperation: if the people and the government alike are not willing to cooperate to solve this matter, there will be no solution.
Labor Concerns: locally run curbside trash pickups will be shut down and people will be put out of work. Unless the government was willing to hire these people for the new project, cooperation would fly out the window.
The solutions for this problem will be judged by the following: costs, benefits, and the externalities of the outcomes. The solution in which the most people benefit and in which the environment will benefit, will be the best solution
R E S U L T S
EXTERNALITIES THAT MAY RESULT FROM THIS SOLUTION
SOLUTION A
POSITIVE: Increased government revenue, which in turn could be used to renovate other parts of the town that could use bettering. Water pollution is also immensely reduced, which is good for the countrys' economies that are sea-life dependent. This may also end well for the privately owned trash picker upers who've lost their jobs due to the new system. The government may decided to hire them to run the new system.
NEGATIVE: There may be fewer citizens who were not for this change, and therefore are unhappy. There will also be less or no private curbside trash pickups, which means the number of unemployed citizens in that town just went up.
This solution meets the criteria I have set because its benefits outweigh its costs. The environment is healthier, the people are happier, and there are more positive externalities than negative ones.
SOLUTION B
EXTERNALITIES THAT MAY RESULT FROM THIS SOLUTION
POSITIVE: lesser revenue, but still an increase; most of the citizens are happy with the decision; the town is relatively clean.
NEGATIVE: the revenue the government brings in may not be enough to keep the project going. Therefore, the population may have to revert back to old ways; new projects cannot be financed.

This solution would technically have a positive impact on the environment. The positive and negative externalities are equal, and the costs and benefits are equal.
SOLUTION C
POSITIVE: the citizens are happy since they do not have to change their ways.
NEGATIVE: no revenue is being made, which means there is no money to better the town or create projects that help to better the town; the town, including the surrounding areas, would still be polluted and nothing would have changed.

This solution meets none of my criteria. There are far more costs than benefits, and the negative externalities out weight the positive ones. All in all the impact on the environment would be negative.
THE BEST SOLUTION
In my educated opinion, solution A, the government should implement the curbside trash pickups, is the best solution for solving this issue, and it meets the criteria I have set. The revenue that the government makes from taxing the citizens may be used to better parts of the towns that aren't doing so well. Some of the revenue may also be used to create future projects that reduce other types of pollution. By going forth with this project, the entire world will benefit because our air will be cleaner and healthier to breath, and the sea life that was being killed off by water pollution, can now thrive, which in turn helps sea-dependent economies.
POLLUTION
GOVERNMENT
Local Government: earn money to spend elsewhere, such as a community wide clean-up.
State Government: could catch on to the idea and recommend it be implemented in other towns.
National Government: if the idea is a success, they may decide to create a nation-wide act for curb-side trash pickup. This would aslo raise their revenue.
HOUSEHOLD:
Although it may be better for the peoples' living conditions and the environment, government run curbside pickup may affect households and local residents. How? The system would be government run, which means taxes would increase. No one likes increased taxes. Residents may be reluctant towards the change, especially if the old system has been working for them.
BUSINESS FIRMS
This may affect the expenses of local business firms. Meaning, their expenses would rise. Not all, but some businesses have private curbside trash pickup systems, and if a government run system came into play, those privately owned trash pickups would be put out of business, which in turn leads to the unemployment of those employees.
REST OF THE WORLD
Theoretically, this government run curbside trash pickup is meant to reduce littering and pollution significantly, which would have a positive effect worldwide. For many countries, sea life is a major industry, and with the decrease in water pollution, this industry can thrive, more so than it has in the past.
CIRCULAR FLOW DIAGRAM
PICTURES
POSITIVE AND
NEGATIVE
EXTERNALITIES
THAT THIS ISSUE PRESENTS IN EACH SECTOR OF THE ECONOMY
GOVERNMENT
The government will receive more or less revenue depending on which solution of mine has been selected.
POSITIVES: if the revenue is increased, then the government will have more money to implement other positive changes around town. NEGATIVES: If there is less revenue, the government may not be able to keep the project going, let alone create new ones. Tourism may decrease as well.

POSITIVE: Citizens would not have to adapt to the change, or spend extra on taxes.
NEGATIVE: If the people were NOT for this change, and still had to pay increased taxes.
NOTE: There is another positive outcome. If the citizens DID have to pay taxes, although their wallets may not like it, they will have a cleaner town, the government would be making increased revenue, so there may even be renovations around town.

BUSINESS FIRMS
The effect on this sector also depends on which solution is implemented. If it’s solution A, then there would be no positive externalities due to the fact that they’d be put out of business, which in turn leaves them unemployed and not making money to support themselves or their families. If solution B is chosen, there may be a SLIGHT chance that the government hires those people to run the curbside pickup. Obviously, if the last solution is chosen, they will have their job and their income, but may not be living in a very sanitary environment.
REST OF THE WORLD
If solution C is chosen, the world will continue on as it has been for years and years. Pollution will continue to increase and may become out of control. In countries that have a “sea-dependent” economy, choosing this solution could be harmful. If either of solutions A or B are chosen, there would be some sort of conservation going on if not by the trash pickup itself, than by the revenue coming in from the people’s taxes.
NOTES:


WORKS CITED:

Feiner, Barbara. "Don't Trash Our Oceans; It's World Water Day." Organic Authority. http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/tag/pollution/.
O'Donnell, Jake. Patch. Ed. Jake O'Donnell. N.p., 2012. Web. 8 Aug. 2013. <http://salem-nh.patch.com/>.
Springbank Productions. "Jenny's Heroes." http://www.jennysheroes.com/heroes_20090409_paulam.shtml.
P O L L U T I O N
Full transcript