بغيت منكم خدمة في ECON

[محمد الحلو]

مرحبااا

 

شلونكم

 

شخبااااركم

 

والله انا عندي طلب وانشاء الله ما تردوني

 

بغيت منكم تجيبون لي معلومات عن كل النقاط اللي راح اذكرها

 

1) Positive Statement

 

2) Normative Statement

 

3) Economic theory

 

4) Economic model

 

5) Tradeoff

 

6) Big tradeoff

 

ابغي ما يقل عدد الأسطر عن 5 اسطر لكل نقطة وان يكون لهذه الأسطر معنى مفهوم

 

مع كتابة المصدر او المرجع اللي اخذت منه

 

طبعا الموضوع بالانجليزي

 

ابغي هالموضوع قبل لا يجي تاريخ 17/3

 

ومشكورين مقدماً

[قاسية]

لا يكون انت معاي في سكشن انا بعد عندي ذي الواجب

 

 

 

لا ويبي مرااجع بعد

 

 

 

 

 

 

مااقول الا راحت علينه

 

 

[محمد الحلو]

انا يدرسني د/ احمد عبدالغني

 

في ال UT من 9.30 الى 10.45

 

بس شوفي يا (( قاسية )) مو اذا احد الأعضاء كتب الحل تيين انت وتكتبينه

 

ترى بذبحج

 

لأن انا اللي كتبت الموضوع

 

ياالله يا اعضاء انا في انتظار هالخدمة

[قاسية]

انا وانت في سكشن واحد

 

 

 

 

ماسمعت عن اللي يقول المساعدة زينة خصوصاُ حق البنات

 

 

 

 

يالله ناخذهم بالنص بعدين نكمل

 

 

 

تعال عاد انت اي واحد منهم عشان نتفاهم على الواجب مايصير جذي

 

 

 

 

 

يالله ترا انت طيب والله يحب الطيبين وانا استاهل

 

 

 

[قناصة]

آنه بعد أدور عن ذي النقاط... لو عندكم الموقع مال الكتاب ادخل عليه وادور من الكتاب نفسه... لان ما عندي الكتاب

[قاسية]

القناصة

 

 

انتي بعد معانه في سكشن؟؟؟؟؟

 

 

 

 

 

لا راحت علينه محد يعرف حل هالسؤال ترى

 

 

 

 

حتى اللي درسوه من قبل سألتهم مايعرفون

 

 

[قناصة]

مــأ اعتقد وياكم في السكشن.. بس نفس الدكتور في الـSMW أتمنى أحد لو يعطينه سايت عن الايكونومك .. ومنه ندور على الاجوبة لان اهوة يبي بشكل عام معلومات ومن اسلوبنه الخاص... بس نبي المعلومات على الاقل عشان نقدر نلخصه او نتصرف فيها....

[قاسية]

هذا اللي انا حصلته طبعا كل واحد يلخص باسلوبه

 

 

 

Positive & Normative statement

 

 

Economists make a distinction between positive and normative that closely parallels Popper's line of demarcation, but which is far older. David Hume explained it well in 1739, and Machiavelli used it two centuries earlier, in 1515. A positive statement is a statement about what is and that contains no indication of approval or disapproval. Notice that a positive statement can be wrong. "The moon is made of green cheese" is incorrect, but it is a positive statement because it is a statement about what exists.

A normative statement expresses a judgment about whether a situation is desirable or undesirable. "The world would be a better place if the moon were made of green cheese" is a normative statement because it expresses a judgment about what ought to be. Notice that there is no way of disproving this statement. If you disagree with it, you have no sure way of convincing someone who believes the statement that he is wrong.

Economists have found the positive-normative distinction useful because it helps people with very different views about what is desirable to communicate with each other. Libertarians and socialists, Christians and atheists may have very different ideas about what is desirable. When they disagree, they can try to learn whether their disagreement stems from different normative views or from different positive views. If their disagreement is on normative grounds, they know that their disagreement lies outside the realm of economics, so economic theory and evidence will not bring them together. However, if their disagreement is on positive grounds, then further discussion, study, and testing may bring them closer together.

Economists can confine themselves to positive statements, but few are willing to do so because such confinement limits what they can say about issues of government policy. Both positive and normative statements must be combined to make a policy statement. One must make a judgment about what goals are desirable (the normative part), and decide on a way of attaining those goals (the positive part). Economists often see cases in which people propose courses of action that will never get them to their intended results. If economists limit themselves to evaluating whether or not proposed actions will achieve intended results, they confine themselves to positive analysis. (You should realize that although economists can speak with special authority on positive issues, even the best can be wrong.) However, most economists prefer a wider role in policy analysis, and include normative judgments as well. On normative issues economists cannot speak with special expertise. Put somewhat differently, addressing most normative issues ultimately depends on how one answers the following question: "What is the meaning of life?" One does not study economics to answer this question.

Most statements are not easily categorized as purely positive or purely normative. Rather ,they are like tips of an iceberg, with many invisible assumptions hiding below the surface. Suppose, for example, someone says, "The minimum wage is a bad law." Behind that simple statement are assumptions about how to judge whether a law is good or bad (or normative statements) and also beliefs about what the actual effects of the minimum wage law are (or positive statements).

 

 

 

Trade Off

 

In the first quarter of this year, the wave of negative reporting about offshore outsourcing reached tsunami levels, and a majority of Americans seemed to view offshoring as a problem. An Associated Press poll in May found that 69 percent of Americans believe outsourcing hurts the U.S. economy. An Employment Law Alliance poll taken the same month found that 58 percent of American workers believe that the federal government should penalize companies that offshore work. These attitudes are part of a broader trend towards protectionism among Americans. Between 1999 and 2004, public support for free trade declined across the board. The most dramatic shift in opinion came from Americans making more than $100,000 a year, among whom support for promoting trade dropped from 57 percent to 28 percent.

These kinds of attitudes create a powerful constraint for policymakers at a delicate moment in global trade negotiations. Efforts to restart the Doha trade round after the disaster in Cancun will require concessions by U.S. trade negotiators on contentious political issues like farm subsidies. If public opinion is increasingly hostile to trade liberalization, the Bush administration might choose not to invest significant political capital in the process. And while there is a chance that public opinion on trade could change by itself in the ff****, the latest polls suggest a dark truth about Americans' views on trade: Americans are stone cold mercantilists. That is, they view trade as a zero-sum game, in which one country's gain is another country's loss. There is reason to believe that all the good economic news in the world will not alter that fact.

To be fair, early 2004 was probably the low point in terms of public attitudes towards economic globalization. The rash of management consultant predictions about job losses appeared to justify a lot of hand wringing about offshore outsourcing and its potential effects on employment. The Democratic presidential primary also promoted a lot of talk about the evils of free trade, with John Kerry topping things off by bashing "Benedict Arnold CEOs."

Hard data is starting to come in suggesting that most Americans were wrong to be alarmed. Earlier this month the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that offshore outsourcing was responsible for 2.5 percent of jobs lost through mass layoffs in the first quarter of this year--not exactly a large number. Studies at the state and local level buttress this finding. In Colorado, one study found that to date offshoring's impact on IT jobs was exaggerated by media reports. In Detroit, another study concluded that outsourcing's effect on manufacturing jobs had been "overemphasized." The net creation of over a million new private-sector jobs since January has also demonstrated that the effect of offshoring on the national economy is insignificant.

As these numbers have come in, the political response to outsourcing and trade has died down somewhat. In Kansas, lawmakers were eager to ban the outsourcing of some call center operations--until they discovered such a move would increase costs by 38 percent. In California, officials are trying to work their way around Buy America provisions for steel that would raise the cost of renovating the Bay Bridge by $400 million.

The end of the Democratic primary has also affected rhetoric on trade. After one too many Benedict Arnold speeches, Kerry's economic team read him the riot act. One senior advisor assured me that Kerry wouldn't be using those words again during this campaign. Kerry's proposal to reform the taxation of overseas profits as a way of halting outsourcing makes little economic sense, but it is far less scary than Kerry's initial rhetoric.

But don't hold your breath waiting for public attitudes to follow suit. For one thing, there is a significant lag between the reporting of good economic news and the internalization of that news by Americans. Earlier this month, an Associated Press poll found that 57 percent of respondents believed the nation has lost jobs in the last six months, even though 1.2 million jobs had been created during that span.

More importantly, however, even before the last recession, Americans did not have warm and fuzzy feelings about trade. Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter catalogued hostility to free trade policies in Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers. Throughout the late 1990s, majorities of Americans repeatedly affirmed their belief in two things: that the costs from more imports always outweighed the benefits of more imports; and that the costs from more imports exceeded the benefits from more exports. Go back to the early 1950s--when the U.S. was running a massive trade surplus--and a plurality of Americans still supported import restrictions over import expansion. Americans are mercantilists in the sense that they support trade liberalization only when they believe it will improve export opportunities with no threat of increasing imports.

Given the widespread support among economists for trade liberalization, are Americans just stupid? Not really--they're merely responding to how politicians talk about the topic. Both advocates and opponents of freer trade talk about the issue using the language of how policy change will affect the trade deficit--even though there's no correlation between the balance of trade and income. Even politicians who advocate trade liberalization do so by focusing on increasing American exports and downplaying imports. This ignores the fact that trade is not a zero-sum game; the gains of other economies can also benefit our own. For instance, imports help to lower consumer prices and increase consumer variety. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin observed in his memoirs that when he mentioned this fact in Congressional testimony, a representative told him that he was the first government official to praise the virtues of imports in public.

Unless the entire country--particularly the political class--is required to take an introductory economics course, the mercantilist mindset will be hard to shake. One way to change the debate would be for officials to stress the link between trade liberalization and America's grand strategy. This worked during the Cold War as a way of sustaining support for open economic policies. U.S. Trade representative Robert Zoellick has been pushing this angle, most recently in a New York Times op-ed earlier this month. However, only one official has a large enough bully pulpit to really move public opinion, and that's the president. I argued last September that George W. Bush is unlikely to make such a move, and I haven't changed my mind. If Bush slapped on steel tariffs when his approval rating was at 85 percent, why would he be willing to suddenly be a teller of complex truths on trade with an approval rating of 47?

But there is one silver lining to this phenomenon, which is that Americans are massive hypocrites. People may believe in mercantilism, but they don't act on those beliefs in large numbers. Consumer lender E-loan conducted an interesting experiment this spring--it gave customers a choice between having their loan paperwork processed in ten days overseas or twelve days in the United States. In the first three months of the experiment, more than 85 percent of customers chose the overseas option. This corresponds with the May AP poll showing that while a majority of Americans think that offshoring is bad for the economy, a plurality of Americans do not bother checking the label to see if a product is made in this country. As citizens, Americans think of economic policy in mercantilist terms. But as consumers, they are quite content with free trade.

 

The Big Trade-Off

 

Many people don't take full advantage of the security protections in their Wi-Fi home networks. Maybe they're not aware that their wireless router has built-in wired equivalent privacy (WEP), an encryption protocol that, when enabled, restricts access to those who have the WEP key — a string of characters that's generated when you first activate the encryption and which serves as a kind of password

 

Or maybe they'd like to share the wealth and let the neighbors in on their 6-megabit-per-second cable-modem connection. But these guests — invited or otherwise — could be up to no good. They could be using your Internet connection to upload a pirated movie, or to send spam in a way that makes it look like it's coming from you. They could install a keystroke grabber, a program that surreptitiously records information you type into your machine — such as the user name and password that logs you in to your bank's website — and quietly reports the info back to the hacker.

Feeling vulnerable now? Turn your WEP on and you shouldn't have to. Experts agree that the technology isn't perfect — a good hacker can crack it in about 15 minutes, some say — but the consensus seems to be that, well, it's better than nothing. Most troublemakers go for the low-hanging fruit — networks left wide open so that anybody with a Wi-Fi antenna within range can get on. So if you use WEP, they are more likely to knock at your network's door, find it locked, and move on to an easier target.

To improve your odds of being left alone, experts recommend using wireless gear offering Wi-Fi Protected Access, a new-and-improved form of WEP. More and more devices support WPA these days; if you've had your hardware for a while, check the manufacturer's website for a firmware upgrade and you may be able to get WPA that way.

Another way to keep bandwidth thieves and bad guys at bay: switch off your network's "SSID broadcast" feature. (SSID is short for service set identifier, and it's the name you assigned your network when you first set it up.) This way, when a roving road warrior scans the area for available networks, yours won't even appear on the list. "Anybody who knows what they're doing will still be able to find you," says Joshua Lackey, senior ethical hacker with Managed Security Services, a division of IBM Global Services. This is why each machine on your network should have it own software firewall program installed, he says. "The more obstacles you put in the way, the better," Lackey says. "We call it the onion model of security: just pile layer upon layer."

That goes double for any business seeking to cut the cord. A corporation has more sensitive data to protect, and is more vulnerable. The biggest problem plaguing corporate Wi-Fi networks, Lackey says, are unauthorized access points — somebody plugging in a Wi-Fi antenna box in order to bring access into a new area. Sometimes the "rogues" are the company's own employees, with innocent intentions — they want to check e-mail from the cafeteria, say — who don't realize that they've just opened up the network to the world. And sometimes it's someone with more malevolent motives. "The problem is, anybody can walk into a store and buy an access point, plug it into a network and go," says Jason Hart of White Hat, a security firm based in the U.K. "The devices are so cheap now. And new laptops automatically find available networks, which are always transmitting out, saying, ‘I'm here.'" The solution: ask your network installer to include some way of monitoring network activity. The hard part, Hart says, is finding the location of these access points so that they can shut them down.

Telecommuters can be very dangerous to a corporate network because they connect from the outside. Rich Forsen, whose company Network Depot installs wireless networks for small- and medium-sized businesses in the Washington area (and firewalls for companies across the country), recommends that his clients use a SonicWall wireless gateway. The device lets you establish wireless virtual private network (VPN) connections for each employee who are logging in from anywhere inside the building. When that employee leaves for the day, he can use the same VPN software that's installed on his laptop to connect from home, and the same protections will apply. "That VPN acts as a personal firewall on your notebook," Forsen says.

One of Forsen's clients, Tom Andresen of Innovate.org, says the three-employee firm wished to protect its network from outsiders, yet still be able to let visitors get online from the conference room. Network Depot set up a guest account, protected by a password that Andresen can hand out at his dib2d***etion. The guest user has unfettered access to the Internet but can't get onto the company's internal network.

The biggest challenge is striking the right balance between security and convenience, Forsen says. "Those are primary goals," he says, "and they are always at odds. It's an ongoing war for us." But Innovate's guest account, he says, "is one of those few areas where you can have your cake and eat it too."

Another tactic now in vogue: intrusion protection software that inspects packets of data coming in and out of the network and b2d***eens for worms and trojans, insidious virus variants, and spyware. Businesses can subb2d***ibe to an intrusion protection service as a supplement to their existing firewall.

Authenticating users on the network is a separate issue that should be addressed. One way to do this is with biometrics — for example, requiring that a user be identified first with a fingerprint before he's allowed to log on. IBM recently added fingerprint scanners as an optional feature on its T42 line of notebook computers; the tiny scanner, which costs about $50, comes embedded in the wrist rest. Swiping your finger unb2d***ambles the password stored on the machine.

Of course, every security measure costs money to implement. "You have to think about the business case," Lackey says. "Will [going wireless] save money, make money, increase productivity? And do the benefits justify the risks? Because once you go wireless, it's hard to go back."

[قناصة]

مشكورة اختي.... من وين اذا ما عليج امر حصلتيهم؟

[قاسية]

روحي

 

 

GOOGLE

 

 

 

كتبي كل واحد وبتطلع لج عنه معلومات

 

 

 

عاد انتي اختاري اللي يناسبه