The BLT Story: beginning in the 1950's, the market for pork bellies at Chicago's Board of Trade saw the development of speculative activity, especially around late summertime. Tomatoes ripen in late summer, and with the tomato harvest came rising demand for pork bellies used to make bacon, which was in turn used to make Bacon Lettuce and Tomato (BLT) sandwiches. Speculators would buy up pork bellies ahead of time, put them in freezer storage, and release them back to the market when the high demand of BLT season arrived. The increase in the pork belly supply would depress the price, speculators would buy up as many bellies as they could and then remove the excess pork belly supply, allowing the price to readjust to a higher level. The speculators could then sell their pork bellies at this higher price, and pocket the difference. Although the speculators' actions were legal, one could argue the revenue from higher prices should have gone to producers (pig farmers in this case) rather than speculators. Was the pork belly market (which closed in 2011) unfair to farmers?

The Argument for a Carbon Tax: economist William Nordhaus began modelling carbon emissions as an externality in the 1970's, and has been working on the issue ever since. The basic model he developed thinks of pollution from carbon-emitting energy sources as a cost that is paid by society in the form of increased costs of health care (from pollution related illness, such as asthma) and environmental management (like cleaning up oil spills). A properly implemented carbon tax would account for these costs and pay for them. The loss to society from a failure to account for these externalities leads to diminished social welfare, known as deadweight loss. Nevertheless, US politicians have been unable to legislate such a tax. Do you think it's possible to implement a carbon tax that would be acceptable to the American public?

Employer-sponsored insurance: the US Federal government subsidizes employee sponsored health insurance, through which many Americans access health care services. When an employer purchases health insurance for an employee, they lower their taxable income by the same amount. The tax expenditure cost the government $273 billion in 2019. It benefits society by allowing more people to buy insurance at a lower cost. On the other hand, it gives employers a potentially powerful bargaining chip in the hiring process: health benefits. Do you think government support for employer-sponsored health care is an efficient use of public resources?