How does the Endangered Species Act relate to economics?
369761
The basic premise of economics is supply v. demand. If the supply is not there to meet the demand, the economy suffers on a macro level.\n\nAn example:\n"Not too long ago, almost one quarter of the trees in the\nAppalachian forests were American chestnuts. They helped\nsupport not only wildlife but the people living among\nthem. Chestnuts were an important cash crop for many\nfamilies. As year-end holidays approached, nuts by the\nrailroad car were sold and shipped to northeastern cities.\nChestnut timber, strong and rot resistant, was prized for\nbuilding barns, fences, furniture, and other products. ...\nFirst detected in 1904, an Asian fungus to which native\nchestnuts had little resistance appeared in New York City\ntrees. The blight spread quickly, and by 1950 the American\nchestnut was virtually extinct except for occasional root\nsprouts that also became infected. Organizations such\nas the American Chestnut Foundation are working with\nplant breeders to develop a disease resistant strain and\nrestore it to the eastern forests."\n\nWhen was the last time you heard of anyone roasting chestnuts on an open fire during the holidays?\n\nThe families that sold chestnuts lost their income, the wholesalers lost their supply and the retailers of chestnuts lost their customers for chestnuts. The flow of money stopped when it comes to chestnuts.\n\nYou could draw the same conclusions when discussing the economic implications of commercial fishing regulations. If you want to utilize the microeconomic implications you could look at any single business entity that was lost as a result of regulation. There must be thousands of examples, like hunting expedition companies, the fur trappers of the old west...
200699
Species matters more than age.
459631
Frankly this sounds like an answer that is going to use phrases specific to your class's textbook.\n\nTo answer your question: An economic model attempts to simplify complex behavior in a way that can be made understandable.  This will purposefully ignore certain complexities.  It can be shown as a diagram, chart, equation, or something else depending on what is being modeled.   \n\nYour textbook would likely offer insight on how to relate this broad definition of economic model into something that relates to economic theory as your teacher would like it.
547314
Please see this site for endangered species information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:\n\nhttp://www.fws.gov/Endangered/wildlife.html
328075
It is a fact that economics is easier than Science but Science is more interesting than economics. But this decision is totally based upon your interest, you cant understand any subject until and unless you are interested in it. If you are interested in plants, Animals, Bridges, Buildings, DNA and circuits like things then Science is a subject for you. And if you are interested in solving problems, making budget and stock market then you should choose economics as a major subject. Best of luck.
100914
There are many....\nHere's a website that could give you the endangered animals in US.\nhttp://www.fws.gov/endangered/wildlife.html#Species
4806
Republicans are big believers in the market.  Governmental regulation is to be avoided at all costs, and the more regulation eats into the bottom line the more likely it will be decried as being too "burdensome" to industry. \n\nMarket forces, however, do not favor kindness to the environment in American-style capitalism, which is focused narrowly on short-term profits over long-term viability.  \n\nWe all want a nice, clean environment, but the truth is we all secretly hope the other guy is going to be the one paying for it.  Given a choice between a shiny new SUV and the latest electric car, Americans choose the SUV.  And we will continue to do so until the electric car is at least as good and as cheap.  Americans aren't getting fatter by the year because we don't know that Twinkies aren't as good for us as celery sticks, but because we want the damn Twinkies and decide we'll pay the price later, if at all.\n \nEnvironmental regulations are like your Mom's rules-- you know they are there for your own good, but you would probably not follow them if you didn't have to.  Republicans by and large think we'll do fine without all the rules.  People are nice and do the right thing usually, right?  Then again, Democrats aren't exactly charging to battle waving a Green banner these days either are they?  They've copped to the fact that most people really want the Twinkie, and they don't like being told they can't have it or have to pay more to get it.  While individual Dems may be green, the party as a whole is rather apathetic over the issues unless they can find one like drilling in ANWR that is guaranteed to get good press.\n\nAll that being said, there are certainly extremists within the environmental movement who do not seem to be able to come to grips with the fact that we cannot exist on this planet without making some environmental impacts. These folks are as damaging to the cause of environmentalism as anything occupying a chair in the Capitol.  The image of environmentalists as whacked out tree-hugging eco-terrorists who want everyone to subsist on tofu and rainwater doesn't help real environmental issues  gain much traction in our esteemed legislature.
677256
I don't really know.... my guesses would be regulating the fish population. I think a negative effect might be that fact that because they're an endangered creature wherever they build their nests, they can't be moved regardless of how inconvienet it is to people.
781461
All it has to do is not have a massive penalty, it can be totally useless provided that the population is not very strongly stressed or it uses little extra energy.  If it's a liability it will tend to be selected against but something that's useless doesn't necessarilly put the organism in much more risk.
50716
Free markets economy is an addendum to the laws of nature. Water flows from high to low till equilized. There is no good or bad about it - it just is. The good is - lower parts can get water, the bad part is that water may cause attrition or floods along the way, or simply be wasted in the lower areas. But movement of resources from resource rich to rosurce poor countries/areas follows the same principle. \n\nSurvival of the fittest is another way of looking at it. In the resourse hungry countries, people will do anything to survive, including accepting low paid jobs. In the resource rich countries, people are at a higher level of Maslow's triangle, are more complacent and demanding of higher standards of living. This creates a cycle of abundance and deprivation in various areas of the world - thus a boom is always followed by a boom and vice versa.\n\nThe overall socio-economic goals of a society include equality for all. Free markets are one way of redistributing wealth and adhering to the supply and demand principles. Culture of consumerism necessitates maximizing affordability - so production has to be at the lowest price. If the demand of the same job is high elsewhere, then thats where the jobs will go.\n\nMost issues associated with concept of free economy are detrimental to the wellbeing of vulnerable population. Patent issues cause hundreds of thousand deaths/suicides in India and Africa. It amplifies the divide between the rich and the poor. WHO, GATT, JAFAA and NAFTAA are weapons used to coerce governments of small countries. Instead of waging war and occupying countries, the US uses trade economics to control and occupy countries. So Free Trade has really become an intrument of war rather than the instrument of social justice that it was supposed to be.\n\nI guess the free economy is a concept - and just like any other concept it has its good and bad. Often the media portrays only one side of the issue - depending on where you live you get to hear one side of the story.
998004
NOW IT IS ENDANGERED GAME.\n\nSOON.. CHANCES ARE THERE TO BE TREATED AS YOU SAID
711145
I don't know the Singapore Zoo but if a zoos main aim is related to captive breeding of endangered species then it cannot be solely seen as a commercial venture. At least most modern zoos are better at looking after their animals than in the past and genuinely wish them to thrive. Zoos need revenue to provide for their animals but it would be preferable in the long term that more captive breeding of local endangered species was zoos main goal rather than large animals like elephants for entertainment purposes.
789585
A human baby. And I'm as liberal as they come. Trees are of course important, whales less so - but they play a vital role. However; humans have rights, animals and plants (largely) do not.
194466
I am not an economist, but think about it.  The cigarette companies make billions of dollars every year. What would happen to our economy if they were to suddenly be shut down?\n\nIt wouldn't just affect the cigarette companies, but the farmers, retail outlets, advertising companies, chemical companies, etc.  It would have a rippling effect.  Not a good thing.\n\nNot only that, but the government would lose untold tax revenues.\n\nGet the picture?   it would put a whole lot of people out of work, and guess what? They are voters!  Do you think they are going to forget what congressmen and women voted for the law that would outlaw smoking?\n\nDo you think a congress person would vote for something if there was a possibility they might lose their jobs?
714224
I think here in Michigan the biggest issue is whether we are going to allow a person to buy the office of Governor. I think restoring checks and balance to the federal government is also important. Dove hunting has become an issue as well as equal rights.
554417
1. Preserve their native habitats (that means preserving enough land for the space the large animals of the area need) For example large cats are estimated to need a roaming area of 100 square miles.  \n2. Stop the hunting of the endangered animal, by men and introduced predator species.\n3. Limit the number of competitors for the same resources of the endangered animal.\n4.  Find ways to improve genetic diversity in limited populations.
1126036
What really drives species into extinction is destruction of habitat.  A great deal of land is cleared every year of agriculture and new homes.  To preserve biodiversity people would have to curtail that practice.