It seems like every time someone turns on the television, there is a commercial on talking about how the economy needs to change and the nation needs to get out of debt.  and t "The poor are getting poorer as the rich get richer," they shout. This has led to the belief (mistaken?) that economics is the complex study of why a country is successful or unsuccessful, and it has all the answers to make a country successful. This definition is not only vague, but also wrong. The economy is nothing but a tool to tell the people of a society (either or - the people or a society) how a country is doing and therefore help them make future monetary decisions, and These decisions are economics, and in plain terms economics decisions-making are based upon a set of criteria. These criteria can be any number of things, but to be a smart economic decision then all the related criteria must be met. There is no magic to economics and there is no confusion with economics, it’s just simple decision-making based upon rational thinking or commonsense. This also means that economics is not limited to monetary decisions, in fact economics can be applied to every decision a person makes through-out the day. There are many forms of this and the attempt to understand what is the most rational decision a continuous battle and completely dependant upon the society that the decision takes place in and the norms of that society. Economics is nothing to fear, because economics is a part of everyone’s daily life and can be conscious or sub-conscious.

The general idea of what economics is actually is the result of economics(???). The rich get richer and the poor get poorer or we need economic change, these are both the result of decision-making by those who are in power. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is the result of a decision made by the government to cut taxes for certain people, in this case they chose to cut taxes for those in a society that make more money and tax less.

things as Ronald Regan said, ““Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it,” in which he was putting out there the described things he would not do and  things for which the Democratic party is famous for doing. This concept is called trickle-down economics in modern society, and was also known as the "horse and sparrow" theory in the 1890’s. This concept in most economists’ eyes is a terrible idea and goes completely against rational thinking. This is because of the first criteria that go into an economic decision. The benefit must out weigh the cost of the decision, and therefore why would the rich of a society spend their money blindly in a poor economy, that’s just kissing their money good-bye. This poor decision has lead to two of the greatest panics(what kind of panic?) in American history. The panic of 1896 was caused by this poor economic decision along with in addition to the current panic.the panic that American’s are currently in. The only reason that it did not cause it did not result in a panic during the Reagan administration was because he was lucky (he was or we were?) enough to follow (suceed) Jimmy Carter and the economy could only go up after that point.

This idea also does not work because the government limits the things that they can tax, and it is much easier in a society to tax a lot of things for a little amount as opposed to taxing the income of citizens and raising the taxes of those citizens. This leads to get national debt and a very poor economy. This is an example of an irrational decision, but this is not economics. This also is why I disagree with Shiva when she claims that the free market is hurting the Third World countries, because firstly there is no such thing as a "third world country" – a term that was created through the ideas of nineteenth century anthropologists who were trying to declare their dominance over the other societies of the world and were looking at the world around them through ethnocentric glasses.– and The free market is not forced upon these cultures, but instead they choose to go against what their ancestors set forth for them. and Therefore must learn how to be successful in the free market. They are not being killed by the free market they instead are just learning how to be successful in the free market. Their need to be successful in the free market (or capitalistic economy) is completely because of the fact that they felt it was a beneficial economic decision to change their ways and start putting a currency value on their way of trading goods, instead ofas opposed to continuing their prior way of trading goods with each other or just sharing all of their goods with each other (socialism).

Yes the use of currency as a way of exchanging goods is an economy, but it is not all of an economy, but instead just a type. This is capitalism, which puts the success of a culture in the hands of the consumers based upon their understanding of supply and demand, scarcity and cost and benefit principles. Therefore even capitalism cannot be to blame when culture fails, but instead the acts in which capitalism is carried out by the people within that culture. is to blame. Whether capitalism is a good economic decision for a culture, only time can tell.  But it is not the world economy or the free market that takes from and drains these countries, but instead their decision to change to a capitalistic economy. The other option they had in making the decision to change their economy is to move to a social economy where they would have just shared all of their goods with each other.

Economics is not reserved to the decisions of countries or groups, but instead stems to a decision as personal as deciding what kind of pants someone wants to wear, what they want to eat for dinner and even how many kids that person and their spouse wish to have. The decision of what kind of pants one chooses to wear for the day may seem like a silly and mundane to call economics, but in fact it is the mundane characteristic of economics that makes it affective. The economic ideals are a part of every single decision a person makes throughout their life. A person would wear shorts in ten degree weather because the benefit of being comfortable is far out weighed by the issue of being extremely cold and possibly becoming sick. This same thing is applied when a person chooses to change their diet and try to eat healthier; the benefit of enjoying the taste of fast food and the relatively cheap prices is out weighed by the cost of being overweight and possibly shortening one’s lifespan. This is also applied to life changing decisions, like how many kids a couple wants to have and the correct economic answer changes from culture to culture.

In American culture the cost of a kid child is roughly six hundred thousand dollars and that is only if the child become independent after their education is complete. However, in rural cultures children are used to work in the field and take care of the elder members of society and therefore are more a gain than a cost in the family. This leads to different answers if economics is applied correctly to the situation – the America family should have fewer kids than the rural family because kids cost more in America – and this holds true in the world, Americans average three children per family, while rural nations average close to nine kids per family. This is economics instead of the reason why kids are more beneficial in one culture than the other.

Economics is important in our world because of scarcity – the idea that there is not enough of an resource to have everything - and that is why people are forced to use the ideas of economics to make decision because there just isn’t enough to of everything to have everything, if there was then there would be no difference in the number of children per household and there would be no need to put currency values on items in capitalistic economies or trade goods for other goods in non-capitalistic economies. The idea that economics is merely what people see on CNN is ignorant and vague, economics goes deeper than that and is even separated into subtopics so that this complex topic can be understood on all levels. Two of these subtopics are Macroeconomics and Microeconomics.

Macroeconomics is the study of economic decisions of the entire nation and talks about things like interest rates, currency, and GDP. Microeconomics is the study of economic decisions of citizens and small businesses (meaning nothing to do with the stock market). Macroeconomic decisions are used to fix problems such as unemployment and nation debt. The difference between these two economies is they way they are fixed. The solutions to these problems are based on the seven principles of economy. The first principle is of scarcity, which says that there is not enough of everything in the world, so therefore people must make decisions and they must choose the most beneficial option. This leads to the second principle of cost and benefit; in making a decision due to scarcity the most rational decision is when the cost is lower than the benefit. and therefore the Cultures that are being buried by under a capitalistic system are only being buried because of the cost of being capitalistic is more than the benefit. The only rational decision in this circumstance is to switch back to the old economy. The third of the economic principles is incentive meaning that the incentive of a decision should always play into the final choice and should be measured in an absolute as opposed to a ratio or there are no choices that don’t have something attached to them and the only way to accurately judge that which is attached is in an absolute value (because ten percent of a hundred is more than hundred percent of five). The next section of principles speaks to why one country does not make all of the goods for the world (China is just close). The comparative advantage means that due to the scarcity principle one who can make more of everything than anyone else should focus on the thing that has the lowest opportunity cost and leave everything else to be made by the rest of the world or another company or just some else. This is connected to the increasing opportunity cost principle also known as the "low hanging fruit" principle.

The low hanging fruit principle is the process of deciding what to do first the easiest choice should always be the first choice. For example If a person is trying to pick an apple tree they will always get more fruit from the same tree if they start from the bottom and move up. This will cause the next principle to fall into place. The "efficiency principle" says that everything should be produced at a rate that nothing goes to waste. If things go to Waste this causes an unneeded rise in cost and therefore lower the benefit of production. If this principle is followed than the finally principle is also followed by the "equilibrium" principle, states that where the most beneficial production of a product is one that sits in equilibrium. If a market is out of equilibrium then there is either too much of a product, waste, or there is not enough of a product, excess demand. All of these principles must be followed for a decision to be rational.

It is a little hard to follow, I think you should remember your audience.

The use of the world economics has become far more common in recent years and has also been used incorrectly. Economy doesn’t more always mean market and does not destroy a culture. The decisions based on economics do. Economics is a set of rules that determine a rational decision and nothing more

 The Paragraphs are huge!  I'm a novice in the world of economics, so some clarification would help me somewhat.  There is the need to break up the flow, and somewhat give pause for the reader to get a break, and to catch their breath and absorb the information. 

I'd put the Reagan quote as the start of a new paragraph.  I try to make them as short as possible.  Especially when there is a big concept you want to introduce.

A good rule of thumb is the more complex a subject, the simpler the writing.  (I hope you can follow the logic) To paraphrase Denzel Washington in "Philidelphia," talk to me like an 8 yr old.

When you say economics are "actually the result of economics" do you mean perceptions?  (Are we really a bunch of whiners?)  I think I understand, it's not clear.

What is "horse and sparrow"? What context are those two things used?

The seven principles are somewhat difficult to follow, maybe a list instead of paragraph.

Break up some of those sentances, and couple ideas to no more than two at a time.  It's alot of info!