Lowest Jobless Rate in 5 Years Raises Chances of a Fed Move

Finally! Good news about the United States Economy. Nelson D. Schwartz wrote an article that has been published on December 6th in New York Times for all to read. The unemployment rate is finally beginning to decrease- and quite dramatically may I add. The Labor Department spread good news about the 7 percent decline in the unemployment rate which seems to be just the beginning of good news.

Since the Great Recession, we haven't seen an improvement in unemployment quite like we are seeing now. We also haven't heard good news from the white house in a while, either. It seems that the good news about unemployment just kept getting better. We begin to observe the increase in many other areas throughout our economy as well. Economic growth started making an upward revision in positive correlation with increase in employment. A small increase in manufacturing has been reported along with the other two revisions recently taking place.

With the good news comes the sad news.. Due to the decrease in the unemployment rate, the government is considering easing back on its stimulus efforts. Although the changes won't be made until beginning of 2014, it is still concerning to many Americans. No one is ready to see a change in the unemployment rates. We want them to keep going down, and if the government decides to ease up there is a chance that these rates could start heading in the opposite direction.

The improvements in unemployment caused a change in several different aspects of the average work criteria. For example, with an increase in employment we have observed an increase in hourly earnings, as well as an increase in the length of a typical work week. Another positive observation is that the increase in employment has been taking place in both the private sectors as well as the public sectors.

The best part about the positive change in our economy that is taking place is the increase in jobs across the board. We have not observed an increase in one particular area, we have observed an increase in several different job areas. These jobs include manufacturing and construction, and other jobs both in services as well as the goods-producing industries. This article gives hope to many Americans that our economy is turning around. The only fear for some is that if the government eases up on its stimulus efforts, the improvement may come to an end. Although unemployment still remains an issue, we are hopeful that things can continue moving forward from here.

Pollution Economics

Taxes and pollution are continuously two topics of concern for many Americans. We wonder why things are so expensive nowadays. Perhaps it is because our government is trying to control things that could be taken care of in a simpler, less dramatic, way. The New York Times recently published "Pollution Economics", an article written by Dirk Forrister and Paul Bledsoe that compares the cap-and-trade (or "market") approach to solving issues such as pollution and taxes, with the Government's regulatory approach. 

China has recently adopted the cap-and-trade approach to aid towards cleaning up the dirty air they are forced to breathe, lowering the warming temperatures they are forced to walk in, and even solving food production problems that they are battling every day. The cap-and-trade approach takes these issues off of the governments hands, and allows the market to work itself out. How come the Chinese are smart enough to use this technique, and not Americans? After all, The United States is the designer of the market approach- also known as cap-and-trade approach. I can't help but believe since we succeeded with using this technique to solve acid rain problems, the Chinese observed that the cap-and-trade approach was the best solution to solving emission problems they are facing. 

While the United States has abandoned the carbon market approach to help deal with pollution problems, other nations are just beginning to adjust to the carbon market life style. Places such as Europe, New Zealand, and Shenzhen are all using the cap-and-trade approach for many different reasons. The primary reason is that their greenhouse gas emissions are improving in a cheaper way. Therefor, as Americans are forced to pay high electricity bills to aid the government in regulating pollutants, other nations are using a simpler method, the market method. 

The main difference between the government regulatory approach and the cap-and-trade approach is mentioned in this article. The regulatory approach is much more costly than the cap-and-trade approach. By using the cap-and-trade approach, environmental goals are aligned with market incentives, and therefor appeals to supply and demand creating a domino effect. With the carbon market being handled by the cap-and-trade approach comes a cheaper way of solving pollution. How could this approach not sound appealing?   

If the carbon market were to be taxed, this would force solutions to pollution in America, like it is helping in other nations. The carbon market could generate revenue that would inevitably lower other taxes thanks to a domino effect that easily occurs in economies. Taxes and pollution could both be solved with the help of the cap-and-trade approach. It's about time the government loosens their grip on the reigns and allows the market to take care of itself.