Stock Simulation Investment

The company I chose to invest in was PEP, the ticker symbol for PepsiCo. I brought 20 shares of stock in the company at a value of $1,225.40. This leaves me with a fair amount of money to invest in other companies, and gives me a good starting point. The reason I chose to invest in Pepsico is because it could be considered a blue chip. It's certainly not going anywhere anytime soon, and it produces a lot of products that are fairly successful. This company makes several products. Pepsi, Gatorade, Quaker oats, Doritos, Frito Lay, Lay's, Sierra Mist, and more. They have a mission statement, stating that they want to be the world's premier convenient food and beverage company. They are also working to help the environment and society as a whole. They have several popular brand names food and beverages from their company. The company is also working to conserve water. I think, judging from all their products, even in the poor economy, they were a good choice to invest in. I think I will make a good gain from the stock. I don't believe the stock has split yet. If so, I would have a lot of stocks in there. I don't believe they're coming out with a new ad campaign or product at this time.

Labor Market: Supply and Demand

The labor market has it's own version of supply and demand as well. This is the demand for more works at that position, and what the company can supply. Now, the supply and demand for the field I would like to get into. I would like to be a commentator for sports games. Preferably football, or baseball. However, I'd probably need to get something for communications from college, and I'm not sure demand would be that high for new commentators. If I were to get a job in that particular field, I would guess it would pay well, and be a nice boost to income.

Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster

The newest toy craze is the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster. The demand for them is high, because it is the Christmas season, and kids want them. So, parents are trying to find where they can purchase one of these little hamsters. The demand curve could change for the better, because Christmas is only getting closer, and because it's the "Must-Have" toy of the season, demand can only rise till Christmas. It's also being advertised on kids channels, such as Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network, and Disney XD, meaning the toy is getting noticed, and is building popularity. There aren't really any substitute goods that are cheaper than this hamster. Other electronic pets are much more expensive than this, so it's considered a cheaper toy. There are complimentary goods as well. The accessories for the hamster, such as it's car, will probably sell well too. As well as any other accessories for the hamster. So, I think the season, the number of buyers, and the fact that it's fairly cheap for what it is, is all making the Zhu Zhu Pet Hamster the newest toy craze.

Opportunity Cost

What does the term "Opportunity Cost" mean? Well, it's actually something people do everyday. Opportunity Costs is when you give up something in order to get something else. However, in a group of choices, the opportunity cost is the second most desirable option. For example, I made an opportunity cost this weekend. I had the option to study for a Physics test, watch television, or go on the computer. Since I felt that I was okay on the material for the test, and there wasn't a whole lot to watch, I chose to go on the computer. The opportunity cost there, is the television, since it is the second choice I would've made out of all three. It may not have been the most efficient choice I ever made, but I made the choice I liked the most out of the three.

Child Care For Teenage Moms Bill (Mock Congress)

The way I voted for the bill on child care for teenage moms was "Nay.". The reason I voted nay on this bill was because it seemed like there were too many "Ifs", and too many variables about it for me to feel it should be passed. While I feel the idea behind the bill is good, I'm just not too sure on how well it would be used, and execucted. I get the feeling that, if a bill like this one were introduced to the house, most Republicans would vote the way I did. Which, in this case, makes me a Republican. It is kind of strange trying to think like the other party.

My Bill

The bill I made for my mock congress was The Cyber Security Chief apointment act. This allowed for a Cyber Security Chief to be appointed to the Department Of Homeland Security, but not the White House. The reason I thought of this bill is because the internet it about as used as it ever was, and it's only going to have more people use it. Without the right tools in White House is, the person appointed could not be their best. However, with an appointment in to the DHS, they would have all they needed at their disposal.

Mock Congress

We've recently been conducting a mock congress in class, and so far, it's going pretty well. We have the two sides of the room split. One side for Democrats, and one side for Republicans. Before we actually assembled for congress, we also picked who was in what committee. Like the Department Of Homeland Security, and Department Of Labor and Education. After we figured out where the jurisdiction for the committee we joined was, we all had to come up with our own bills.


They had to be typed in an outline format, and we had to have a speech prepared. Before you could present however, the bill had to be passed by the committee you were in. This allows the person to know where the problems lies in the bill, and where amendments can be made. Then the person would present the bill before class, by themselves, and if multiple people wanted to speak for the bill, from the same committee, then the people from the committee go up one-by-one to present the reasoning. After that's done, people are allowed to question the sponsor, and then may present their reasoning as to why they might be for or against it. After that, a motion to vote must be made, then seconded, and then a role-call vote is done to see if it passes on to the house.

While I've liked the majority of bills thus far, I thought the one allowing gays to express their sexuality, but not in sexual ways, in the military was the best so far. It allows some more equal rights for gays, which I'm for. And it allows for more people to go in to war if need be. I respect anyone who actually wants to go serve for their country, and cutting out a group of people for their sexuality alone is just wrong. The bill was actually passed unanimously by the House, and will move on to Senate soon.

What Impact Does A Supreme Court Member Have On Daily Life?

So, does a Supreme Court Justice actually have a major impact on our daily lives? Simply put, not really. And here's why.

While it's true that the Justices have a fair amount of power, they have Congress, and the President keeping an eye on what the Justices as a whole are doing. This is of course part of the system of checks and balances. While it seems like one Justice would be a big deal, there are nine of them, so unless a majority agree with that one, nothing will move forward. Another point is that they only look over cases that reach them, and have to do with the Constitution. These guys, and girls, are not writing the laws, they're just making sure that people are upholding them properly.

In other words, thanks to the system of checks and balances in our government, there won't be any radical changes to the laws that effect us any time soon.

Six Year Term President?

Should there be a six year, single term president? I think the answer to that is no. I have a saying, or at least someone did, and it goes something like this. "Why fix what's not broken?".

Our current system of election has been working since the Constitution was made, and while I know things change, this system has been working far too long to change now. I think the current 4 year terms work fine. The idea of having to eventually re-campaign is a little bit of a motivator for a President to do well for his whole presidency, instead of having a lot of time to sort of coast for the first year or two.

Another reason I say no to this is that six years is a pretty long time. I mean, imagine if we had a President who was terrible, but did not do anything worth impeachment. We would be stuck for six years. That's an awful long time compared to four years. It's two extra year, and while that doesn't sound too bad, for some people, four years is already too much. The other problem with this idea, is that there's no chance for re-election because it's a single term. The President couldn't come back after six years. What if he was good in this case? He can't come back now. He's served his single term. In our current system, a President can serve for eight years, and he gets to see if we want him back in or not after his first four. Seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

So, to summarize, I am not for the idea of a six year, single term president. Our current system has worked for a couple centuries now. Why fix what's not broken?