Hi Everyone,
We have now reached the voting stage of Challenge 4. Steemians now have the opportunity to vote for the winner of Challenge 4 of the Spectrum Economics 6 Week Challenge.
For Challenge 4 we have five entries, I think this challenge proved quite difficult for most Steemians but I certainly appreciate the effort put in by those that entered. The entrants are as follows:
Quick recap of the challenge
For Challenge 4, participants were required to conduct an economic analysis of several possible investment options and then offer advice regarding how money should be invested. The participants were provided with quantitative as well as qualitative information. The question recommends the use of cost benefit analysis (CBA) but other forms of quantitative analysis can also be accepted. If the participants deem information is insufficient for a meaningful quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis of the information is also acceptable.
The most important area to address in the question is the recommendation of how the money should be used to improve the infrastructure of the town. Creative responses are also encouraged. The responses should also be expressed so that everyday Steemians can understand the logic behind the arguments. Economic terminology can be used but needs to be clearly explained.
Here is a link to the original Challenge 4 post
What have our participants proposed?
Entrant 1 @lavanyalakshman
Let’s start with @lavanyalakshman. @lavanyalakshman has taken a very broad approach to investment. @lavanyalakshman recommends small investments in all five proposed areas. Unfortunately, the options proposed do not align with the available options presented in the question. E.g. there is not a $0.5 Million stadium option or a $1.5 Million dam option. The post did not cover the logic supporting the recommendations. There was an absence of either quantitative or qualitative analysis.
This post can be accessed using the following link
Entrant 2 @luisveco88
Our next entrant is @luisveco88. @luisveco88 recommends building a $3 Million Football Stadium with a capacity of 3,000 supporters and upgrade the school to cater for another 60 students. @luisveco88 used a qualitative analysis based on projected population growth rates to justify the upgrade to the school. @luisveco88 made some assumptions regarding future growth relating to football as well as other possible utility for the stadium.
This post can be accessed using the following link
Entrant 3 @wireless07
Our next participant is @wireless07. @wireless07 has taken a broad approach to investment. @wireless07 recommends upgrading the hospital and dam as well as adding 2 additional bus services and the construction of a small football stadium. @wireless07 did not recommend any upgrades for the school. @wireless07 has attempted to incorporate value of human life as well as population growth into the decision-making. Overall, the approach can be considered more qualitative in nature than quantitative.
This post can be accessed using the following link
Entrant 4 @ojmg
Our fourth entrant is @ojmg. @ojmg has proposed investing $3 million in upgrading the hospital and $2 Million in upgrading the local dam. @ojmg has taken a qualitative approach to analysing the investment opportunities of the town. @ojmg explained the rationale behind the investment recommendations. @ojmg has also explained at the beginning of the post what a CBA is and has shown some understanding of how a CBA should be conducted. This is definitely a strong aspect of this post. @ojmg also highlighted a potential bias in the survey data collected.
This post can be accessed using the following link
Entrant 5 @patymm
Our final entrant is @patymm. I almost missed your submission as you did not include the link to your post in the comments section; next time please follow instructions. @patymm has chosen to recommend investment of $1M Million in upgrading the school, and $2 Million in upgrading both the hospital and the dam. @patymm provided a simple qualitative analysis of the options and has provided sound logic to support recommendations. @patymm also highlighted the flaws in the survey and has chosen to discard this information.
This post can be accessed using the following link
I apologise if I have missed any participants. I was working off the comments left in my post. I only found @patymm by accident. It is important to follow instructions or you could lose out.
How to vote
The winner will be decided by votes placed in the comments section; the post that receives the most votes wins. The winner will receive 5 SBD. I expect voting to be based on the quality of the post and ability to address the criteria of the challenge post. I do not want voting to be based on the author or relationship or friendship with the author. Each vote will also be rewarded with a very small upvote. The upvote is an incentive to vote as well as an incentive to view each post. I would also appreciate a brief explanation as to why a vote has been cast.
To vote, enter the entrant’s number in the comment section followed by a brief explanation of why the vote was cast. The entrant’s numbers are as followers.
- Entrant 1 @lavanyalakshman
- Entrant 2 @luisveco88
- Entrant 3 @wireless07
- Entrant 4 @ojmg
- Entrant 5 @patymm
Spectrum Economics Favourite Posts
For this challenge I am giving out 2 awards for my favourite post. My favourite post will receive 10 SBD and my second favourite post will receive 5 SBD. I will be judging the posts based on quality and ability to address the criteria of the challenge. The judging is independent to the voting. It is possible that the post that has the most votes could also win a Spectrum Economics Favourite post award.
I would like to thank all the participants for their effort spent putting these posts together. May the best post win.
Other Challenges underway
Challenge 5 has commenced and is still open to participants. Challenge 5 can be accessed using the following link.
