A few weeks ago, I was faced with the daunting task of writing about communication forms in my introduction to academic writing. As someone who is equally comfortable in communicating in symbols and words, but someone who is uncomfortable in both, this sounded like a terrible task and the end of my happy mark in one of my requisite courses. In the process of trying to merge economics and theories from the study of communications in class, I happened to stumble upon a paper detailing the effects of using certain vocabulary in the success of papers detailing primarily with mathematical concepts, like imaginary numbers or chaos theory. 
Category Archives: Original Articles
We’ve all been in a situation where a professor is teaching and everyone in the class is lost. Often in those situations no one raises their hands even though everyone in the class would benefit. Why?
It turns out game theory has an answer. We discuss this phenomena with Professor Joel Blit. We also discuss other, more serious situations of this game and some potential actions one can take to change the game.
It’s one of two major assumptions in economics, and taught within the first week in most 101 classes: rationality. How do we define rationality? Of course, we can assume that human behavior is “rational”, but that doesn’t help us construct any models unless we actually ascribe the word some meaning.
State of Chinese economy
The Chinese economy’s GDP in 2016 was at $11.2T USD, compared to $18.6T USD in the US and $1.5T USD in Canada (Figure 1). As the world’s second largest economy, reforms to Chinese financial regimes must be closely monitored as they have large implications for every other global nation.
Check out Part 1 to see where the concurring opinion’s views were left off
On the use of principles in making a judgement, legal positivism would hold that such a method is weak, as principles do not determine particular results and are indeterminate (Hart 127-28). As such, Hobby Lobby should be provided religious freedom on the bounds that the principles cited by the concurring opinion are intangible weights of evaluation, whereas only the rules governing those particular cases of precedence are relevant. Hence, the dissenting opinion cites the Dictionary Act definition of ‘person’ as one that includes only specific corporations such as nonprofit organizations and profiting individuals, to establish that a comprehensive interpretation of ‘person’ has already been taken into account as part of the rule (SCOTUS 73).