Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 WhatsApp Us Now
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/15/891488686/summer-school-2-markets-pickles
Listen this 31 minutes podcast and answer the questions. No need to use formal words.
1. Explain how the food banks improved efficiency by creating a market system to allocate food.
2. Each food bank was given “money” (shares) based on need and number of clients served. How does that differ from how a real market works, and what effect does that have on distribution/allocation? Which method do you think is better?
3. One main topic of the podcast is whether market forces are the best way to allocate scarce resources. A major debate going on these days is how much market forces should be used in allocating resources in education (for example should all schools be private) and health care (other wealthy nations have national health care, not the largely private system we use the US). Choose one of these areas (education or health care) and briefly explain why you think markets should or should not be used.
1. Food banks improved efficiency by creating a market system to allocate food by allowing them to use their “money” (shares) to purchase the specific food items they needed. This allowed them to better meet demand, as well as be more efficient in resource allocation since they could obtain exactly what they needed rather than having excess or understocked resources.
2. In a real market, goods are purchased with money and those who have more money can acquire more of the item(s), whereas the food bank system gives each organization an equal number of “shares” regardless of need or size of client base served. This method limits how much any one organization can buy and ensures that there is enough for everyone since all organizations are on an even playing field when it comes to purchasing power; however, this may not ensure optimal allocations since some organizations may need more than others but not necessarily have access to it due to limited shares available. I think both methods have pros and cons, so depending on the situation either one could be better suited than the other.
3 For education specifically, I think markets should not be used in resource allocation since students come from varying backgrounds and circumstances that inherently put some at a disadvantage monetarily compared to others which would create unequal opportunities for success if private schools were implemented across the board instead of public ones like we currently have in place today. Similarly with health care, leaning too heavily into market forces could result similar issues where those who cannot afford coverage are at an inherent risk versus individuals who can pay for insurance plans out-of-pocket or through employer provided benefits; thus overall I believe it’s best for public resources such as education and healthcare services remain largely publicly funded so that equal opportunities do exist between individuals no matter their financial circumstance or background enabling broad accessibly when necessary without discrimination based on income level/status etc.