Coffee Cart? Get Coffee SMART!

Economics is defined as the study of how rational consumers make decisions in the face of scarcity. But how do passion, emotion, and heart (non-scientific concepts) impact a logical world? Baylor University has conducted research on the emotions of entrepreneurship, and says “…research might examine how emotions influence the whole entrepreneurial process, particularly what happens ‘in the middle’ between opportunity identification and exit…” The essay examines why certain business people succeed and others don’t, depending entirely on how their emotions interact with the market place.

Warren, a fellow student in our economics class, has a particular passion for our school’s Coffee Cart. Warren is on Student Council, and is extremely driven to help the Council’s Coffee Cart succeed, and to see it continue in the future. “What we’re trying to do with the Coffee cart is revamp its’ image to get a wider consumer base, serve more people, and maximize profits. Other than that we’re also trying to branch out and offer a healthier option, [than] the [Treat Trolley offers].” Warren has expressed to our economics class the difficulty of combating supply and demand, changing people’s tastes and preferences, and how to battle competition.

 

One of the main problems the coffee cart faces is competition: the musical theater Treat Trolley. The Treat Trolley offers an array of snacks, “7/11” style, ranging from hostess donuts, to Cup-of-Noodles. Not only does the Treat Trolley appeal to the snack-crazed minds of high-schoolers, it also appeals to their wallets. Every snack the Treat Trolley offers is only $1.00, as opposed to every cup of coffee at the Coffee Cart being $2.00. In addition to the Treat Trolley undercutting the Coffee Carts’ prices, all of their supplies are 100% donated, making the Treat Trolley 100% profit, with no variable costs. The Coffee Cart faces a difficult decision: drop their prices, add new products, or try to change the way people think about the Coffee Cart.       

But in order to change the way people think about the Coffee Cart, Student Council needs to change people’s tastes and preferences. One of the ideas is to make the Coffee Cart a “high-end” option. It could be marketed as a high-class option for upperclassmen, and could serve a market that the Treat Trolley does not: healthy options. It is very important to know your market when selling, and to know which markets are not being sold to. The Coffee Cart also can open up at times when the Treat Trolly is closed: in the morning. Most people have stopped drinking coffee by lunchtime, and the market might be more productive at before-school hours. This could even open up the possibilities of serving breakfast foods, fresh donuts, and other breakfast beverages. In addition to marketing to an underserved market, the Coffee Cart needs to ensure that they are marketing at all. Due to all of the hubbub surrounding the Treat Trolley, it seems as if people have forgotten about the Coffee Cart, and it has fallen to wayside. It is important to stay on the forefront of people’s minds, and not to let the Treat trolley drown out the other competition.

But competition, marketing, and people’s tastes aside, it all comes back to supply and demand. Currently, the Coffee Cart has a surplus of k-cups due to a lack of demand, and the Treat Trolley is begging for more and more donations from parents to serve the demand of the customers. The Coffee Cart is facing excess supply, and the Treat Trolley is facing excess demand. As consumers, we can decide which product is more economical for us: the $1.00 snack, or the $2.00 coffee, but the invisible hand of the marketplace will always set the prices.

We can see how the logical decisions of consumers shape the market at our school, and how the Coffee Cart needs to change its’ business model to be more profitable. But at the same time, there is still an emotional side to this story. Warren, even in the logical world of economics, is still making decisions based on his passions. If this love for the Coffee Cart wasn’t there, it likely would have already gone out of business. It is impossible to completely remove emotion from the marketplace, for the consumer, or the producer. If someone absolutely loves hot drinks, the higher price of coffee is worth it for the superior product. And even if a Coffee Cart isn’t profitable anymore, the passion of a student can change everything. 

A President’s Power v.s. A Citizen’s Assignment

As America has grown, and continues to grow, it is important that our government grows with it. Presidential power is a key part of our government, and influences us in ways we may not even be aware of, and a President’s personal conviction may be just as impactful as the scope of their control. Just as William Taft’s idea of Conservatism competed with Roosevelt’s Stewardship theory throughout time, we see how our leaders have taken a system designed to protect our citizen’s rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, and changed it into a game of power. But the leaders are not alone in this scheme. Citizens are also assigned their own civil duties within this process, and must rise up to the task, or see their rights fade. And as a Citizen must balance their voice with the governments control, a President must balance their own voice, with their own control.

William Taft says, “We are all imperfect. We can not expect perfect government.” This quote represents his Conservative presidential theory, where the President doesn’t actively change things, but instead, just facilitates what is already in motion. But perhaps this lack of action is what holds America back from progress. On the other hand, Roosevelt’s quote, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are,” encapsulates his Stewardship theory, where a president does, “everything in his power,” to create an ideal government.

While it is important to be constantly moving forward, like in Roosevelt’s theory, at what point does the President’s power become too much? In the last several years, most Presidents have abided by the Stewardship theory, making outrageous promises during campaigning, but then failing in this theory as they fail to actually enact these changes. We have learned that most politicians are acting in a way to promote their party, and to get their party re-elected, but where is the shift between social justice, and a system of control?

Conversely, looking at active citizenship, we see our citizen’s not practicing enough “stewardship.” There are many debates on whether voter registration laws should be eased to encourage voting, and how the “filter bubble,” confines our information. A citizen, even though they are tasked with Roosevelt’s call for action, may not actually be able to enact any change. On this age-old issue, Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter to Birmingham Jail says, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” In trying to balance Roosevelt and King’s motivation with Taft’s self suppression, at what point does a President’s civic responsibility turn into an abuse of power? At what point is a lack of action failing in their duty? 

Today’s Presidents may have one of the toughest challenges we’ve seen in the White House yet. As a CQ Press Researcher says, “The power of the Presidency is such that it may no longer be meaningful to classify Presidents as ‘weak’ or ‘strong.’ In the modern era, the President is virtually forced to be a strong executive.” This battle forces the President to choose whether to fall prey to your internal voice, or to allow your position to walk all over you. How our current President deals with this, while it may be a never ending process, sets the tone for many Presidents to come. In our ever changing, modern world, how will our leader balance self with image? How will our leader manage opinion and action? And how will our President manage his position of power with his civic responsibility?

Sources:

library.cqpress.com/…earcher/document.php

washingtonpost.com/…/bd572426-27fa-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_video

americanforeignrelations.com/…/Presidential-Power-The-stewardship-theory

Supreme Court} http://www.cagle.com/2014/06/presidential-power …

Theodore Roosevelt’s Little Texas

 

Deism in the Declaration

In our Country’s Pledge of Allegiance, we recite “…One nation, under God…” These two words, added in during the Cold War era, have become a huge part of a larger discussion on religion and religious freedom. In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes “…certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator…” Throughout our Nation’s history, religion, and religious freedom, has played a huge role in the shaping of our country and it’s future. I believe that religious freedom and individuality are woven into the foundations of our country based on Jefferson’s words, and any change to these fundamental rights and values is a wrong done to American citizens.

Many people see America as being based on religious freedom, and the Protestants coming over to escape religious persecution. Later on in American history, a cultural movement called the Enlightenment influenced how many Americans thought about spirituality. While this movement started in Paris Salons with Philosophers discussing their views, it quickly dispersed into Enlightenment ideals affecting American government. A main idea of the Enlightenment is a spiritual philosophy called Deism. Gettysburg.edu calls Deism, “…a compromise between the oppressiveness of Christianity and atheistic materialism.” This philosophy also centers around nature, the balance of humanity, and a healthy skepticism. As these ideals spread into American Government, many politicians and citizens applied lessons from nature to our society, and this introduced the idea of John Locke’s “Perfect Freedom.” John Locke also wrote on the ideals of safety and security to preserve life, liberty, and property (later adapted to happiness in the Declaration.) I see this idea of giving up certain rights, and “perfect freedom”, to have the ability to pursue our own happiness as the most valuable freedom that I have as an American citizen. Being able to have a voice, and pursue the things that I am passionate about freely, and know that the people around me have this freedom too, is the greatest gift.

The words that we recite without thought hold much more weight for us than we realize. They are a part of a Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge of “Anglo-French legaunce ‘loyalty of a liege-man to his lord.’” As citizens, we must agree wholeheartedly with these words, as opposed to reciting them halfheartedly. They are a vocal representation of obedience to our “lord.” Our legience, as a country, shouldn’t be to our individual religious beliefs, but to the pursuit of happiness which encompasses our religious freedom. If we do not believe in these words wholeheartedly, we must take action to create a society that we believe in. This civil duty I believe is a part of our “pursuit of happiness.” To have our own individual joy, we must ensure that we are allowed the things that bring us fulfillment, and affirm our right to speak freely. Because America is founded on religious freedom, is it right for us to be pledging our allegiance, “under god”? Is it okay for politicians to change this pledge for political ends? And are we even aware of how much one man’s interpretation of the relationship between nature and humans could be impacting our daily lives? We may not fully understand what congress was actually declaring in the Declaration, but we do know that the weight of preserving the pursuit of happiness is on our shoulders. The civil duties of voting, and speaking your opinion all fall under the greater need to protect our right to be individuals, and to live the lives that we want to, and were meant to.

The Battles of Government

As American citizens, we are tasked with many responsibilities, including voting, remaining knowledgeable on current events, and knowing ourselves and where we stand within our government’s system. This requires a balance of knowing what we believe in, and fighting for justice, while being able to articulate our beliefs in a respectful discourse with those that may not agree with us.

In beginning, we must know where we are coming from- where we lie on the political spectrum- and become informed. In class, we watched Eli Pariser’s Ted Talk on the “Filter Bubble,” or as I like to call it, the “echo chamber”. I like using this term, because it reminds me that when I exist in a space that is of my own creation, or a space that is formulated to bar me from insight, that I will only hear my own thoughts echoed back at me. This introduces the struggle against information hoarding: The Battle for Knowledge. The Filter Bubble emphasizes the need for a thirst for education, and a desire to act on our discoveries. If we sit back and watch things happen to us, and to our country, our apathy is just as detrimental as agreement to negative movements. It is always important to remain strong in our beliefs, but it is almost more important to be flexible enough that when a better explanation or solution comes along, we are able to change our behavior and thoughts to follow the path of progress.

Once we see where our limits in awareness are, we can start making corrective actions to be more informed on a variety of topics, from an assortment of different outlooks. It’s difficult though, because we live in a largely ignorant society. This ignorance can sometimes be against our will, enacted by outside forces (i.e. the Filter Bubble), but also sometimes imposed by ourselves, and our own lack of effort. This introduces another battle: the Battle Against Ignorance.  This battle is shown through the popularity of tobacco and cigarettes in the 1930s. Many citizens would smoke casually, like drinking water, and even Doctors would prescribe cigarettes to help patients. But now we know how harmful tobacco and nicotine is to our bodies and minds. This is just one example of how fighting ignorance and remaining informed allows us to be more in tuned to where we fall on a variety of topics, including on the political spectrum. Using the Pew Research Center’s Political Typology Quiz, our class was able to see more accurately where our beliefs lie in relation to our classmates, and in broader political terms. Understanding our stance allows us to then become an activist for our viewpoint. And it is our responsibility as citizens to advocate for those who cannot, and to speak our truths when justice is being trampled on.

To balance activism with acceptance remains one of the toughest struggles in political discourse today. It requires a knowing of ourselves, our system, and our passions, while still being able to accept and listen to those who may be different than us. As we traverse the governmental spectrum, and our political world, we only have each other, and must rely on our differences to encourage innovation. And without the differences of those around us, or awareness of our standing, we would be stuck in the same spot. Looking throughout history, change only comes after something has been challenged. The etymology of the word change comes from Old French “to reciprocate.” If we do not reciprocate the same allowance of others’ opinions that we want of ours, we will never have advancement. We must fight the good fights for knowledge, and against ignorance. And hopefully, in fighting our weaknesses, we will stop fighting each other, and work together, using our strength, to move our country in the direction of progress.