The traditional view held of monetary inflation is that an increase in the money supply results in an increase in the price level. The change of price between two periods of time is the general notion of ‘inflation’, described as a percentage. However, the understanding of inflation rests upon a critical axiom which remains unexamined despite the rapid changes that have occurred in the late twentieth century and the twenty-first century; that inflation has been measured in terms of physical currency which have volume and take up physical space. As of 2018, only (roughly) ten percent of the United States’ wealth is expressed in physical currency. The other ninety percent is digital– numbers on computer screens. At this time, we are afforded the chance to inquire whether or not increases in digital currency impact the price level (i.e. does increasing the mostly digital money supply result in inflation?).

In order to determine the percentage of physical currency in circulation, a ten year review of “Currency in Circulation” and the “Gross Domestic Product” from the Federal Reserve Economic Data of St. Louis (FRED) indicate the estimation of physical currency in circulation in the US.

“Currency in Circulation” is descriptive of “paper currency and coin held both by the public and in the vaults of depository institutions”, while the GDP is “the market value of the goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States” unadjusted for inflation. Both data sets show a generally stable incline, with the physical currency consistently about ten percent of the total monetary wealth in America, thus concluding that the other ninety percent of wealth is digital.

When we compare the “Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers” to the stable inclines expressed in the previous data sets, we see a similar stability of inclination (although it is worth noting it is less stable and fluctuates more often)

The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers is a measure of the “average monthly change in the price for goods and services paid by urban consumers between any two time periods”, i.e. the price level. The CPIs are based on “prices for food, clothing, shelter, and fuels; transportation fares; service fees (e.g., water and sewer service); and sales taxes.”

The major takeaway from this survey is that there is much more research to do to reach any semblance of a conclusion. I would appreciate available data which splits physical and digital currency expressions as to better compare to the price level. However, I cannot deny there is a general inclining trend within the graphs that indicates there is still the spectre of inflation haunting a nearly digital economy. It is worth addressing that I do not believe there is a causal relationship indicated, as there are moments in the CPI which would indicate a reduction in the inflation rate while the monetary growth was stable, and I am uncertain as to the affects the remnant ten percent of physical currency has on the price level in a physical manner. Thus, we leave this noting a correlation between growth in the physical and digital monetary supply with changes in the price level, and a potential starting point for an inquiry into the other factors which may affect inflation, such as the market power of corporations.

People often argue that spending time in nature can have lasting health benefits. Because of this, many people alter their lifestyles and living situations to include more nature. But is there strong scientific evidence to support the claim that being outside can decrease the likelihood of people developing certain health problems? More specifically, could exposure to diverse outdoor plant life decrease the likelihood of children developing asthma?

Professor Roger Ulrich and his team of students at Chalmers University of Technology claim that they found strong evidence suggesting that children who grow up in neighborhoods with diverse plant life are less likely to develop asthma. Using a database called Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) which is essentially census data in New Zealand, the researchers were able to track where children lived from birth to age eighteen. They then used satellite images to determine the greenness of the children’s neighborhoods and health records to determine whether or not the children developed asthma.

According to the study, children who live in greener areas with diverse plant life are 6.0% less likely to develop asthma. To explain this finding, the scientists use the hygiene hypothesis. According to this explanation, children that are exposed to more microbes develop stronger immune systems and are less likely to develop conditions like asthma. Because different plants have different microbes, according to this hypothesis, children living in neighborhoods with diverse plant life are less likely to develop asthma.

However, the scientists also found that an increase in certain types of plants, even in neighborhoods with high plant diversity, is associated with an increased risk of developing asthma. For example, children who live in neighborhoods with Gorse were 3.2% more likely to develop asthma. This made me wonder, is there truly a causal relationship between diverse vegetation in a neighborhood and the likelihood of a child developing asthma? A quick google search revealed that gorse is a noxious weed that weed controllers work to remove. What types of neighborhoods provide places for gorse to grow? Because it is a noxious weed, this plant is likely only thriving in poorer neighborhoods that don’t hire landscapers and noxious weed sprayers.

There are many factors that accompany vegetation diversity that could explain the link that these researchers found between plant life and asthma development. The scientists methods did not account for the potential tie between wealth and plant diversity. It is likely that in wealthier neighborhoods, there is a more diverse display of (non-noxious) plants, while in poorer neighborhoods, there is less focus on the diversity of plant life. Essentially, there other threats that accompany poverty (and a lack of plant diversity) that could increase the chances of a child developing asthma. For example, poorer neighborhoods likely have more pollution, inadequate healthcare, and less space for children to safely play outside- on top of having lower levels of plant diversity. Could these factors be causing children in neighborhoods with high plant diversity to stay healthy, and not the plants themselves?

Referenced:

Douwes, Jeroen, and Geoffrey H. Donovan. “Children Living in Green Neighbourhoods Are Less Likely to Develop Asthma.” Medical Xpress – Medical Research Advances and Health News, Medical Xpress, 8 May 2018, medicalxpress.com/news/2018-05-children-green-neighbourhoods-asthma.html.

Donovan, Geoffrey H., et al. “Vegetation Diversity Protects against Childhood Asthma: Results from a Large New Zealand Birth Cohort.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 7 May 2018, http://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-018-0151-8.

Sources:

“Gorse: Ulex Europaeus.” Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, Washington State, http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/weeds/gorse.

The tumultuous 2016 election was the beginning of never-before-seen political volatility that has left both sides of the isle questioning the future of the American people and the country. Over 800,000 federal employees plead for compromise as the government shutdown enters its fifth week, so why are their concerns falling on deaf ears?   
            John Sides from the Washington Post provides the graph below which shows that politically engaged Democrats are more apt for compromise than their Republican counterparts. This data can be applied to the government shutdown fairly easily: House Democrats are eager for a compromise, but the Republican president refuses any proposal that does not satisfy his requirements, leading to a prolonged shutdown. Unfortunately, the data within the graph is not that simple and the conclusion drawn by John Sides is problematic. We must examine the terminology of the data to understand why the conclusion that Democrats favor compromise more so than Republicans is fallacious.

The first flaw with Slides’ conclusion stems from the source of the data which determines the meaning of “political engagement”. The GW Politics Poll is cited in a book by John Zaller, who cites his own “comprehensive theory to explain how people acquire political information from the mass media and convert it into political preferences” (Zaller2011). Novels upon novels have been written about the influence of media within politics, and determining one’s political engagement based on mass media consumption is obviously problematic for a plethora of reasons.
            Slides further confuses the reader by affirming that politically engaged people are also synonymous with those who are more educated—cited with data from the Pew Research center. If one were to look at the same webpage as where Slides found data on the educational gap for compromise, you would see that Pew has determined that the political gap for compromises does not exist as shown in the second graph below.

Slides has selected data that pertains to his argument that Democrats are more willing to compromise, while ignoring data from a source he pulled from in the same article. Despite this obvious dilemma of sources and validity between Slides and Pew Research Center, neither source defines nor scales “compromise”. For arguments sake, it is highly difficult (if not impossible) to argue the existence or nonexistence of compromise when one has not defined what compromise is or looks like.  
            Although Slides attempted to explain the government shutdown through his own lense, the conflicting terminology of politically engaged/educated and lack of definition for compromise create a muddy conclusion that is difficult to discern the truthfulness of the data. If a reader did not click the links Slides provided in the article to discover Pew’s opposing research, their opinion could be based on improper data. As we all have learned, there is more to a graph than what is shown, and this instance is no different. Franklin D. Roosevelt summarizes it best with the quote: “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way”.

Sources:
Sides, John. “Many Americans Say They Want Politicians to Compromise. But Maybe They    Don’t.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 16 Jan. 2019,             www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2019/01/16/many-americans-say-they-         want-politicians-to-compromise-but-maybe-they dont/?utm_term=.fb111d5b7f36.
           
“8. The Tone of Political Debate, Compromise with Political Opponents.” Pew Research Center         for the People and the Press, Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 18 Sept.           2018,   www.people-press.org/2018/04/26/8-the-tone-of-political-debate-compromise-           with-political- opponents/.

Zaller, John R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Thanks for joining us. We look forward to a semester filled with inquiry, learning and insights.