Economics: Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory is an approach used by social scientists to understand human behavior. The approach has long been the dominant paradigm in economics...," (Green, 2002).

This theory is a fundamental framework for understanding "rationality" in relation to economics. And here, rationality simply means that individuals make well deliberated decisions - individuals reason with themselves before purchasing items or making other economic decisions. This is the theory of weighing costs and benefits.

While there are many sub-theories within the overarching theory of rational choice, the main tenant of the theory posits that individuals regularly, and logically, make decisions based against what constraints face them at any particular time (e.g. money constraints, market constraints, sociological constraints, etc., etc...). Most scientists and theorists that support this theory openly acknowledge that this model does not completely reflect reality and the complex structures of choice faced in everyday situations. Yet it is a good model for constructing an understanding of the ways in which individuals rationalize choices.

Individuals maximize their benefits while minimizing their costs through careful consideration of different courses of action. Individuals, according to this model, have infinite amounts of time available in the decision making process.

A rational choice analysis of the market for fresh tomatoes, for example, would generally involve a description of the desired purchases of tomatoes by buyers, the desired production and sales of tomatoes by sellers, and how these desired purchases and desired sales interact to determine the price and quantity sold of tomatoes in the market. The typical tomato buyer is faced with the problem of how much of his income ( or more narrowly, his food budget) to spend of tomatoes as opposed to some other good or service. The typical tomato seller is faced with the problem of how many tomatoes to produce and what price to charge for them, (Green 2002).

Common sense tells us that individuals have sets of outcomes based on sets of decisions. For example, based on whether the tomato buyer buys a tomato, walks away from the stand with nothing, or chooses another vegetable (if applicable) the outcomes vary. The latter would propose a new set of options that would lead into more complex tributaries of decision. Nevertheless, concepts such as strict preference (an individual prefers one particular thing, but could swayed to another), indifference (an individual does not prefer one item over the other), completeness (individual actions are ranked, thus setting up a hierarchical, decisional framework), and transitivity ( an individual prefers one thing over all other things), are all just that, concepts.


Another interesting concept is that of dynamic inconsistency. This concept relates to how individuals view the present and the future when determining what decisions to make. Moreover, to better understand this before talking about it, this concept champions the idea of multiple-selves - each individual is composed of the present-self, the future-self, the past-self, etc., etc.This concept is based on the idea that the decision-maker's selves cannot always (and to be more distinct, hardly ever) agree with one another, fighting among themselves about which decisions to make.

The important concept to know when discussing dynamic inconsistency is that rational choice theory predicts that all of a person's selves will agree with each other at some point (more often than not) and become time-consistent. But this take on dynamic inconsistency is backed up by empirical data that is found to be common in all human instances - it is inherent - it is not a special case relegated to the theory of rational choice.

An example of time inconsistency is: Students, the night before an exam, often wish that the exam could be put off for one more day. If asked on that night, such students might agree to commit to paying, say, $10 on the day of the exam for it to be held the next day. Months before the exam is held, however, students generally do not care much about having the exam put off for one day. And, in fact, if the students were made the same offer at the beginning of the term, that is, they could have the exam put off for one day by committing during registration to pay $10 on the day of the exam, they probably would reject that offer. The choice is the same, although made at different points in time. Because the outcome would change depending on the point in time, the students would exhibit time inconsistency (Wikipedia). 

There are more examples and sub-theories dealing with rational choice, but, for the sake of the economic slant of this post, these are the most important. These are the main points stressed when this theory is applied to economics as opposed to other sociological sciences.

But these concepts seem to apply and only hold true in the face of ideal, self-contained instances and don't hold as much weight in real world situations as there are a wide array of circumstances affecting the decision making processes of individuals. And, it would seem, that if rationality were the sole actor in decision making, other theories would not exist due to rationality's implicit role in every day life. We must think of market values and fluctuations, inflation, political and economic health, and the overall idea of rationality itself. What is rational to some may be irrational to others - rationality depends on situational events and individual ideologies.

Sociology: Theories on War

War has existed from the moment man realized he could kill. Wars have been fought for a plethora of reasons:  from power and resources to women and honor to religion and ideology. It seems there is nothing worth attaining peace for - for every stride taken in the name of peace, there is a stride taken in the name of war, a rebuttal to that peace.

Scholars have long debated the rationals and reasons behind war, what facilitates it, what keeps it going, and what ends it. And there are varying theories that attempt to answer these questions that take into consideration, among other things, economics, governmental ideologies and systems, societal norms and mores, and individual and small group decisions. Therefore, governments and societies in general, are invested in the study of war as war serves two key roles: chief shaper and fundamental liquefier of states.

One theory posits that nation-states are fundamentally concerned with their own security. This theory implements an  "interstate/anarchic" system, one that pits each state against the other. Each state is subject to the unforeseeable actions of the states which border it and the desires and plans of the peoples within those states. Any thing could happen at any time. Security, this theory suggests, can only be maintained through military power, not diplomacy or any other action.

This "interstate/anarchic" theory does raise interesting and pertinent points and, as a theory, is logical. Yet, history does prove that military power is not the determining factor of security as diplomacy and other factors often way in when considering politics and inter-governmental structures. 


Leaders are often influenced by societal norms and mores within any particular nation-state. These held values and principles can negatively or positively affect the outcome of any political process. These stresses of what the populace expects weigh heavy, most of the time, on the minds of politicians, if for nothing more than chances at re-election. This thought stems from a theory which hypothesizes that bureaucratization is a chief factor in declaring war.

And many nations have fought wars that are not economically sound or what is best for national security, but over territory, religion and ideology. Sometimes, these choices are irrational, they are based on fear, hate, passion, and self-interest. Sometimes, these choices ignore best interests of the nation as a whole and executives and bureaucrats ( or in some cases the populace as a whole)  become temporarily blinded by short term aspirations.

The concerning factor is uncertainty. War breeds from uncertainty. War breeds from impatience. War breeds from constriction. 

For example, take the American Revolutionary War. Under constraints put on the colonies by the British monarchy and, to some extent, parliament, the thirteen colonies banded together in revolt. The sociological structure shifted from that of the controlled to that of the free (or less controlled as the fledgling government grew).

Uncertainty, as a cause of war, can be seen through the Holocaust. Before WWII, the German people were all ready on shaky ground with those of Jewish heritage and descent. But economic depression took hold in Germany and the socialist movement gained more and more support. The conditions grew ripe for the German people to act on their uncertainties, uncertainties that the Jews were the cause of all German problems.

Ideology leads to war. The spread of Communism throughout the world suring the 20th century can attest to this. Many nations, including the United States, were sucked into conflicts of ideology - East v. West, Capitalism v. Communism, containment. And here, war needen't be categorized as open conflict: the Cold War, although, as the name implies, one of no open militarisitc agression, was still a war. It was simlpy a war of ideology and social constructs.


But a steadfast, concrete theory of war will forever be elusive. The factors that lie behind the armed conflicts around the globe are far too intricate to boil down to one cohesive theory. War is erratic, unpredictable. It is the one societal occurrence that is the most terrifying. War is not isolated - whole societies become involved or don't. There is no picking and choosing. 

Hard Topics, Harder Writes

Many times, writers have a difficult time drawing their readers in because the topic is obtuse or odious or just flat boring: medicine, economics, legal issues. Sometimes issues can be touchy. Sometimes the writer has to tread carefully, hoping not to step on toes. Religion is the key culprit here, but truly, it could be any topic depending on the audience and region in which the piece is to be published in and for. And sometimes topics are simply difficult to write about due to the exorbitant amount of facts related to them.

Writers have to know the facts. Hard topics can make the writer feel ignorant because the facts may be convoluted or it's not the writer's niche. Understanding of the topic is necessary for the writer to connect with his audience and understanding takes research and, most importantly, time, something most writers are severely short of.

Here are some op-ed pieces that do a good job in engaging the reader and making him care about the material, pieces that up and coming writers can learn a little something from.These articles present easily digestible facts.

I do not disagree or agree with all of the following pieces and some I partially agree or disagree with. I simply believe these to be pertinent examples of good, persuasive writing.

Economics: Panic, Debt, and Unemployment

Legal Issues: Delaying health benefits is a big risk

International Affairs: The not-so-safe Euro zone

Arts and Culture: Conan O' Brian made the smart move

Medicine and Health: Calorie counters

Religion: Sack the pro-life quarterback? (most of these step on toes no matter the subject. If interested, check the multitude of op-ed dissentions found in the On Faith section in which this piece was found. These could also fall under legal issues, but they more directly address ethical issues rather than legislative issues.)

Sports: Payton's clutch moves, Peyton's biggest loss, More snap judgments

Electronic Relationships

Social networking has become something more than classmate searching, something more than friend finding, something more than chatting and finding those people with common interests. Social networking has become a way to infiltrate the business world, among other things, and a way to make multitudes of connections in almost every professional field. Social networking has become a tool to keep up with the faced paced nature of modern world.

Everyone from schools, organizations, and businesses tp activists and other groups are all in one spot, vying for a piece of the attention-pie. Advertisements and comments and updates and alerts keep the social networker in the know, keep him plugged in to the now and the important ( more likely, the deemed-important). Everything is connected, seemingly.

But are we really connected? It does seem as such, doesn't it? Long-lost friends contact one another after decades, running into each other through the "you might know this person" feature on Facebook or Myspace. Classmates keep up with each other well after high school and college friends make sure everyone made it home from the party. Your status tells everyone you got that much battled for promotion or that you finally popped the question - maybe you even asked that special someone through a comment or message (it isn't far fetched).  
And that's the thing - for all of its perks and aid to connectivity, social networking has computerized our interpersonal relationships. Can we really understand each other simply through message - do messages really convey everything we say both explicitly and implicitly?

Roommates wake in the morning, one in the kitchen, one in the bedroom. One has his laptop and the other has his iPhone - they say good morning through Facebook or Myspace chat, maybe physically interacting or speaking to one another briefly the rest of the day.

Electronic conversations are so much easier than physical, face-to-face discourse. These binary conversations allow the individuals involved more time to process information and formulate answers. In real-world interactions, conversations are fast paced and often short and usually leave only a small window for conciseness.

And it feels like people, in general, are losing, to a certain extent, real, interpersonal contact with one another. Everyone's plugged in and connected to one another through the intermediaries that are computers. A great majority of people aren't getting together and expressing their views and ideas and participating in human interaction. But, perhaps, that is an archaic form of communication - the letter, the telegraph, the telephone, the interactive group.

Of course, people get together because they have to - professors issue group work, bosses call meetings. But how often do we get together to discuss our ideas as a cohesive group, a group where body language can be read and inflection and tone can be heard?

But some would argue these points are not necessary for the growth and initiation of relationships. Some would argue that many relationships/friendships have blossomed on social networking sites and that these sites were created for that application - friend making plain and simple. And they would be right on the latter point.

But the growth of a relationship, no matter where it begins and ends, relies on interpersonal contact - individuals have to meet at some point to really know each other.

U.S History - The Marshall Plan

In 1947, the world was reeling from the devastation wrought by the Second World War. The capitals of Europe still smoldered even in the midst of reconstruction and the futures of their people swayed in limbo.

A substantial amount of the estimated 60 million WWII casualties were residents of mainland Europe. Of those who struggled through the conflict and found themselves breathing at its end found themselves in dire straits.Infrastructures lied in ruin - roads, bridges, railways, and airstrips were devastated by air strikes and demolitions leaving many villages, towns, and cities economically isolated.

By contrast, the economy of the United States found itself in the midst of an economic and consumer spending boom. Throughout the war, U.S. factories had not only supplied the United States war effort, but the war effort of its allies as well.

Post-war reconstruction frameworks were discussed at both the Yalta Conference in February 1945 and the Potsdam Conference from July 17 - August 2 1945. Only the Potsdam Conference yielded a feasible plan - the Morgenthau Plan - but by 1947, problems with the Morgenthau plan became roadblocks to progression and a new plan was adopted, one that would ultimately be of the greatest aid to the people or Europe and, especially, divided Germany.

Officially dubbed the European Recovery Program (ERP), the Marshall Plan was the blueprint of western European re-construction laid out in late 1947 by former general, then Secretary of State, George C. Marshall. The plan laid out some $13 billion to all European nations directly effected by the war - i.e. the countries devastated the most. The Marshall plan was a blue-print for true Western European reconstruction, true Western European economic revitalization and a plan that aimed to defend Western Europe from the outreached fingers of Communism.

From the late stages of the war to the time the Marshall Plan was moving into its infantile stages of implementation, the Soviets condensed the territories ceded to them by Germany into what became known as the Eastern Bloc. This area included Soviet controlled East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, other Balkan states, and countries bordering Russia-proper. This area included vast areas of Europe's most fertile land and was cut off from the Allies and Eastern Europe. Precious food supplies, along with other resources such as coal, were hidden from the Allies behind the Iron Curtain.

But aside from strictly stimulating the economies of Europe and injecting the necessary grease into the machines of industry and agriculture to supply the people of Europe with necessities, the Marshall Plan, most emphatically, stemmed the growth of communism into states beyond the Eastern Bloc.

The Marshall Plan brought about the Truman Doctrine and the ideology of containment. The Marshall Plan forced the Soviets to cordon Berlin in the Berlin Blockade and it forced the responsive Berlin Airlift that brought some 2.3 million tons of supplies into Soviet controlled Berlin. The Marshall Plan fired the first shots of the Cold War and shaped U.S. foreign policy for the next four decades. 

States Going Green

The United States, as a whole, has lagged far behind other nations in regards to global warming and taking measures to reduce emissions. Of the 141 nations bound by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the United States is not included. Mostly, the United States has left the global warming discussion in the hands of individual states, but not entirely.

There are many states which, to combat global warming, enact legislation within their borders that affects only their residents and the state itself. These regulations, such as California's A.B. 1493 and California Health and Safety Code 43018.5, routinely attempt to curb motor vehicle emissions or those being produced by power plants and other industrial businesses.

Yet these internal codes and regulations are sometimes met by corporate and, more likely, federal opposition (California, under the Clean Air Act, is allowed to impose stricter emission standards, but even California has been challenged on the forcefulness of its legislation).

"The Clean Air Act specifically prohibits a state from creating its own emission standard except that the Act does permit a state to adopt standards that are identical to California's," (Mahoney, 2006). This is curious because even California has met resistance by auto makers and the federal government when it comes to emission standards imposed by the state. Most of the standards were preempted by the federal government on grounds that the standards were found to be in contradiction to the Clean Air Act, the very Act giving California the permission to enact more stringent emission standards.  

Many states have created, and been allowed to create, internal agencies that aid in regulating greenhouse gas emission within the state. There are many differing ideas and concepts through which states go about curbing emissions and many of these agencies and their policies have not been questioned or ridiculed by the federal government. It is when states attempt to encompass bigger state emission standards, those that step on the toes of big corporations or the federal government that things becomes harried. When this happens the states appear in court. And courts favor federal agencies.

"Like a great number of environmental cases, most of the cases advanced on this issue have been dismissed due to jurisdictional problems such as political questions or standing. Other traditional problems also arise such as causation in the case of common law claims. Legal challenges against the Environmental Protection Agency and other administrative bodies have the additional challenge that courts give agencies a great deal of discretion to these entities," (Mahoney, 2006).

States have pressed for greater cooperation by the EPA on global warming. No federal statutes specifically acknowledge global warming as a problem, so these attempts are to bring greater attention to global warming through EPA regulations on emissions. "The focus of these attempts has been on reducing emissions from mobile sources through federal action," (Mahoney, 2006).


But even as these roadblocks impede state regulations on a certain level and an overall national statute on emissions, more and more states are banding together for the cause of global warming sending a message of growing concern. So far, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, Wisconsin, Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, have taken to the cause.

"Despite the fact that the more aggressive measures taken by states have been impeded, the federal government will need to be accountable to its citizens," (Mahoney, 2006).

Source: Urban Lawyer; Summer2006, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p585-591, 7p

Lights Out on Liberty: A piece by Mark Steyn

In an op-ed piece written for Imprimis, a publication sponsored by Hillsdale College, Mark Steyn makes a powerful argument against the growing comfortableness of the western world when it comes to regulation of the press and free speech. He fears the western world has become complacent, has allowed, in some cases, rights of one group to be usurped by another.

I an quote that summarizes Steyn's entire argument he states, "thus we see that today’s multicultural societies tolerate the explicitly intolerant and avowedly unicultural, while refusing to tolerate anyone pointing out that intolerance."

The piece is vigorous in its stance, but not overbearing. The point is clearly stated through obvious research and a logical rhetorical writing style that engages the reader and piques his interest.

At what point does tolerance arrogate liberty?

Writing with Emphasis

The power of emphasis is paramount for any persuasive writing. Whether it be writing in a journal, blog writing, or writing for a big-time publication, emphatically diverse sentences and writing strategies make the most bland material powerful and robust. Editorials are all about emphasizing points. Emphasis wins arguments if used correctly.

As stated by the Harbrace College Handbook, a writer can stress points without being particularly wordy. Here, we will discuss some of those points.

Keep important words first or last; keep unemphatic phrases out in the cold. Add stress to sentence endings by using semicolons and hyphens. Words following such punctuations are, typically, main points of the author.

Example (Harbrace): Unemphatic: In his book, Murrow argued against capital punishment, it seemed to me.

Example (Harbrace): Emphatic: Morrow argued against capital punishment.

The first example contains far more words than needed in conjunction with a tacked-on and unnecessary attribution. The point is punched home in the second example - the reader is not bogged down in language.

The cumulative sentence and the periodic sentence stress ideas with their very construction. A cumulative sentence stresses main ideas first with lesser details following. Periodic sentences give lesser information first, leaving the stressed points for last. Both are quite effective, yet the cumulative form is far more common. Try the periodic form though, periodically, as it carries far greater emphatic power.

Example (Harbrace): Cumulative: The old Dunkard preacher and his wife came into the country is 1856, their wagon full of what they had imagined in Indiana they would need in the new land.

Example (Harbrace): Periodic: Suffering from malnutrition and neglect and who knows what mental agonies, Phillis Wheatley died.

The periodic sentence emphasizes through suspense and tease. The cumulative through directness.

Repetition is a great tool to establish patterns, a great tool for argument, a great tool of emphasis. Readers look for patterns in writing as patterns allude to overall themes and messages. Moreover, as the first sentence of this paragraph shows, arranging ideas in an ascending order of climax is also a powerful tool that stresses important points.


The writer must rely, in most cases, on the active voice as well. The active voice engages the reader, lending a sense of immediacy to the material presented. As the active voice stresses the subject or doer of the sentence, the active voice presents ideas and thoughts in a strong, direct manner. Why waste time running in circles, padding your writing with useless words, when the point may be reached in a paragraph or single sentence?

Another rule to keep in mind is the rule regarding forms of have or be. Whenever we use these verb forms the power of our sentences seems to be drained. The real action often lies in a verbal phrase or in an object or complement (Harbrace).

Example: (Harbrace): Unemphatic: Our college is always the winner of the conference.

Example: (Harbrace): Emphatic: Our college always wins the conference.

The second example showcases the real action where as the first hints at the real action. It is always better to simply state the real action instead of having readers infer the real action. The second example also gets straight to the point and in less words.

There are more examples and ways in which our writing can be more emphatic, but these aforementioned examples cover the main concepts. Sentence length and variation are other good tools used in emphatic writing.

Unemphatic sentence composition isn't always a bad thing because the use of emphatic sentence structure can become stale and boring to a reader. So mix it up. Use a variation of sentence structures to keep your writing fresh and unpredictable as much as possible - predictability can be both good and bad; it depends on the situation and overall theme of writing and audience.