The Indirect Effects of the Various Revolutions Throughout the History of the Region

The Political and Economic Shifts in the Middle East

The Indirect Effects of the Various Revolutions Throughout the History of the Region

     When we look at the world today, we see an ever changing political spectrum across the globe. Countries that were once the most isolated in the world have now become open to change. In the Middle East, we have seen dictators fall, and revolutions end. However, we often forget about the other nations that are still run by dictatorships, or Monarchies. We know what happens to the nations that are essentially "revolutionized" by the people, but what are the political and economical implications of all this to the other nations who were not part of the arab spring? And what does it mean for the rest of the world today?

      Let's begin with the political and economical history of these nations to understand what is happening in our present. The Middle East prior to the age of Colonization was an area of nomadic tribes people who traded with one another. Each group had a regional leader, but it was hard to maintain laws and economic order being nomadic. As time passed people began to settle in the fertile areas amongst the desert. These different tribes slowly grew into Kingdoms. It would take another entire blog post to describe the history of the Middle Eastern settlement patterns. Essentially, the different kingdoms were taken over by different groups throughout history, at certain points all of it would be under control by one group such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, then the Persians. The most recent "imperialistic" empire would be the Ottoman empire, the Persian Empire, and the Sultanate of Egypt. During World War One, these three empires were the major powers in the Middle East. All of which were extremely conservative, socially, and economically. They were not fond of foreign visitors, and international trade was considered taboo. (Unless it was Persian Carpets). The only area that resisted the Empires, was modern day Saudi Arabia. 

      Following World War One, and World War Two, we saw the Empires fall apart, or shrink in size, due to the uprising of different groups and the support of the international community (The newly formed United Nations). Due to different conflicts and new royal families the political geography of the Middle East changed into what we see today. 

In brief Summary, the Ottoman empire split into Turkey, Syria, and Iraq, into totalitarian dictatorships. Persia changed it's name into "The Islamic Peoples Republic of Iran," in which the Emperor, would now be known as the Shah, and had the power to sign, create, or veto bills as he pleased, but there was a lower house which represented the people, and had a Prime Minister.  The Sultan of Egypt was over thrown, and the "Republic of Egypt," was created. (Not much of a republic, as the President had power for life.) And the tribal areas, were then United into Saudi Arabia, while certain royal families kept their own kingdoms, such as Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, and Qatar. Of course we cannot forget this was the beginning of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that has is continuing to this day, as the land was a British Protectorate, and handed over to the Zionists. 

It was at this point in time many different, political and economical changes occurred. Post WWII, but Pre-1960's, we saw a fairly liberal Middle East, lenient on its citizens, and allowing domestic trade to occur without government involvement. And since the area wasn't dominated by three major empires, trade began to flourish between the different nations of the Middle East. This did not last for long, In 1954, Texco, BP, and other big oil corporations shifted their viewpoint onto the Middle East, and since these counties were essentially run by governments which need not listen to the wants and concerns of the people, a lot of the nations especially Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, began exploiting and selling their oil land to American Companies. This is the beginning of the Modern Arab political and economical map.

     As time went on the arabic people started noticing something. "Why was America, and other Western nations, profiting off of their land?"  Herein began the conservative revolution of the Arab World. Around the 1960's and 70's, the same time as the height of the cold war, a lot of Arabic nations overthrew the dictators or shah's and installed new governments, which were Pro-Arab Nationalist, or (Anti-Western), in the hope of a new government that would respond to the peoples needs.  This created "prosperity" for a minor amount of time, wherein American companies no longer had access to Iranian oil, and in Saudi Arabia, they had to pay new tariffs and taxes in order to access it. This form of economic and foreign policy ideals are very conservative. However the way in which it was dealt with, was rather liberal as the government was in complete control of how much they sold, or kept. 

      But how long did this new revolution last? Answer is, in relative terms, not very long at all. Basically what happened in most of the countries is that they shifted from an old dictator, with a very liberal attitude towards foreign policy and and conservative economic policies, to a new regime with conservative domestic, and foreign views, and a liberal economic style. So what happened internally, the people began being oppressed, religious minority rights were put on hold, women's rights became non-existent, and money would poor into the upper governmental class, not to the people as they had originally hoped for. These were specifically occurring in countries, like Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Tunisia. 

      This style of economics lasted for about 40 years until the present day, when we saw the Arab Spring occur, and new styles of government have taken over. The Arab Spring began with a mostly bloodless and quick revolution in Tunisia in late 2010 and early 2011. Rebels in Egypt grew significantly more powerful shortly after the revolution in Tunisia. The Egyptian revolution was more violent than the Tunisian Revolution, but it successfully ousted former President Hosni Mubarak after several weeks. The Libyan civil war began immediately on the heels of the Egyptian Revolution, and considerably more violent. Libya is still undergoing its government transformation, but appears to be aiming at a more Islamic government than Gaddafi had led. Additionally, Yemen has also replaced its government after months of violence and protests. Yemen's revolution took place alongside the Egyptian Revolution, but was not nearly so dramatic. The Syrian Revolution is ongoing, and has been about as bloody as the Libyan Revolution. At the moment it appears that the fighting in Syria could go on for a very long time.

    The nations that did succeed however, have new interim governments. This is where the topic really gets down to the crux of it all. How do these nations how did rebel, effect the other nations around them that did not rebel. Let's take a look politically, socially, and economically. So out of all the countries that revolted what happened? Egypt, has a new government under the muslim brotherhood, with pro-islamic policies, and arab nationalistic foreign and trade policies. Tunisia's new constitution promotes trade and friendship with other nations, it also allows women to vote, and installed a new democratic government, with term limits. Proving to be one of the most successful revolutions in the region. Syria's conflict is ongoing, and Libya's new interim government recently chose to use Sharia Law as their basis for governmental policy (traditionalist conservative.) So what happened to the other nations that did not revolt? Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey (Which recently saw some protests), Jordan, Bahrain (which crushed its revolt), Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and Oman. First off, the most clear effect, is the fact the un-revolutionized economies, are doing much better than the revolutionized economies. It seems that the policies that these countries had put into practice for so many years, remained effective through tough times. In fact, it can even  be possibly assumed that since once family of governmental leaders can make spontaneous political changes, this flexibility helped them weather the economic storm that the arab spring caused. 

Take a look at this chart:

Rank	Country	GDP Per Capita[4]	GDP (PPP) Total ($US B)[5]
1	Qatar	$ 102,700	$ 101.2
2	Kuwait	$ 40,700	$ 150.2
3	United Arab Emirates	$ 42,000	$ 200.4
4	Israel	$ 31,000	$ 245.3
5	Oman	$ 23,900	$ 69.43
6	Bahrain	$ 21,200	$ 22.85
7	Saudi Arabia	$ 20,400	$ 581.3
8	Turkey	$ 16,067	$ 1189.9
9	Lebanon	$ 16,000	$ 46.03
10	Iran	$ 12,900	$ 876
11	Egypt	$ 6,000	$ 470.4
12	Jordan	$ 5,300	$ 33.06
13	Syria	$ 4,600	$ 102.5
14	Iraq	$ 3,600	$ 96.6
15	State of Palestine	$ 2,900	$ N/A
16	Yemen	$ 2,500	$ 58.2
17	Gaza Strip	$ 2,494	$ N/A

1. ^ CIA - The World Factbook GDP Country Comparison (Per Capita PPP)
2. Jump up^ CIA - The World Factbook GDP Country Comparison (PPP)

What does it tell us? It clearly demonstrates that the countries that did not revolt are currently doing better (economically speaking) than the other nations. Why is that? Since the newly created arab nationalist governments refuse to negotiate, trade with, or associate with a lot of the western countries, their economies crash, because the trade is extremely limited. And since their economic style is more left wing, meaning controlled by the government, it's not possibly for individuals or corporations just to pick up a phone and exchange commodities internationally. That's where they differ from the top 10 countries on the above chart. Those nations, while most being ruled by a royal family, have conservative style economies, in which the government plays lesser of a role, and certain rich families own the oil, chemical, and construction industries that dominate the areas economy. That's why when the revolution occurred, they just shifted their markets to the west, which their government actually permitted.     That's what's going on economically. But what is going on socially, and politically. How did these nations put down, or receive no threat of rebellion even though they are such "evil" dictators in the eyes of the west. (...Yet even though they're considered evil, the west still trades with them...hypocrisy at its finest.) What we have seen is a gradual shift towards liberalism over domestic issues within these countries. For example; although Qatar is ruled by one royal family, the country has zero taxes, but the health care system is all government run, and completely free, pills for chronic medical conditions are free, nursing homes for the elderly are free, education is all free, welfare is provided in substantial amounts to the small amount of homeless, and women are allowed not to wear the traditional hijab. Or Saudi Arabia, to avoid the revolution they liberalized a lot of their domestic policies, for example women in even the most traditional province (Ha'il) are allowed to have their faces uncovered (a big step, although it may seem minor), they have also began a tourism industry to stimulate the economy of local businesses, and they also have began allowing the practice of other faiths, and sects of islam. Crime and Punishment has also eased, the idea of losing limbs, or your life is extremely rare, even for religious offences which is what the countries laws are based upon. To understand let us watch a few clips of a documentary that the Saudi Government allowed the BBC to create, where they went into the most traditional area of Saudi Arabia and filmed the daily lives of people there.  (Clips 1:30, 6:30, 14:40) 

As you can see the Saudi Kingdom is much more lenient than the average person understands it to be. As are many of the other nations in the Middle East, besides the ones you hear about in the news.

During the time of the revolution the Saudi Kingdom, Jordan, Dubai, Kuwait, and the other monarchies liberalized a lot of their domestic policies to avoid the revolt they were seeing with their neighbouring nations.

Instead of the news focussing on these good happenings, the media focussed on the revolt in other nations. These policies actually stimulated the economy of the region. This is one of the reasons we are so ignorant towards these matters. It's also interesting to note, that these prospering arab nations also have some of the highest standards of living in the world, and although human rights watch, and other western based organization site these countries as negative, the people within it are often surveyed if they are in favour of democracy, or a more western liberal based democracy, and majority say no. Why? Speed! They complain directly to the government, and laws directly change through these complaints. There is no medium like we have in Western Liberal Democracies. It is also funny enough, that these countries also directly impact the economies of the U.S and other powerful western nations. When the charges of their petroleum goes up, and they prosper guess who has to pay the price? Answer is, all the nations depending on them.
     Now that we know of the causes, the revolutions, the effects, and the political shifts, what can we take from all this? In my opinion the countries that have revolutionized and continue to revolutionize are falling into the same trap, they can never fully satisfy the needs or functions of the government to the complete satisfaction of the people. When they revolutionize they put into power radicals, who harm their economy through nationalist policies that sound fantastic to the people at the start but by the end of it, turn out harming the average citizen. The nations who did not or have not been affected by the revolutions as much as the others, who have stuck to their traditions and changed over the course of time are doing much better, than the others as they are slowly changing to suit the needs of their people and the world. These nations with these families in power, I'm sure will one day slowly change into a democracy or some such variation, but that will come with time, and will best suit the needs of the people when they actually want it, or when the economy needs it. We can learn from these nations that there needs to be a balance. Nothing can be extremely liberal, because too much governmental control limits trade and harms the economy, but a too traditionally conservative nation harms the people by letting workers get exploited, and socially dividing people through rights violations. The countries in the middle east who survived the arab spring, economically, and politically speaking are the ones who best balanced themselves, an example that not only the other Arab countries can learn from, but the media in the west should note as well.

Government 

The Good

The Bad 

The Ugly 

It has been said "ask not what your Country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." These are famous words from a man who held the most powerful position in the Western World during times of racism, conflict and internal strife. Of course, this man was none other than John F. Kennedy. He urged the American people of the early 60's to join together, to create a a civilization of unified patriots who would reach for goals farther than the moon. John F. Kennedy had achieved many things during his first three years in Government, yet the hopes and dreams of American progression were shot down on November 22, 1963 Dallas, Texas.

                                                                                With that being said, it is obvious that the Government plays a significant role in the lives of the common North American citizen. In the example of President Kennedy, the American people were influenced by the policies developed by the President. Policies regarding freedom, racism and space exploration affected. It is also accurate to say that the actions of those who are under the Government's control affect the way in which it operates. Through voting, referendums and general protests influence Governmental decision and action. In the story of John F. Kennedy, it is clear that the actions of one free American who had the right to posses a weapon changed the fate of America indefinitely. One bullet changed the Governmental landscape of the World's most powerful country and shook the foundations on which it stood. 

what is the point of the Government? 

Government can be defined as an external body that controls and regulates a nation and people. Through this definition we see as, specifically Canadians, we are as free as our government allows us to be. Our rights are always upheld, barring we do not infringe on the rights of other people. This infringement leads to governmental interference and a loss of rights for the guilty party. Through this we see that the government serves the Canadian people, to preserve peace and freedom for those who choose to follow the rules the government creates. Beyond this, the government has many other responsibilities that affect cities, provinces, and the country as a whole. In general, there are about 6 core functions of the Government.

The Government is in charge of stabilizing the economy. Within this act the Government attempts to attack issues such as unemployment at the root. A nation is only as strong as it's citizens bank accounts, if the people of a country are not employed they are not productive members of their society. Between Canada and the United states much focus is spent on job creation to internally generate an income for it's people. If there is more money in the pockets of the people, the more likely they are to spend it. In addition the Government spends its own money to subsidize businesses. These businesses are then hopefully able to survive and succeed to boost the economy for future benefit. In this way price ceilings and price floors are implemented by governments to preserve  competition between companies and protect the consumers. 

The Government also corrects for externalities. The government instills sanctions on corporations that are polluting the earth in which all people share. At this day and age people all around the world realize that the environment that we are poisoning is only going to become worse for future generations. Governments tax corporations that exceed pollution limitations no matter what degree of offence. On the contrary, the government also recognizes there are worthy causes that deserve and require money to continue to prosper. Systems such as education and healthcare are highly regarded in Canada and the government opens its pocketbook so that theses systems continue to work. 

                This system is not always perfect. In many situations corporations still find ways to avoid governmental regulations and dump waste into our communal system without punishment. Our schools and healthcare system have major flaws where the people who depend on these systems suffer greatly due to their needs not being met. Lastly, we see that the government also makes decisions that could be perceived as extremely controversial. Such as bailing out major corporations at the expense of the people who are forced to pay thousands of dollars in taxes. 

The government is responsible for redistributing income. The Government attempts to create a system that taxes the rich more than it taxes the poor. In an ideal world this makes sense when the upper class is charged appropriately for what they owe to society.. but of course, once again, the system is not perfect. Personally, I see many flaws with it because the Government is majorly affecting the middle class through this action. By no means is my family extremely wealthy, but my parents work very hard for the money that they earn. Additionally, they were smart through their investments in the company that my father works for. Without going into exact values the payout that we will be receiving in the next 5 years exceeds what we spent many years ago… enter the Canadian and American government. After taxes from both the American and Canadian Government's, my family will only see 54% of the money that was earned through our investments. By taxing the "rich" we see that the people who have created this country, the middle class, many people are affected by the decisions of the government. 

The government also provides Public goods and services that the market is not able or willing to provide. Whether it be transportation, defence, disposal or infrastructure the government spends a lot of its budgets on services that affect the everyday lives of its people. Everyone who lives under a governmental system is affected by the goods and services it supplies… yet the complaints are endless. "They never fix the potholes" "canada has two seasons, winter and construction" "The bus was a half hour late today, I missed happy hour at Starbucks." It seems the government can't win when it comes to satisfying the needs of the people, and it never will. Living in the western world the people of canada and America have expectations that exceed the budgets of their governments. Although sometimes it can be argued the government misuses tax payer dollars, efforts are made to make our country better. The services the government provides such as garbage disposal and public transportation are essential, and as free citizens we should all be thankful for the luxuries we have. 

The government makes attempts to maintain competition. In order to maintain a strong economy a government must make efforts to ensure that all business have an opportunity to succeed. As mentioned before, price ceilings and price floors are established by the government when the government feels it is necessary. Price ceilings are enforced when a government feels that the equilibrium price is too high. When too many consumers are unable to afford a particular commodity, especially a necessity, a government will enforce a price ceiling to allow all to take advantage of the product being sold. Price floors are put into place so that businesses are able to stay competitive with each other. When equilibrium prices are too low for many businesses to stay in production the government steps in and sets a price floor to establish a price that more businesses are able to afford. In addition, the government realizes there are monopolies that exists (hydro) that are natural in existence. That fact forces governments to regulate the actions of these corporations to ensure the people are not being taken advantage of. 

The last of the functions is maintaining legal and social frameworks. Trough this function the government establishes laws, provides information and services to boost economy, establishes a monetary system and defines and enforces property rights. These are the basic frameworks that outline the daily lives of people within the governments. People go to work to make money while abiding by the law, both of which are established by the government. These same people return to their houses which they have a right to, thanks to the government and thrive within this system if the economy is strong enough to sustain this quality of living. Through this we see the government permits a lot of the luxuries that many citizens enjoy. We enjoy freedom and peace thanks to governmental law and authority. We enjoy the comfort of being financially secure in homes that we own and have a right to because the government has a system in which we are able to benefit from. And lastly, we are able to continue to make money and purchase houses because the economy is (hopefully) thriving because of governmental management. 

Final Thoughts  

It is clear to me that people, generally, have no problem complaining about their government. In Canada, complaints about infrastructure, laws, leaders and policies are constantly under duress, yet… only 62% of Canadians voted in the last major election. It seems that because we are born into freedom it is our inherent right to complain endlessly about all aspects of Canadian life. Yes, I believe in free speech. Yes, I have complained about policy from the municipal to Provincial level. and YES, I even complained about the governmental system of taxing the rich in this opinionated biased blog. I guess you could say its within our nature as a western society to uncover and dissect all negatives that affect our lives; this is a terrible trait a majority of us share when it comes to our government. But as the late great John F. Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" we need to consider we are all blessed to enjoy this free democracy. As a people united we will all prosper under the good intentions of our leaders, divided we will all perish under the weight of our own criticism. 

Black Friday - Customers Demand

                Recently in economics class we have been reviewing the topics of elasticity and inelasticity and how it can affect the supply and demand of a product. Seeing how Christmas is right around the corner and black Friday had just occurred, I would like to take a moment to show you how it can affect the supply and demand of a product. 

On November 29 a glorious Friday, millions of Americans and some Canadians woke up for the annual Black Friday Day sale some people waking up as early as 4 in the morning just to stand in line at a Best Buy or Future Shop just to get the biggest bang for their buck. Now how does this relate to the topic of economics? Well most of us know that people are cheap and when there is a possibility to save money we go nuts. Marketers use this day as a way to jump start the Holiday season, sucking in individuals to buy their products at outrageous deals and then getting them hooked and wanting to come back for more. For example a pair of Nike shoes normally going for $109.99 is dropped down to $79.99, now how are companies able to afford these outrageous price drops? By selling these elastic products in higher quantities then which they normally do making a quick profit and clearing out all of the old year’s stuff that was not able to sell in the previous year. It is also a way the companies can get rid of products that were not doing so well, but pricing them so low that the customer just “has” to buy it. So even though a product may be not selling as well and demand is very low, they can increase the demand by decreasing these prices during the sale. Funny how just days before its thanksgiving and they give thanks for everything they have then go crazy the next day wanting everything.

For some stores though these black Friday Day sales backfired says Forbes magazine. Walmart wanted to take the holiday in a new way this year, avoiding the stampedes of people and the trampling of some by opening their doors a day early on the Thursday. This being the case it brought about a leisurely shopping for everyone, and not huge stampedes of people racing to every deal they had. By having the extra day to shop people were not as worried about passing by on a great deal so initially less people showed up and not as much product was sold. By keeping black Friday limited to the one day, companies can get very high demand for their products almost selling all of inventory. But even though for some stores it backfired for others it was a marketing success.

 Just before the big sales, companies like to jack up their prices extra high, for example a TV its marked up to $1500 but originally only $900. Companies will slowly lower the price from $1500 to $1200 and then on the day of the sale go back to $900 so that they can say that is a great deal because it was originally $1500 and now its $900 making it seem like you made savings of $600 but really you paid for exactly what the marker wanted and the original price. So now that people know of these scams you think they would be smarter but people still continue to think they are getting a deal. But not only did this black friday have dirty discounts but there had been some dirty shopping as well when fights began to break out in many of the stores offering the sales. But what can you expect from a bunch of Americans, anyways continuing on about the price and demand many of the stores in which their sales had backfired on them said they could make up there loss in profits through Cyber Monday where you could only get deals online. This opened up the sales to everyone who was to lazy to actually go out to the stores or wanted to avoid the hassle and stampedes and in turn also opened into the cyber market. The Demand for certain goods would increase because of it now being available online, customers can get a product with only a click of a button in turn making more profits even though there are major discounts on some items. 
In conclusion it seems that when these when these sales come around it really does not matter the price of a product or not as long as it says sale on the label people are going to buy it.

PlayStation 4 vs. Xbox One

The products are officially out and the results are in, so now we can pose the question, who is the winner?



Xbox One matched PlayStation 4 console sales on day one of over one million. Xbox One was released in North America, Australia, and parts of South America and Europe. The console is sold out in most places Microsoft said as they work to refill stocks.
Nonetheless, PlayStation 4's first day totals are a bit more impressive because the console only launched in the U.S. and in Canada, a significantly smaller market.

PS4 and Xbox One deals and bundles
If the $399 price tag was not tempting enough, Sony announced that the PS4 will get an assortment of promotions on launch day. Every retail PS4 box will contain a voucher for a $10 wallet credit for the PSN store, a 30-day free PlayStation Plus trial membership, and a 30-day Music Unlimited trial membership. The two 30-day trials are \ valid for new subscribers only. You also get the opportunity of a month of PlayStation Plus which will get you some free games and $10 is always better than $0.

Features 
Xbox One is called the One for a reason. As Matthew Moskovciak says in his deep dive into the Xbox One as a living room device, Microsoft wants to bring all your living room entertainment -cable TV, gaming, and streaming-video -to a single user interface with the help of a sophisticated second-generation Kinect camera/motion sensor and video pass-through functionality that's included with every $499 Xbox One. "That's a stark contrast to Sony's gaming-centric PS4, which has jettisoned -- at least at its launch -- many of the living room features that endeared it home theater enthusiasts, including support for DLNA, CDs, MP3s, JPEGs and any type of digital video file," Moskovciak says. While the PS4 has some impressive new features, including PS Vita remote play the prior game broadcasting (other users can watch you play) and clip sharing, and a $59.99 camera of its own for amplified reality games and facial-recognition sign-in, the Xbox One has a seemingly more robust feature set that seems more futuristic. The concept of  switching between playing a game and watching TV at an instant  -or even watching TV while playing a game- is very appealing.
The only problem is that Microsoft still has some work to do on the software.


Performance 
The PS4 seems to have a slight performance edge but you can expect that most games look almost identical on each console.
Where the Xbox One's performance score took the more significant hit  when it came to controlling and navigating the system. The fact of the matter is it only identified voice commands about 75% of the time, which does create frustration. That should improve in the future, but for now it is a problem.

Design  The design incorporates the design of the hardware and the designs of the software. The PS4 has the advantage in both instances. From a hardware outlook, the most apparent difference is that the PS4's power supply is integrated into the box while the Xbox One (much similar to the 360 before it) except it still has a chunky exterior power brick. The PS4 controller is also preferable. It has a built-in rechargeable battery doubles as a motion controller (which replaces the PS Move), includes a built-in speaker and headphone jack, in  addition to a share button which offers quick links to social media sites.  You can now even recharge the PS4 remote while in standby mode.
 
Value 
The PS4 has the leverage of being $100 cheaper than the Xbox One, which includes the Kinect. When you add in the PlayStation Camera ($59.99), which  enhances the PS4 experience but is not particularly necessary. Although, the only problem is you cannot really do anything with the Xbox One without an Xbox Live gold membership (which costs $60 per year). That makes the Xbox One's real cost to $560 (including the membership fee).
Sony now requires you to buy a PS Plus account ($50 per year) if you want to do any online gaming. However, you can use applications such as Netflix without buying a PS Plus account.
In the end, if the Xbox TV overlay feature (OneGuide) and all the innovative Kinect features worked perfectly -and without certain restrictions, such as lack of DVR support- it would be easier to say those extras merited spending the extra $100 on the system along with the $60 Xbox Live yearly fee. Until Microsoft works out the kinks, in my opinion the PS4 gets the higher value score.

Production Costs
According to Sony Computer Entertainment CEO Andrew House the PlayStation 4 costs $381 for Sony to build, $18 under its retail price of $399. The figure comes from a hardware teardown by research firm IHS that included the bill of materials, which amounts to $372, as well as per-unit cost of assembly in the assessment. The teardown notes that the system's processor and memory account for about half of the cost of the entire console at $188, and that the PS4's 500 GB hard drive is $1 cheaper than the 120 GB one found in the PS3, thanks to the major decline in HDD costs during the past four years.
A Microsoft executive said that each sale of the upcoming Xbox One console will break-even or be sold at profit from its launch date.
According to Microsoft’s Yusuf Mehdi, the company plans to make money on selling games for the console and the Xbox Live subscription (which, he noted, has grown to 48 million members now).
“The strategy will continue which is that we’re looking to be break even or low margin at worst on Xbox One,” said Mehdi. “And then make money selling additional games, the Xbox Live service and other capabilities on top. And as we can cost-reduce our box as we’ve done with 360, we’ll do that to continue to price reduce and get even more competitive with our offering.”

Elastic or Inelastic?
According to Investopedia the degree to which a demand or supply curve reacts to a change in price is the curve's elasticity. Elasticity varies among products because some products may be more essential to the consumer.
Regardless of the fact that both of these products are elastic, meaning that they are not particularly necessary, but a luxury, these products are highly desirable.
This is demonstrated by the fact that both products sold over one million units on launch date.
Important aspects of the products such as design and innovative features all contribute to the popularity of the product. The more advanced the features are the more appealing the product is. Additionally, where the product is sold also contributes to the products level of success. You would assume that the larger the market the higher the sales, but in regards to the Xbox One it was available in all of North America, Australia, and parts of South America and Europe but the PS4 still matched the amount of sales (over one million units) in just the United States of America and Canada which is definitely impressive. So you also have to take product loyalty into account. When consumers become committed to your brand and make repeat purchases over time. Brand loyalty is a result of consumer behavior and is affected by a person's preferences. Loyal customers will consistently purchase products from their preferred brands, regardless of convenience or price. Although, the PS4 is available at a cheaper price in comparison to the Xbox One as well.
Another important component to a successful product is how the company markets their product. The company say Sony or Microsoft has to make their gaming console appealing to people of all ages in order to increase their profit. The larger the target group the better the product does in terms of sales.

In conclusion, I think that the PS4 won in practically all categories stated previously.

Price Elasticity of Demand

In the past week, we have been learning the concept of elasticity and inelasticity. We have learned about how different people have their own ways of looking at how far they are willing to spend on a certain product. As discussed in class, elasticity is known for one in which price change brings about a greater proportional change in the quantity that the consumers demand while with inelasticity, instead of a greater proportional change, the price change brings about a smaller proportional change in the quantity that consumers demand.

In one of our previous classes we were to watch a video about the “life changing” Tummy Tuck jeans, also known as “the most uplifting jeans in the world.” These jeans were targeted towards women over 40 years old and the company suggested selling the jeans for about $100 per pair. The only reason why they suggested selling the jeans for that price was because the CEO of the company has a daughter who believes that women all over the world of all ages, races, religions and background have trouble reducing weight on their tummy and therefore, cannot wear the jeans they long to wear. The demand for these jeans is inelastic because no matter what the price was, women over 40 are willing and able to purchase these jeans even during an economic recession.

Another article that was found was about the Prime Minister of Malaysia announcing that the subsidy for the sugar will be cut down by Rm0.20 (0.07 Canadian) per kg meaning that the price of the sugar will be raised by that amount for every kg. From the history of Malaysia based on the article, the price of sugar increased 4 times in the past three years or so. According to the Prime Minister, the price of the sugar was raised because there were too many people with diabetes. A good example to apply this was comparing the two chocolates: Kit Kat and Cadbury. Price elasticity of demand of Kit Kat chocolate refers to the extent of change in price of a product demanded by buyers in response to the change in its prices. When the price increases from RM5 to RM6, the quantity demand decreases from 100 units to 70 units. The total revenue decreases from RM500 (RM5 x 100units) to RM420 (RM6 x 70units), it shows that the price is elastic. Due to the fact that Kit

Kat is more popular, the quantity is responsive to price changes. When the price of Cadbury increase from RM5 to RM6, the quantity demand decreases from 100units to 90units. The total revenue increases from RM500 (RM5 x 100units) to RM540 (RM6 x 90units), it shows that the price is inelastic. Since Cadbury isn’t as popular as Kit Kat, its quantity is less responsive to price changes. After reading this article, price elasticity of demand is very useful in helping brainstorm price strategies for a product. It can help managers and owners realize how changes in price of a product will affect the quantity being sold.

In conclusion, it’s nice learning about the price elasticity of demand because it’s crazy how much quantity can be affected when there is a change in price. I personally am a part of the big portion that will not pay if prices increase. The only time I would pay is if it’s reasonable and I know what it is worth.

Work Cited

"The Malaysian Insider." Sugar 20 Sen Dearer from Tomorrow (2012): n. pag. The Malaysian Insider. 28 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2013

"Subsidy of Sugar ,price Elasticity of Demand of Kit Kat and Cadbury." Web log post. Talk About Economics. N.p., 28 Oct. 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.

How does Supply and Demand affect pricing?

The past week we have been taking about how supply and demand affect the price of a product. We also did a game where there was a shortage of ice and people had various reasons as to why they need the ice. There were two methods for getting the ice. The first method was a first come, first serve basis. A majority of us sat down because of the benefit of the ice was lower than the opportunity cost to wait for the ice. The second method was where we found out everyone's benefit of the ice and found out the equilibrium price so everyone would get the ice at a fixed price. From this activity, we learned that when supply decreases and demand increases, the equilibrium price increases.

Now I'll talk about what supply and demand is. Supply represents how much the market can offer. Demand refers to how much of a product or service is desired by consumers. Supply and demand is an economic price determination in the market. It pretty much sums up that in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by consumers will equal the quantity supplied by producers, resulting in an equilibrium of price and quantity.

There are four basic laws of supply and demand:

1.      When demand increases while supply remains the same, it leads to a higher equilibrium price and quantity.

2.      When demand decreases while supply remains the same, it leads to a lower equilibrium price and quantity.

3.      When supply increases while demand remains the same, it leads to a lower equilibrium price and higher quantity.

4.      When supply decreases while demand remains the same, it leads to a higher equilibrium price and lower quantity.

When supply and demand are equal the economy is said to be at equilibrium. When this happens, the allotment of goods is at its most efficient because the number of goods that are being supplied is the same as the number of goods being demanded by consumers.  Therefore, everyone is satisfied with the current condition. At the current price, the suppliers are selling their goods and consumers are receiving the goods that they are demanding. There can also be a disequilibrium when there is an excess of supplies or excess of demand. If the price of a product is set too high, an excess of supply will be created and there will be allotment inefficiency.  Excess demand happens when the price is set too low and because of this too many consumers want the goods while producers aren't making enough of it.

My analysis

In conclusion, I think that having an equal amount of supply and demand is good for the economy. Both producers and consumers are satisfied because producers are making the right amount of goods so consumers get what they wanted.