Guns versus Butter
The set up:
In macroeconomics, the guns versus butter model is the classic example of the production possibility frontier. It models the relationship between a nation's investment in defense and civilian goods. In this model, a nation has to choose between two options when spending its finite resources. It can buy either guns or butter, or a combination of both, a nation places more emphasis on guns (war) or butter (feeding its people). This can also be seen as an analogy for choices between defense and civilian spending in more complex economies. The nation will have to decide which level of guns and butter best fulfills its needs. In the guns vs. butter decision, there is an important level of opportunity cost. Which is more important, food for the people, or protection for the people?
The question:
Imagine yourself as a candidate for the United States presidency, under what platform will you decide to run under? Do you place a greater emphasis on guns or butter? Be sure to include your reasons why... Be sure to think in terms of an economist, break down your reasons why, what is the domino effect of your decision?
(directions: I will start the forum...the first student will respond to my answer, student #2 will respond to student #1 answer, student #3 who replies will respond to student #2's answer and so on.....)
In macroeconomics, the guns versus butter model is the classic example of the production possibility frontier. It models the relationship between a nation's investment in defense and civilian goods. In this model, a nation has to choose between two options when spending its finite resources. It can buy either guns or butter, or a combination of both, a nation places more emphasis on guns (war) or butter (feeding its people). This can also be seen as an analogy for choices between defense and civilian spending in more complex economies. The nation will have to decide which level of guns and butter best fulfills its needs. In the guns vs. butter decision, there is an important level of opportunity cost. Which is more important, food for the people, or protection for the people?
The question:
Imagine yourself as a candidate for the United States presidency, under what platform will you decide to run under? Do you place a greater emphasis on guns or butter? Be sure to include your reasons why... Be sure to think in terms of an economist, break down your reasons why, what is the domino effect of your decision?
(directions: I will start the forum...the first student will respond to my answer, student #2 will respond to student #1 answer, student #3 who replies will respond to student #2's answer and so on.....)
- Mr. Dachpian's response: It is far more important to protect your people than it is to feed your people. Who will be left to feed, if you don't first protect them?