Curfew

In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” one of the most prominent issues discussed is the definition of just and unjust laws. King provides a concrete example of what he believes to be the difference between the two. He writes:
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. (17)
According to king, a law is unjust if a majority creates it in order to restrict a minority. Likewise, a just law is one that is followed by everyone in society.
Relating this example to life today, it has come to my attention that curfews are unjust laws. A curfew is a time in which minors (persons under the age of eight-teen) may no longer be allowed out of a residency without an adults’ company. This is unjust to minors for two reasons. First of all, referring to King’s example, the law is unjust because a majority group, adults, puts it into place, which restricts the right of minors to stay out past a certain time. This is a representation of inequality, and is also purely based off the stereotype that teenagers are only out late to cause trouble.
Secondly, curfew is unjust because the people it affects are not allowed to vote in order to change it. King discusses this in his letter. He writes, “A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law” (18). This is perfectly true in this case. Minors are restricted the right to vote due to lack of age, and therefore never enacted, or will ever be able to rule against the law. So, based on the fact that the majority in this circumstance created the law to restrict the minority group and the fact that the minority group cannot change it, curfew is an unjust law.

Justice for All, Not Just the Wealthy

Rawls believes there needs to be a new system of justice created. He thinks it should be one where everyone in society, chooses together, the principles which will assign the basic rights of society and will determine the division of social benefits. He feels an action should only be done as long as it does not affect even the lowest class possible or those who are the least situated. He calls these principles of justice, justice as fairness. Rawls also mentions that people are born into a certain position or place in society and the way they grow up and the people they are around affects what decisions they will make and what they see as acceptable.

Overall, I think Rawls’s idea is a very good one. I like how he wants to make sure that any action taken will benefit the upper class, middle class, and the lowest class possible. He doesn’t think it is acceptable to follow through with an action that benefits the majority but hurts the minority. If everyone would accept his idea, especially those who are wealthier, it would help out those less unfortunate. For example, those who have money and can afford to give up some material things could help those who are suffering for food and a home by donating money to them. People could be less greedy and more giving.
I do agree, however, that people are born into certain positions in society. Obviously those who come from wealthier homes believe they have earned the right to live above others because they worked at it and created that kind of lifestyle for themselves. They also see more material things as a necessity, whereas, people coming from a least stable home would find those same material things as unnecessary. If everyone cooperated with each other, I believe individuals could help one another out so everyone could live a sufficient life. I do think it is fair that those who have worked hard for their money and wealthy lifestyles deserve to live that wealthy life, but I also think there should be certain rules that help those less unfortunate.
I also, definitely think, if an action is taken no one should have to sacrifice anything. Everyone, including the lowest class of society should be able to benefit from that action. Therefore, those who work hard deserve their earnings but everyone should get an equal opportunity to work that hard.
People may think that it is not possible for everyone to live a sufficient life even if given equal opportunities. They may feel everyone has these opportunities but do not care to perfect the skills needed to actually be successful. A lot of people also may disagree with Rawls’s idea that not even the minority should have to suffer from an action being taken, especially if the majority benefits. A lot of people only really care about their family and close friends. Those people are most likely in the same class level as them, therefore, as long as their family and friends are benefiting as well as them, the action is ok. People need to reach out to those who they do not know and start caring about strangers. If they do this then a lot can be achieved.

A Theory of Justice

The main concept that Rawls’ is trying to portray, in the excerpt from his book, is the idea of the original position of equality. The original position is like the social contract that Rousseau proposed, but Rawls’ transformed it to be more social cooperation. The original position calls for principles of justice to be established. These principles are chosen by people from behind “a veil of ignorance.” The veil means that the people choosing the principles know nothing about what their place in society will be. This allows for them to choose principles that will benefit everyone equally. The principles of justice are divided into two categories. This first is that each person is to have an equal right to basic liberties compatible with similar liberties given to others. These basic liberties include the right to vote, freedom of speech, and other things of that nature. The second principle is more controversial than the first. The second principle is that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they benefit the least advantaged members of society the most.

The second principle of justice is something that can be related to today. As we discussed in the first unit, the wage gap between the classes is widening more and more. CEOs and other executives are making more money than they need while their employees are not making enough money to survive off of. Rawls’ would argue that this is unjust. He states “that social and economic inequalities, for example inequalities of wealth and authority, are just only if they result in compensating benefits for everyone, and in particular for the least advantaged members of society” (paragraph 7). This means that any inequalities that would occur are only just if the least advantaged members of society are given something in return. Would Rawls’ support some kind of redistribution of wealth in the United States as a means of compensation? The redistribution of wealth would make the poor less poor and the rich less rich but it could have negative affects. One affect would be that people would begin to rely on others money as a means of supporting themselves. There will always be those people that take advantage of the system. Robert Nozick is a well-known opponent of any redistribution of wealth. He believes people should be treated as ends not means. He believed that the redistribution of money used people only as a source of money. Giving benefits to the least advantaged members of society is not only about money but about opportunity. Affirmative action is good example of doing so in today’s world. Affirmative action gives an advantage to those are considered to be “disadvantaged” in some form. We all had to deal with it when we were applying to college and we know its affects on those who do not benefit from it. I feel that it is a punishment for those who do not qualify. Is it right to punish people for things they have no control over?

Rawls’ presents his idea of the original position of equality with the veil of ignorance. He admits that all he discussed was a hypothetical situation. How would the principles of justice work when that ignorance is not present? Would people be selfish or generous? The answer cannot be known for sure. Overall, Rawls’ concepts are interesting but not practical. Humans are naturally selfish, so they are going to do things that will be in their best interest. I believe that we should help those that are disadvantaged but not at the expense of the rest of the members of society. Rawls’ argument sounds good in theory, but so do many other things, like communism and capitalism. Being a theory and being practical do not always coincide.

Friday's Discussion...

On friday one of the questions asked was something like why don't people stand up for what they believe in or feel is right? Now I know from my own experience when you disagree with something someone is doing or the way they are treating another person sometimes one wants to say something but because nobody else around that person is they question him/herself on why his/her feelings are different. People may also decide not to say something or do something about it because they could possibly see themselves doing the same thing in the future even though at the current time, they don't think they ever would. I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Thoreau's conscience

Henry David Thoreau’s speech, “Civil Disobedience,” is one of the most influential pieces of writing in history, inspiring great thinkers like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. It was inspired by Thoreau’s belief in the morality of the individual conscience and his opposition to majority thinking. The piece probably would never have happened if it weren’t for the day that Thoreau spent in jail as a result of not paying his war tax. Much of the speech is about the freedoms of acting for one’s self and not for the mindless benefit of the majority, as Thoreau experienced in this situation. His actions and thoughts have inspired many great ideas, and many questions as well.
Thoreau speaks of the conscience as if it is inherently good in every man, and that the majority corrupts this goodness by forcing laws and taxes on people, but is every conscience good? One might argue that no, every conscience is not good. If one was raised in a society that taught its children that lying, cheating, and stealing was acceptable, then his/her conscience would, by our standards, be considered bad. But I believe that Thoreau meant something different when he spoke of good conscience. A good conscience is not measured by the standards of the society in which it was cultured. Everyone’s conscience is different. What separates us is how often we can follow our conscience and stray from the thinking of the majority. What Thoreau is saying is that if you follow your conscience you can’t be wrong no matter what it’s telling you, because to you it’s right. If you were going against your conscience and with the majority, even if others believed your conscience to be wrong and the majority to be right, it would be wrong to you, and therefore would be inherently wrong. The reason Thoreau is saying that the conscience is always right is because he is really saying that if one can think for his/herself and see past the majority, then he/she can’t be wrong.
Thoreau spent a day in jail because he refused to pay a tax funding the Mexican war. He did not refuse to pay because he simply had better things to do with his money, or because he wasn’t a soldier, so he didn’t care. He refused to pay because he was morally opposed to the majority. This is slightly misleading because he states, “One must not fund that to which he is opposed,” which may lead some to believe that taxes shouldn’t be paid if they aren’t convenient to the citizen, but this is where the conscience comes back into the argument. The conscience must be used to distinguish, based on individual (and therefore inherently right) morals, what taxes are funding injustice, what taxes are funding the everyday life of the citizen, and what taxes are funding necessities for the good of the country, even if they may not be for the immediate benefit of the tax paying citizen.
It is important to look at Thoreau’s life and remember that he is a transcendentalist. While he does have definite beliefs on the subjects he speaks about, like slavery and the Mexican war, he is not a representative for absolute thought. He knows that everyone thinks differently, which is why he gives this speech in the first place. “Civil Disobedience” encourages individual thought. It is a call for the people of America to take back there lives and be wary of the majority and the government.

protest

I did not want to write a whole post on this, but no one has explored Thoreau or civil disobedience yet so....

Here a writer explores some historical connections and reasoning for physical protests in the face of "what good is protesting"?

Meanwhile LATIMES reports close to 100 thousand attend the war protest over the weekend and there were other protests around the country staged for those who could not make it to DC.

Yet, the leaders generally support the war with various nuances and or qualifications --- This comes back to the question posed: what's the point of civil disobedience? Will it make a difference?

I saw a little of the news coverage -- anyone want to discuss what that looked like?

EDIT: Received this and thought if you had a chance to pass by --

Please pass this on.
Join us for a
“Women and Men in Black”
Peace Demo
12:00 noon to 1:00 pm on Mon. 1/29
In front of Bowen-Thompson Student Union
We’ll stand in silence for the first half hour to protest war, rape, ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses all over the world. Mere words cannot express the tragedy that wars and hatred bring.
Wear black to mourn the loss of life and betrayal of democratic ideals
Bring protest signs
Sponsored by Amnesty International BGSU

Quote of the Week

Having started our unit on justice, I thought that these were appropriate. Feel free to comment.

"In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law ... That would lead to anarchy. An individual who breaks a law that his conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

"Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love."

Martin Luther King Jr.

Equality?

I just have a few thoughts on how equal a society can be. Perhaps my views are through naive eyes, but maybe more people should find a new perspective. In 2006, the University of Toledo ran a video series on race called “Race: The Power of an Illusion”. This series addressed the idea that race is not really a true factor that separates humans from each other, but is a false idea created in the minds of those who are in power to justify divisions placed between people who are different. The most prominent example of this division was after the 13th amendment freed the slaves in America. Though they where free and supposedly equal under the law, there were many separations placed against them. At one point this series spoke about how even scientists were searching for ways to classify the level of evolution of humans by way of intelligence through race. I feel there really is not a difference between people of different skin colors or religions. Everyone is the same no matter what he or she looks like or believes in. People place these separations on each other because of what they see. They see some one who looks a little different from them and perhaps it is a sense of unfamiliarity that draws them away and makes them try to rationalize a difference that needs not to be rationalized. I don’t know how to explain this. A world of uniformity….. no. I just do not understand why two people who look different can look at each other and not find equality as human beings. As far as race goes, I do not believe in this idea and until people understand the true origin of this word and stop the division due to its idea, what has happened in the past and is continuing today will never end.One more thing; I am only talking about separation due to “race” not economic or social standing.

1/24/07 Class Discussion & Jim Webb

Here is the Democratic response to the President's State of the Union Address. Virginia Senator Jim Webb makes some good points on the growing divide between the rich and poor. He even brings up the "19th century robber barons" and how the U.S. Government needs to play a role in helping curb big corporations similar to how T. Roosevelt did in the early 1900's.

Class Mobility (or lack thereof) in the US

One of the key ideas presented by Reich is the bifurcation of wealth, which is directly related to the concept of class mobility in the US (something we mentioned in class). Americans love "rags to riches" stories and have always believed in the American dream, that it is possible to start out poor in this country and end up rich.

Over winter break, I went to see The Pursuit of Happyness, a movie that concerns itself with the American dream. I'm not going to attempt to disprove the American dream, but I can offer some statistics that show that class mobility in the US is largely a thing of the past. Right wingers love to trot out these feel good stories about people who grew up in poor neighborhoods and went on to become millionaires, but these are extremely rare cases. It seems to me that in talking about these stories, they are actually implying that we should pick it up. It's kind of like saying, "Come on, he did it, why can't you?" Well, the problem is that everyone isn't a genius like Will Smith's character in The Pursuit of Happyness. Of course it's possible, but is it probable??

Here are some interesting statistics from Lou Dobbs' latest book, War on the Middle Class:

Over the last twenty-five years, median family income has risen by 18 percent while the income of the top 1 percent has gone up by 200 percent. 43 percent of Forbes richest 400 Americans inherited enough money outright to qualify for inclusion. Nearly 7 percent had originally inherited more than $50 million. Another 6 percent had inherited more than $1 million but less than $50 million; 14 percent were raised in wealthy or upper-class homes.

These numbers sure do say a lot, don't they? Only about 30 percent of the richest Americans started out in the middle or lower classes. Clearly, the best way to have money in our country is to be born into wealth.

And if you are rich in America, we are going to do everything in our power to make sure you stay rich. Evidence the Bush tax cuts, which predominantly favor the uber-rich. Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, is even disgusted by these sobering statistics. "This is class warfare. My class is winning, but they shouldn't be."

My conclusion is that class mobility in this country is severely limited, though still somewhat feasible. George Carlin once quipped that, "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." Although this may not be entirely true, it is fast becoming the status quo. And here's another statistic for you to write down, from Gar Alperovitz's America Beyond Capitalism: "The top 1 percent now garners for itself more income each year than the bottom 100 million American's combined." I know, it sounds like I'm making that up, but trust me, I'm not.

Unions & Toledo Blade

I wanted to explain what I was saying concerning the Toledo Blade and their union workers. The union workers did not go on strike--they were locked out. From what I understand, the Blade wanted their union workers to continue to make concessions on wages and healthcare, which they did, however, the Blade continued to demand a different contract that union workers did not agree with (See Cleveland Plain Dealer). Therefore, when a new contract was not reached, the old contract expired and the workers could not return to work.

Because of the contract dispute, the Blade has started a “Toledo Can Compete” advertising campaign stating that Toledo should imitate the employment practices of such countries like China to help stimulate economic growth. However, considering that workers in China work with little job protection and have no rights when it comes time to negotiate a contract, the union workers in Toledo do not want to give into these concessions...the same goes for auto workers in Detroit, where similar changes in contracts have been made. Therefore, the whole issue boils down over whether or not workers should be able to unionize. Corporations like Wal-Mart have already used this “economic growth” campaign and have shut out many major manufacturing (e.g. Rubbermaid, General Electric, and Dial Soap) firms and workers in the United States by forcing these corporations to send their operations overseas. Once in countries like China, the corporations employ low-wage workers, which in return allows Wal-Mart to sell the corporation's products cheaply.

While the Blade cannot really ship their newspaper production overseas, they could take advantage of the automated factories that Sony and Toyota have already used in the US and employ very few people...see Reich's comments on page 425. Basically, it all comes down to the workers/unions versus the corporations. Do workers have the right to unionize so they can have a group to help protect their jobs? Or do the corporations have the right to minimize production costs by shipping jobs overseas or simply eliminate the job all together? I think this issue is going to be a big topic in the 2008 Presidential Election, with candidates like John Edwards championing worker's rights and ways to ease poverty by framing the issues as "moral values."

$ is freedom

I noticed many people wanted to explore this idea more fully and examine the implications of such a premise.

I believe there's a song by "Silverchair" that offers the line:

You say that money, isn't everything,
But I'd like to see you live without it.

At first blush it seems like money affects everything one does or may have an opportunty to do. Physically it effects everything from the prenatal care you receive (or don't), the food you eat (is ketchup a vegatable), the clothes you wear (what do you mean I have to wear this sweater from the 60's as my winter jacket), where you live, or even if you can get a doctor's appointment for that sinus infection or as my neighbor in South Carolina said, "just let the durn thing pop and ooze out a bit".

Emotionally/developmentally there are a few benefits if one has money. One can stay home with his or her child (because no one can forget the Harlow experiments), environmental stressors and their affects on one's psycholgical well being (like getting a good grade on a test versus ignoring the late night conversations on how a family will afford rent), or being able to afford some outside help if something should happen in one's family or community (can get a counselour to help deal with divorce, for example), or any number of other examples.

And when looking at opportunities it is clear that those with cash have a few more doors open to them. Anything from gymnastic classes to football pads, from musical instraments to banging on buckets, from the school that has college prep to the one that has get a person through ---

But, there are many who argue money is actually a "prison" of sorts. And clearly there are exceptions to every "rule" out there. And, of course, spiritually many leaders have different takes on money and its affects on people/society ---

so how do you do define freedom? Is money/class more significant of an issue than what we in America are willing to address, recognize, or imagine?

Galbraith

In Galbraith’s article titled “The Position of Poverty”, I agreed with many of his points about poverty such as his division of poverty into case and insular poverty as well as his overall definition of poverty and some of the solutions to it. Also, Galbraith’s point about creating artificial needs and wants being wasteful and destructive definitely rings true today with our generation’s current obsession with having the latest technology that not only has the greatest ability but looks the coolest. This just makes people focus on getting the latest and greatest and no longer think about trying to help the poor and what would best benefit the poor.
Galbraith’s general definition of poverty conflicts with the government’s definition of poverty that says that a family of four that has an income of less than $20,000 is at the poverty level. Instead, Galbraith says that poverty could be defined as people being degraded for living outside the categories which the community regards as acceptable. I think Galbraith’s definition is closer to the truth in the way that it shows how people will be treated because of poverty, not just the actual statistics of income versus people in a family. Many people feel the social strains of poverty because they do not want to be seen as low or unsociable just because they might not have the same level of income as others do. One example of this on a much smaller scale could be found in my high school. We had a poor section of our community that went to our high school and many of the upper-class students would look down upon the lower-class students solely based on what they did not have. The students didn’t know the lower-class student’s incomes, they were just basing their judgments on their categories they considered to be acceptable. The majority of the lower-class students that lived in these communities were Hispanic or black, only furthering their perceptions of what it means to be a lower-class citizen, when in actuality the majority of those at the poverty level are white.
Galbraith also said that poverty is divided into two types. First he talks of case poverty as being related to some characteristic of an individual that is afflicted with a mental deficiency, bad health, alcohol or other shortcomings. The second type he talks about is insular poverty which is more like an “island” of people that are in poverty. Here it is not just an individual but a group problem. One of the reasons that Galbraith mentions for insular poverty is the land and resources available. I agree with this in certain cases and to a certain extent. In some countries where the majority of the economy and living conditions still depend on farming and the environment, I agree that they would experience major poverty problems if they had something wrong in their environment. For a culture and country like the United States, we are less directly dependent on our environment for our economy and lifestyle. Unless some major environmental issue lasted for a long time here, I don’t think the U.S. would be very greatly affected.

What Reich Is Right About

In Robert Reich’s “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer,” he points out the growing gap between classes and discusses several reasons for why he thinks this is occurring. There are three classes of workers: the routine producers, in-person servers, and the symbolic analysts. The routine producers made up much of the work force mid-century, but they are sinking rapidly with the loss of jobs. The in-person servers are constantly having more positions being opened up, but the competition for those positions has increased drastically, making them also sinking, but with a more unsure future. However, the symbolic analysts are increasingly in high demand around the world, and very much rising above the others.

When you get to the root of it, the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer because the economy is shifting to a global economy. The industry is no longer restricted to within our borders; therefore, the competition increases dramatically. The routine workers are losing their jobs because labor is cheaper in other countries. This in turn causes the surplus of in-person servers. Because there are now many unemployed workers, the competition of service jobs is increasing. In-person service jobs never made a substantial income to begin with. Now, store owners can hire more qualified people to take these jobs for the same amount of money, leaving those who dropped out of high school or have no skills unemployed.

The United States is transitioning from a manufacturing industry to a service based industry. The world is looking for Americans to fill the higher thinking positions, which Reich refers to as “symbolic analysts.” This should put education as the priority of our country. The people who are struggling with fewer job opportunities are those who have no skills or college degrees. The opportunity for wealth for Americans lies in getting a good education. There is a surplus of positions available in science, research, engineering, management, marketing, architecture, and public relations. College has become a necessity in order to live a comfortable life style, and it needs to be the priority of the American society. In order to boost our economy, we need an educated work force, and that means making attending college accessible for everyone. So many students don’t go to college because of the mounting costs. I’m not suggesting that college be free for everyone, because I think that paying for college increases motivation for success. However, FAFSA, which is supposed to be the government aid for college students is really only for those students who are in low income families. The middle class families need more help paying for college.

The global economy demands the United States to provide educated workers who can use their minds and creativity to make a living, rather than manual labor that is quickly being replaced by more efficient machinery. Getting more Americans in the symbolic analyst positions will improve the financial status of the average American, and also improve the quality of life of the citizens. Reich points out that so many of symbolic analysts actually enjoy their work and “would work even if money were not an object,” while those in the in-person service and routine producing only work because it is necessary for their survival. Happy people buy more stuff, which would cause our economy to boom.

changes in society

Adam Smith is responsible for laying much of the groundwork for modern economics. His ideas in “Of the Natural Progress of Opulence” can be applied to all economies regardless of time or place, but his conclusions should not be taken literally because of his lack of foresight concerning how a society will evolve past the late 1700’s, which is when the piece was written. A literal interpretation of his conclusions would not be beneficial to the modern laborer because of the way society and the economy has since evolved.
In Smith’s rhetoric he describes his theory on the way a society evolves from small subsistence farming into a society with complex jobs and intricate trading. Smith’s ideas of an evolutionary society have proved to be correct, but the flaw in his writing comes when he assumes that his own society has reached the final stage of society’s evolution. He sees that agriculture comes before manufactures, and foreign commerce comes after that, but he can’t see the way that a society will evolve in regards to industry and service (which is how society has since evolved). This is understandable, and no one should expect Smith to be that prophetic, but he should not have been so conclusive in stating that the finality in economics occurs when one can cultivate his own land and be self-sufficient.
One way that Smith’s ideas differ from those of today is his theories on what is good for the economy and the population as a whole. The economy of Smith’s time would benefit from his ideas of each person working for his or her own personal benefit, therefore benefiting all of society, but today things are different. The differences are mainly in the way that people accumulate wealth. In Smith’s time, almost everyone was worked in an agricultural position, which means that one would naturally provide for him or herself before providing excess to others for a profit. Today, a much smaller portion of the population is involved in agriculture (about 16%), and most of the population is employed in positions that rely on pleasing the population by mastering a service related trade. Some examples include jobs in media, food service, fashion and clothing, retail, and even in education and law among many others. These trades require the laborer to provide for others before he is able to provide for himself. This makes society function more smoothly when laborers work with the population for the benefit of others, thus benefiting themselves. This fact forces one to reanalyze Smith’s arguments and realize that while he was correct about the evolution of societies economically, the way that society has since evolved (beyond his ability to foresee) has created a flaw in his initial argument.

In his article “The Position of Poverty,” John Kenneth Galbraith
segregates modern poverty into two unique situations. The first,
case poverty, refers to an individual or family that is
struggles while their neighbors enjoy relative affluence.
Conversely, insular poverty refers to a group in which “everyone
or nearly everyone is poor (407).” Galbraith makes this
separation in order that there could be systems in place to deal
with the poverty as it should be dealt, rather than using the
same methods in unique situations. However, he believes that a
guaranteed income would help to remedy both situations.
Throughout the article, Galbraith seems to ignore the
notion that when social systems act as a crutch for professional
inadequacy, it has an effect on the population as a whole. “The
corrupting effect on the human spirit of unearned revenue has
unquestionably been exaggerated (411),” he says. Even if that is
the case, there is no doubt that handouts can have an effect on
a person, specifically his work ethic. If two people are heavily
taxed in order to provide subsistence for a third, often capable
person, then the beneficiary will likely see no need to better
himself. This is further evidenced by the fact that he was in
dire straights to begin with. Of course, this help that he can
take advantage of at will does not remain unaffected. When the
existing poor is given mandatory help from the existing
affluent, there develops a parasite-host relationship in which
the host, through helping the parasite, is weakened. In the
economic case, the host will also examine the situation and
realize that he is earning income that is being given to others
who are earning nothing. Naturally, he will see no need to
continue as a productive citizen. This advent takes a system
which is supposed to create balance and causes it to regress
toward a mean that makes everyone less fortunate. If one person
earns fifty dollars and another earns five, but they are in a
system which the goal is economic equality, the high earner will
see no purpose in continuing his success. Thus, the pair will go
from sharing fifty-five dollars to sharing much less. The poorer
one may still see slight improvement over his old state, but the
affluence of the group will be virtually destroyed. Which is
better, two people with six dollars each, or one with five and
another with fifty and the freedom to donate as he wishes? It
seems that Galbraith would prefer the former. He sees the
elimination of the lower class as an ability of an affluent
nation. “And the means to escape from these constraints and to
break their hold on subsequent generations just mentioned … all,
with rare exceptions call for massively greater investment in
the public sector (412).” In other words, we should give money
to those who are afflicted by “constraints.” If these
constraints truly exist in all their described power, then how
is a person able to become the first in their family to attend
college? To buy a home? The answer is through hard work, an
American virtue that, left alone, will carry us to greater
success and greater opportunity for everyone.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith’s Of the Natural Progress of Opulence makes some pointed observations and ideas about the way the economy of a society will best survive. Smith recommends forming societies that are self sufficient, and trading crops and surplus in order to stimulate the growth and success of the society. According to Smith, the epitome of success is land ownership because then one can be entirely independent of foreign trade and manufacturing reliance.

I found it necessary to keep in mind that Smith was writing before the industrial revolution. While there is much merit to Smith’s ideas in the context of his writing them, I do not think they entirely apply in the modern world. The world has moved to a much more global economy, and the most successful nations are those that have embraced this and learned how to use the global economy to their advantage.

Those countries that remain unaffected by the global economy are the third world countries that remain in poverty. It is necessary to adapt to the dependence on each other that we have evolved to. The world is too small to remain isolated. For example, Communist China remained isolated from the world for a long period of time, and much of China lies in severe poverty. Now, China is starting to open free market trading with other countries, and wealth of the country is quickly increasing. China is becoming more industrialized and modernized which is in turn improving the quality of life of its citizens. The recent reforms in the Chinese economy “have dramatically reduced the number of people below the poverty line from more than 200 million in 1981 to about 70 million in 1995.” (http://www.gwu.edu/~econ270/Taejoon.html#ref.1) And as the wealth of the country increases, it can begin to focus on the needs of its citizens, such as providing electricity to the rural areas.

The application of Smith’s ideals to a society today would result in the survival of the community perhaps, but the dependence on each other has resulted in more than survival: it has resulted in wealth. And with wealth of a country comes the increased quality of life of its citizens. Today, it is not enough to just survive when one can live and stretch beyond mere survival. The increased quality of life beyond survival results in the creativity and creation of other great ideas. This is because the community can then afford to better educate their children. It is education that leads to furthering the success of a society.

In Smith’s time, students were not even required to attend school and usually only went to school in the winter (at best) because there was less work on the farm. The problem with being completely independent is that there is less delegation of tasks, and therefore the burden on each individual family is much greater. One is responsible for attaining his or her food, shelter, warmth, and education. When it comes down to it, specialization allows us to maximize our productivity, even if that means dependency on one another. The modern industrialized countries are those who are also most capable of providing education to the citizens. I think a society that fosters the mind as well as the survival of the body is a successful one.

Adam Smith

In Adam Smith’s discussion of the “Natural Progress of Opulence” he drew light the topic of relations between the farmer and the townsman. He had a basic system of the development of economics within a community. This system included the development of agriculture, then the development of the town, and then trade can begin between the townspeople and the local farmers. The ultimate goal is to become self – sufficient then trade the surplus of the goods.

Because of the dramatic change of the foundation of the economy, money has become of more value than food. Though this foundation of money exists in current times, the ideas and actions of Smith were carried out in earlier ages, and even now some farmers still trade with each other because crops have more personal value then money. Though the growth of trade expanded due to many historical events and the dependency of countries on the global network forces us to continue this trade network with goods and natural minerals; I am curious to know if self - sufficiency would have taken a larger role and money had less value, our country would be more advanced and less dependent on other countries.

The oil dependency is obvious within our country. It has become more of a necessity as the car industry has progressed. It is also known that our country has the technology and the means to provide other sources of fuel, one popular example is ethanol. Car industries have developed ways to install computers within the vehicle to give directions, satellite radios that continually pick up signals from around the nation create and engines that run partially on ethanol. An engine that runs entirely on a fuel source other than oil is merely another technological necessity, and the United States has the means to create it. But, the question stands; is the United States so tied up with the global trade network that it cannot “break away” from the rest of the world and become self sufficient, though the separation may inspire new advancements better for our country and later the global economy. These advancements could include the creation of an alternate fuel source including corn or soybeans. The fuel source would advance our local economy (the United States) and it would decrease the amount of economies dependent on oil.

The Problem with Poverty

I found John Galbraith’s article, “The Position of Poverty,” very informative. He explains the two different types of poverty, case poverty and insular poverty, which effect countries around the world. Case poverty is caused by problems with an individual, whether it is mental deficiency, bad health, alcohol, discrimination, or a combination of these. Insular poverty is more associated with a big group of people, also know as an “island.” This island of poverty is caused by a factor common to all of the inhabitants. Galbraith separates poverty into two groups to show that poverty can be caused by different factors and to show that the solution is more complicated.
I agree with Galbraith’s two types of poverty, however I don’t agree with his solution on case poverty. He oversimplifies the solution too much. For case poverty, he says that there are treatments for the individuals with problems, “Educational deficiencies can be overcome. Mental deficiencies can be treated. Physical handicaps can be remedied.” Galbraith says the only problem is the shortage of money. He doesn’t account for discrimination, addiction to alcohol, or many of the health problems that can’t be treated. A lack of money isn’t the only problem with case poverty.
Galbraith’s solution for insular poverty is more reasonable though. He points out that the best way to help the community is to help the children. If there is better schools and health service for the children then they could overcome the environmental restraints. If the children can avoid the restraints, then they could increase their chances to live a life without poverty. The problem with this solution is the money required for the better schools and health services. The money can’t come from the poor community; money has to come from an outside source, which there probably isn’t one that wants to contribute.
I found this article informative because it opened a new perspective of how I view poverty. Galbraith’s article made me think of our society today and how his two types of poverty match it. We see people on the streets, we see whole communities too poor to help themselves, yet there is not much done to help them. I agree with Galbraith when he says, “We ignore it because we share with all societies at all times the capacity for not seeing what we do not wish to see.”

Communism: Where did it go wrong?

In The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx remarks on how the labor force of the world, or Proletarians, have to rise up against the rich minority, or Bourgeois, of their nations to gain social power. The methodology Marx suggests is to adopt Communism. After sighting a brief history of the trend of a rich minority abusing the poor majority, Marx then compares the needs of the Proletarians to the attributes of Communism, thus strengthening his argument by showing a commonality between the two. After introducing counter-points to his argument and disproving them, Marx concludes with a cry to the Proletarians to rise up around the world to start not a national revolution, but a global one.

After reading Marx's writing, I could not help but think “If Communism was made to benefit the labor force as equals and respected parts of society, then why does the middle class in many communist countries become taken advantage of by the dictators that run them? What went wrong with Soviet Communism? Or Chinese Communism? I propose that the error had originated from Marx's own works. Though Marx does go into detail about how the economic side of Communism should be handled, the political end is left up to interpretation, or more accurately, manipulation. Marx had said it himself in The Communist Manifesto that wealth is social power. In politics, social power drives political policies and procedure. By only touching on the political ramifications of Communism, Marx had left way too much up for interpretation. I could state how things “could have been different...” or “If only Marx had...”, but the truth is that these key details were left out of Marx's argument based on his chosen focus on economics. If Communism is going to work, a “The Communist Manifesto Part 2” will be needed. As for now, the “Great Idea” of Communism is only an incomplete one.

Marx

Marx believes that a communist government is the way to go because in a capitalist government people are treated unfairly and that the middle class or the proletarians are unhappy with their lifestyle. He feels in a capitalist government there are two classes the bourgeois and the proletarians; and the bourgeois only care about themselves and want to improve or do things that will benefit them. In Marx opinion, to the bourgeois, the proletarians are just their labor workers and people who they can have do the "dirty work". They really don’t care much about the proletarians feelings or how they are living their life. According to Marx, however, in a communist government, they are trying to make everyone equal and the communist people are there to help the proletarians be just as wealthy or powerful as everyone else. They want to do away with different classes and allow all people to have the same opportunities.


Overall I think Marx essay is pretty good. I like the fact he wants everyone to be a part of the same class but I don’t think having a communist government is the answer. First of all, I don’t believe there are only two groups in a capitalist government. I believe by Marx saying that, he is making a descriptive assumption; not everyone is classified in one of the two groups. Marx himself says, there are all sorts of people but they are pretty much labeled as being a proletariat or a bourgeois. I feel there are people in-between the two groups and that they are very capable of switching into another if they are unhappy with their lifestyle. Therefore, Marx has no proof that people who live under a capitalist government are unhappy and dying for change. Another thing that makes me feel differently than Marx is when it comes to values. I feel he values equality for all over power for some and he also values everyone working at the same level over having someone with more power or a leader. I value, however, the hard worker. I believe if someone works harder than another, they deserve to receive more than that person and get more recognition. I also think that if we didn’t have leaders, it would be hard to run businesses and for everyone to make a good living. People need a leader or someone who is in charge because without someone controlling things there would be chaos and confusion. Along with having a lead everyone is society wants to be at least a little better than their neighbor so I don’t see communism turning out as Marx claims. Not everyone will be able to be on the same level and get along with no problems. If everyone was equal and free to do as he or she pleased, businesses would fall and work would not necessarily get done. In my opinion it is much easier to be told what to do or how to do it, then it is doing it on my own. It would be nice for everyone to be equal and at the same level, but unfortunately I don’t see it happening anytime soon considering people are greedy and some people just don’t want to work as hard as others.

Reich

The main concept that Reich is trying to portray is that the wage gap between the classes in the United States is becoming even larger. He examines three classes of people and how they are being affected. The producing class is losing their jobs because companies are moving the jobs overseas, where the same work can be done for a lot less money. He said, “Routine producers in the United States, then, are in direct competition with millions of routine producers in other nations” (paragraph 4). The in-person servers class relies on the producers to make a living. If the producers do not have any income, they do not have money to spend on what the servers are selling. The lack of business can cause the servers to lose their jobs as well. The third class, the symbolic analysts, are gaining wealth, while others are losing it. The analysts are selling their knowledge and experience to corporations all over the world.

Reich’s piece is not new information to us. The separation between the classes has been widening for years. He mentioned that the producing class is losing their jobs because of outsourcing. This is still true today and many Americans are still shocked about it. Companies are going to do what they have to, to stay in business. Looking at car production is a good example. Foreign car companies can make the cars cheaper than domestic companies, like Ford and General Motors can. There are car factories by my hometown and there are always stories in the news about more layoffs being expected. The workers were laid off because the cars could be produced cheaper in Asia. Many of the workers had worked there since high school and the factory life is all they know. It is going to be difficult for them to find other, decent paying jobs. The layoffs also affect local businesses that depend on the factory workers to spend their money in stores and restaurants. What is happening is that the world is moving away from having many market economies to being one global economy. The globalization process is causing countries, mainly the ones that have been industrialized for decades, to lose power. Countries, like Hong Kong and China, are expanding their economies. Reich said in paragraph 11, “The shift of routine production jobs from advanced to developing nations is a great boom to many workers in such nations who otherwise would be jobless or working for much lower wages.” The globalization process can help third world countries attract businesses causing their economy to be stronger but complete globalization can be harmful. If the world’s largest economies become too intertwined, it would only take one of them to fall to bring the rest down. Americans losing jobs to foreign countries maybe bad for them, but the benefits for the other countries need to be looked at. Companies move their jobs overseas to save money, which ultimately saves the consumer money. A factory worker in China would be paid, for the day, less than a factory worker, here would be paid hourly. These factory workers also do not have the opportunity to receive an education, unlike most people here. These jobs give others around the world the chance to earn a living, but at the American workers expense. Maybe outsourcing should be taken as a sign that industrialized countries need to have more jobs that require a higher education and let the countries that can produce cheaply do so. Doing so would allow both countries to benefit.

Reich’s ideas present the problem of the class gap but he does not offer a viable solution. I would have enjoyed the piece more if he had offered a way to correct the problem. The piece was interesting however, I felt that it started to be repetitive and lost my attention. He used many examples to prove his points. The examples were helpful but there were too many. Some companies were receiving tax breaks for moving their jobs overseas and that needs to stop. American companies need to be given incentives to keep their operations here and not to take them to other countries. There are many people to blame for the gap between classes. Our time would be better spent trying to fix the problem than finding people to blame.

Modern Money

Keynes discusses the changes on society created by inflation and deflation of prices: the investing class profits less by saving during inflation, the business class must lay off workers because of deflation but gain due to inflation by paying less out of the profits earned, and the earning class faces unemployment during deflation but in a time of inflation, the earner has the opportunity to increase his livelihood. Next, Keynes says that the mere anticipation of a change in the price level can cause a change in the level of production; he believes that business should always gain or lose with fluctuating prices. Finally, Keynes concludes that deflation is worse for society because it causes a higher unemployment rate instead of just costing investors money.
I think this piece seemed to be an accurate analysis of what happened leading up to and during the depression. The observations he makes about the trends of economics and the human reaction to economics are still relevant in our society. The business man still anticipates the changing market for his product. This is understandable because everyone would attempt to minimize his own losses. What I think is one thing that has changed recently, in regards to gaining money, is that everyone is preoccupied with gaining as much as possible, or even more than is offered to them. That is why I think there is such a problem with gambling, specifically, playing the stock market. Stocks used to be purchased in support of a company or as a hopeful earning opportunity but today are treated as quick cash. People buy cheap stock when there is even a slight chance of it increasing in value, but are too impatient to wait for any trend to be established. They then sell the stock and may even lose money on it.
I agree with Keynes assumption that the economy should favor the majority working class. In an ideal system, business men would give back much to their employees as they did after the war, but today, it seems that companies and business men feel little responsibility to give back and seldom do. Companies wish to pay as little as possible, and if a company goes under, wish to pay nothing. This fact can be seen today in two ways. First, there have been several companies sharing the same fate as Enron; the company goes under with the bosses trying to escape with their money and the employees unemployed and without compensation. Second, large companies are always searching for the employee who will take less pay and fewer perks. Today so many companies are pushing for overseas jobs, and if a company doesn’t feel the need to give back with jobs than it will not give back at all.
One thing that made me think was the point that money depreciates and eliminates the possibility of a perpetual fortune. If this trend was to be kept true, money must always depreciate in value and depreciate constantly. Thinking about the average income today, people make much more today than years ago and goods cost more all the time. The price of gas is one example, as people earn more money, the price goes up only, gas is slightly different. Recently the price of gas has risen rapidly, disproportionate to the raising of wages, showing a depreciation of money at the same time as inflation in prices and making the situation seem much worse than it may actually be. Yes the price of gas is slowly outgrowing wages but the price should not be compared to gas prices in the past because the value of money is different.

Keynes

The theories Keynes came up with were revolutionary, yet they are both logical and remarkably well explained. Keynes was not one to let things just run their course. He not only believed that the government had an obligation, but the authority and capability to exercise some control of the economy. Interestingly, he viewed wars and international and national actions from their effect on the economy. Keynes thought decisions should be made not by morals or justice, but what is good for economy. Incredibly practical, he thought that a country’s stability was based on economic success, thus the economy was of the foremost importance.
Much of Keynes theory makes sense, economic success has a big impact on a nations’ stability. However, there is a risk in viewing situation entirely from an economic stand point. During the depression, economic failure caused widespread poverty and homelessness as well as bringing industry to a standstill. Part of what revived the economy was government spending as well as World War 2. Unfortunately, since then the country has developed something of a military industrial complex. On the one hand this helps the economy and keeps the country running; on the other hand conflicts and wars can get started or exacerbated due to a need to use that military industry. Keynes advocates government overspending if it will help with inflation or deflation. While I agree that the government should do what it can to help the economy and national stability. Attempting to control the economy can have bad results and helps contribute to the huge national debt. All in all, Keynes had some good points which have continued to be used, but situations need to be looked at from more than an economic view.

Key to Keynes

In his essay, “Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money,” economist John Maynard Keynes discusses the effects of inflation and deflation on an economy, as well as the people in that economy. For example, the investing class, the business class, and the earner. However, in paragraph 40, Keynes clarifies that it is “not merely that the actual occurrence of price changes profits some classes and injuries others… but that a general fear of falling prices may inhibit the productive process all together.” In this main point of his essay, Keynes explains that it is, in fact, the spenders that sway the value of money to inflate or deflate.
My favorite part of “Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money” is the first sentence of the piece, “Money is only important for what it will procure.” I think it is nearly impossible for the reader to read through this stimulating opening sentence without momentarily sitting back and letting out a pensive “hmmm…” I love how this simple statement can provoke thought about a concept that is rudimentary and yet rarely put into words. I feel that this is a theme throughout this essay. Keynes takes a concept that seems fairly straightforward and then expands on it.
Another section that particularly caught my eye was the first paragraph of the section “III The Earner.” Keynes states, “It has been a commonplace of economic textbook that wages tend to lag behind prices, with the result that the real earnings of the wage earner are diminished during a period of rising prices." I have recently been a witness (and, in my opinion, victim) of this concept. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voted on Issue 2 to raise minimum wage. I work as a server at a local restaurant and was therefore directly affected by this issue. I voted against the passing of this issue because I reasoned that it would not help anyone because prices of products would just be raised as well. It does not matter if one can make more money if the value of that money decreases proportionally to the increase earned (to reiterate, “Money is only important for what it will procure.”). I have already seen the predicted effects of this issue as my place of employment has been forced to raise its prices to be able to afford the increase in wages of the employees. As Keynes said, prices were too high for what the minimum wage worker was earning (32), so, minimum wage was raised to compensate, however, because prices were raised we are in the same position we started in. (Hmmm, downward spiral, anyone?)

Globalism and competition...

Of the subjects that we discussed in class, I found the idea of globalism from the Marx discussion to be the most interesting. As you know, we discussed how the villages and small towns first have to focus on the farming and agriculture, then the industrial things such as blacksmiths and other type of tradesmen. Lastly, they need to focus on foreign trade. The U.S. is itself a very globalized country, as we are waaaaayyyyy past the point of focusing on our agriculture or trades. We are now a service industry, providing information to others as trade. We are thriving... ok, well some may say otherwise, due to deficits and other issues that are going on, but you can't argue that we definitely are a powerhouse in the global community and have a lot of power. It was brought up in class whether or not other countries are actually doing as well as we are or if they could ever reach even half of the production that we have. I was wondering what would happen if a global crash or a WWIII were to occur. What would happen to the U.S? Many other countries, especially third world ones, would most likely not feel nearly the impact that the U.S. would. So if we are so powerful, how easily could that power be taken from us? Those third world countries are often times looked down upon for being so technologically "un-advanced." However, if Marx's theory holds true and we were to say... lose power (electrically speaking), have a war (effectively cutting us off from the world), what would we do? Would we fall into the "Greater Depression?" We rely so much on other countries, for gas and food and clothes and everything else. One of my favorite quotes from my economics h.s. teacher was that "we Americans are Chinese prostitutes." I know it sounds weird... but it's true!! Look at the tag on your shirt, just about any technology, and you'll either see "made in china, japan, somewhere in asia, or some country other than the U.S." And when you see those tags with the U.S. on it, it always says "proudly made in the U.S. of A!" If we're so proud of it, why don't we make more? I believe that the U.S. would fall on its ass if anything were to fall out of place, and that scares me...

Outlook on Poverty

I found Galbraith’s essay, “The Position of Poverty,” very interesting. At the beginning, Galbraith outlines the basic ideas dealing with poverty, and defines two separate types of poverty. Galbraith speculates that because the very poor are now the minority, politicians usually do not focus so much on the needs of those poor as much as the wants and needs of the middle class majority. He also asserts that richer societies have no excuse for not helping out their poor citizens, and we must remember that the children of poverty do not have any control over the unfortunate situation in which they are living. In the final section of Galbraith’s essay, he suggests possible remedies for the seemingly never ending problem of poverty in modern society. Overall, I enjoyed this piece. Galbraith presents some very interesting concepts and ideas, that are still very pertinent and applicable to today’s society. Most of his ideas have stayed true over time, and poverty is still an important issue that is far from being solved.

One of Galbraith’s most striking points is that there are two main types of poverty, between which he makes a clear distinction. He outlines them as case poverty and insular poverty. Case poverty is defined as poverty that is caused by or relates to an individual characteristic, while insular poverty is caused by some environmental factor and affects nearly everyone in a specific area. This concept of insular poverty really intrigues me. People affected by insular poverty had no control over the events that lead to their poverty, and they have no way out of their situation without outside help or aid. One of the reasons I think that the United States has such a problem in solving insular poverty is because upper and middle class American citizens often blame the poor for their own poverty. Some people feel like they have no obligation to (or rather they simply do not want to) help out the poor. Too often, the poor are viewed as lazy bums, hooked on drugs and choosing the poor life. Those people who are well-off economically feel that they have worked hard for their money, assets, and the lifestyle they live. They often forget that many poverty stricken people are the victims of insular poverty. Upper and middle class citizens do not realize that these poor people did not get into their unfortunate situation because of drug and alcohol addictions, or become involved in any other destructive behaviors or obsessions. The standard middle class American is so removed from the situation of the poor that they forget that these people have been left in poverty by some environmental or other equally unpreventable tragedy. People who are unaffected by these causes of insular poverty take for granted the fact that something such as what happened to those victims could have just as easily affected them. This concept of insular poverty is something we as a society should further explore, and see if we cannot find a solution to it.

Galbraith's Poor

Galbraith views poverty’s existence in modern America as something of an anomaly. “But in the United States, the survival of poverty is remarkable.” (24.) In some ways, he is right. It seems strange that a nation of such affluence, so rich in resources, and such a major player in the global economy would not be able to take care of its own members. He states that insular poverty (poverty which affects most people within an area) could be solved if only the country would “invest more than proportionately in the children of the poor community.” (19) He believes that by investing in the nation’s poor children in order to provide them with the basic services their parents can’t afford, the cycle of poverty may be broken. The problems of poverty however, go beyond allocation of resources, though resources in this nation are often grossly misused.

Though social services are very important, the priorities in this country clearly lie elsewhere. Much more money goes into the military than anywhere else. We spend more time and money trying to fix the problems of other nations than we spend protecting our own citizens. We also have a problem with “pork,” the wasting of tax dollars on unnecessary and costly projects.

Even if more money was spent on the poor however, results are not guaranteed to occur as Galbraith predicted. Providing everyone with a living wage, regardless of whether or not they are capable of holding a job, is not a very good motivation for keeping a job. Why would someone work for what they could have for free? Funneling money into schools in poor neighborhoods is a good idea, but is also not guaranteed to solve the problems of poverty. How exactly would the funds be used? Would they go towards teacher salaries or after school programs? While Galbraith is correct in pointing out that poverty can partially be blamed on the fact that people simply do not notice or care (24), there is more to the problem than that. People simply do not agree on the best way to address the problem. People look to the wasteful government spending and are skeptical of new taxes, as well they should be. Our country needs however, to again bring poverty to the forefront of the national consciousness so that these issues may be openly debated and fresh ideas may emerge for the betterment of society.

Competition: A Necessity

Through discussion of Karl Marx and his “The Communist Manifesto,” issues rise about the practical ordinance of his proposition. For example, through debate of reasons against the class system containing proletarians, Marx brings up the topic of competition. He writes, “This organization of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves” (46). Basically, Marx argues that the dividing of workers into both a class system and contradicting political parties effects productivity by creating competition. Perhaps competition, rather than provide incentive to work harder, is discouraging and scares underprivileged workers right out of a job.
Where Marx may devise a solid point, I believe that his logic is wrong. Firstly, competition has been part of society for years, and is not only a part of human nature, but all animal nature, as well. For example, in the wild, competing tribes of similar (if not the same) species will compete in battle over territory, offspring, and food. If animals were not equipped with the ability to battle, no tribe or group would ever be successful, because in the wild, there are simply not enough resources for every animal ever born to live it’s full lifespan. Secondly, competition fuels excellence. This can be explored in the world of athletics. Wherever the highest competition lies exists the best athletes among the world for any particular sport. For most sports, the emphasis on winning starts in junior high to high school. It is here where the concept of winning becomes more important than equal playing time. This reasoning is simple. With more emphasis on victory, it becomes more important to have the best possible players on the field. This can be directly related to economics; it is most efficient to have the best possible workers doing the tasks that need to be accomplished. After the world of high school athletics, the best of the athletes who excelled at their level have to compete against hundreds of competitors who were just as great, if not greater than they were. The final step is similar to the last, when few college players ever have the opportunity of entering a professional draft, where the players are picked from best to worst. It is at the professional level where competition is so great that players are actually paid to perform their abilities, with millions willing to watch their excellence. In the end, it is simple. Competition is necessary in not only matters of athletics, but also all aspects of life. It is the key to survival in the wild, and economic success in the world of people.

Quote of the Week

“God almighty in his infinite wisdom, has dropped the atomic bomb in our laps…now vision and guts and plenty of atomic bombs, …the U.S. can compel mankind to adopt a policy of lasting peace…or be burned to a crisp.” –senator Edwin Johnson

Keynes

Keynes, in his publication of The Social Consequences of Changes in the Value of Money, makes an astounding number of novel points when considering the time in which he lived (considering the Great Depression, etc). Though seemingly radical, Keynes’ prophetic writing on economics changed the way Europe and the United States of America deal with monetary issues. The initial, and very poignant, sentence in this work is, “Money is only important for what it will procure,” is a wonderful way to start the summary of the way money affects a society. This opening thought, though relatively simple, allows for the explanation of the way investors, businessmen, and earners are uniquely affected by inflation and deflation in relating to the distribution of wealth.
Keynes goes onto explain how this distribution of wealth, a very concrete occurrence, differs from the production of wealth, which seems to fluctuate according to society’s fear of it (monetary value) fluctuating (in regards to inflation or deflation). This is clearly expressed in paragraph 40, “The fact of falling prices injures entrepreneurs; consequently the fear of falling prices causes them to protect themselves by curtailing their operations.” In essence, the fear or happiness of society, therefore the cessation or overproduction of goods, is more powerful then the actuality of the monetary circumstances. In other words, if one thinks something bad will happen, or vice versa, one will take the necessary precautions and, without trying, create the predicted outcome. Keynes also makes is very clear that he is optimistic about government power being useful in getting the economy back on track, even if it means going into debt. This idea reflects our government today, but was practically unheard of before his time. He states this anti laissez-faire attitude in paragraph 23, “…I think, that it is not safe or fair to combine the social organization developed during the nineteenth century with a laissez-faire policy towards the value of money.”
It does not seem correct to “agree” or “disagree” with any of Keynes’ points. I live in a society where everything Keynes describes is happening all around me and affecting me on a personal level. I live in a rented apartment; therefore I am naturally negatively affected by inflation. This leads into one point of Keynes’ that I do agree with in paragraph 45, “Of the two [inflation and deflation] deflation is, if we rule out exaggerated inflations such that of Germany, the worse; because it is worse, in an impoverished world, to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier.” I agree with this opinion because unemployment continues to be a devastating problem in our society today (which I believe to be a more pressing problem than inflation of rent prices; however, everything is related and if one cannot afford a place to live, drive, etc. then how will one work?). What will happen to our current society as outsourcing becomes more common? Big businesses, businessmen, and certain investors will continue to make a lot of money, but what will happen to American earners? If, as Keynes expresses, all three of these “classes” are, in a way, linked with each other (see paragraphs 29 and 34), what will happen when, for example, the increasingly wealthy American businessman no longer pays the American earner a higher hourly wage because he can find someone overseas to do the same job for less? One could then question the morality and human nature of an increasingly greedy society.
The fact that Keynes changed the way that America and many other parts of the world deal with their monetary issues makes what he has to say very profound. He not only predicted many occurrences, but made observations about inflation, deflation, and our economy in general that hold true today. I have also posted a link to the government Web site stating the details about the consumer price index for the United States. According to #5 under the heading “Suggestions for Writing” at the end of the Keynes’ section in our book, “Keynes says that over long periods of time money will depreciate in value.” I thought this would be an interesting conversation piece. So, check it out! http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm

The Influence of Keynes

Keynes begins by stating that inflation and deflation redistribute wealth amongst the social classes. He distinguishes between the investing class, the business class, and the wage earner. Inflation and deflation are both bad and to be avoided. Deflation forces businesses to produce less and ultimately lay off workers, increasing unemployment. Inflation leads to the over stimulation of business and hurts the consumer.

Regardless of whether one is pro-market or anti-market in his/her view of the economy, it must be admitted that John Maynard Keynes was a tremendously influential economist. Staunch pro-market advocates may be extremely critical in evaluating Keynes’ fundamental beliefs. Similarly, radical anti-market believers disagree with Keynes in principle. However, most moderates in between these two extremes probably have a fairly positive view of Keynes’ impact on the 20th Century and beyond.

As a supporter of government regulation of the economy, I side with the Keynes admirers. Clearly his most famous and radical idea was that governments should spend money they don’t have during times of depression. Keynes’ proposal probably saved capitalism from itself. The 1930s was a time of uncertainty and fear. The Great Depression led some to believe that problems inherent in capitalism made Marxism more attractive. Keynes saw the rampant unemployment and sought to curtail it by instructing government to spend money which the private sector could not. Most will argue that the United States was only able to come out of the Great Depression and commence economic prosperity because of the massive World War II military buildup. Although this is true, students of history will give Keynes more credit because FDR never fully instituted Keynes’ economic philosophies until American involvement in World War II began.

I wonder what Keynes would say of America's deficit spending nowadays. Clearly the $8.6 trillion hole that has been dug is too deep and very unhealthy for the economy. A large deficit encourages inflation because an inflated currency makes the debtors payments much easier. Interestingly enough, the US national debt did not begin to skyrocket until the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan introduced supply-side economics. Although Reaganomics is complicated, it essentially advocates deregulation of markets and lower taxes.

One aspect of the current economy he would not agree with would be the Bush administration tax cuts, which have almost completely favored the very wealthy. As his writings indicate, Keynes believed Britain could pay for World War II by raising taxes on the most affluent Britons.

Overall, Keynes’ piece was boring at times, but still fairly interesting to me. Being a finance major, I have been exposed to Keynes in the past, and his concepts were easier understood the second time around. Clearly Keynes has withstood the test of time. American economists and politicians still frequently debate deficit spending, inflation policies, taxation, and government’s role in the economy. Of course, many of these topics were more or less introduced by Keynes himself, as economists before his time were typically fervent believers of laissez-faire capitalism. This new perception of the economy and how to run it, is undoubtedly Keynes’ greatest accomplishment.

What's happening to our money?

In the Keynes article in our book, I understood the main points of the article to be about the consequences of the change in the value of money upon the investing class, the business class, the earner and production. The main points were all related back to one another throughout the article, thus creating cohesiveness and helping to prove his thesis. One example of this was when Keynes related production to the business class by saying that because of production costs and the unreliability of making a profit, an entrepreneur may be hesitant to start a new business venture. The overall thesis was that there should be a way to regulate the level of prices in order to prevent inflation and deflation.
Overall, I found the article to be somewhat confusing because I am not familiar with the subject matter and because the word choice and sentence structure were difficult to follow. Despite this, Keynes ideas in this article seemed to really relate to social problems that many of us are experiencing today due to finances. One of the first things that seemed to relate to how life is now is the section about investing. Keynes said that when investing was first getting started, everybody wanted to invest their money because of the ease and convenience of it, which caused most people to overlook the importance of the stability of money involved. Another example of the importance of the stability of money was in production. When businesses anticipated rising prices, they would slow down the production of a product and then eventually they expect the prices to fall. All of these things seemed to still ring true today. Today, investing money seems like the smart thing to do, but many do not think about what will happen to the value of money during the years that their money is invested. One example in my own life of the changing value of money is my parents’ conversations about our home. When they bought our house about seventeen years ago, it was only worth about $115,000, but now it is worth about $250,000 to $300,000. This is obviously a good deal for my parents, but not for the people that wish to buy our house. A new couple wishing to buy a house has enough financial burdens, but now that housing is getting more and more expensive, it only adds to the strain. For me, this was a very easy example to understand concerning the change in the value of money. One other thing that I found relevant to Keynes article was minimum wage going up recently. Pretty much as soon as minimum wage went up, things started changing such as dollar menus, drink sizes and prices. All of these things are just small examples in probably most of our lives, of the constantly changing value of money. This just leads me to wonder what will happen in the future when we need to buy houses as adults, or have kids working for minimum wage or even send our kids to college!? By then, will things cost a fortune or will things have evened back out like Keynes hoped?

The Perception of Poverty

I found Galbraith’s “The Position of Poverty” to be interesting. I believe that his two definitions of poverty—case and insular--are very important. Case poverty, he says, is due to an individual or family problem such mental deficiency, inability to adapt to a new environment, or alcoholism. Insular poverty is when the majority of people in a certain area, or “island” are below the poverty line. It may seem obvious to us that people are poor for different reasons, but at that time, it is likely that no one else had made the distinction. Without this distinction, it would be easy to simply write off the poor instead of trying to understand the circumstances surrounding the situation. Understanding poverty and its causes is probably the most important step to actually solving the problem.

In general, the American people value individual responsibility. (Of course, the extent to which we value individual responsibility is different—just look at Republicans and Democrats.) Nevertheless, most of us believe that other’s circumstances are at least partly their own fault. I think this is what leads people to disapprove of welfare and say things like, “They should just get a job.” It’s true that those people need a job, but it’s not always that simple. In the case of insular poverty, for example, a person may live in a remote region where it is difficult to get a job anywhere nearby. If they can, it may not be enough to raise them above the poverty line.

Insular poverty, in my opinion, is much more difficult for our country to deal with. For one thing, it’s easier to understand the root of case poverty. That does not mean it will be easier to fix, but generally, we have programs for helping individuals or families. When entire areas are poor, it’s harder to find a solution. Insular poverty, though originally linked to the environment, can also lead people to develop problems associated with case poverty. One example I am would be the poverty of Native American reservations. Reservations are already remote, and often without electricity, adequate plumbing, or job opportunities. There are often higher rates of cancer, diabetes, alcoholism, and other problems. This seems to be a combination of case and insular poverty, and would be even more difficult to alleviate.

The question is, what should be done? As Galbraith recognized, poverty is not a problem that will simply go away. Galbraith did not provide an answer for how to solve the problem, and since then, we have not found one, either. Still, it’s important that as a country, we are able recognize that the position of poverty is complex. It’s important that people, like Galbraith, are perceptive enough to see this. That is what allows people to start developing plans for social and economic improvement.

Marx and Contemporary Connections

In this excerpt of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the first section is devoted to distinguishing between two classes: the Bourgeois and the Proletarians. Marx defines the Bourgeois as the ruling class while the Proletarians are the working class that carries out the will of the Bourgeois. Throughout his Manifesto, Marx is convinced that the Proletarians will eventually rise up and overthrow the Bourgeois, and he devotes the last section proposing ways in which this can be achieved.
There were two major ideas Marx presented that really got through to me in this excerpt, the first being Marx’s statement that the “work of the proletarians has lost all individual character” and that “He becomes an appendage of the machine.” The idea that people could be reduced to nothing more than a machine is haunting—like something out of a science fiction movie. Surely this is a very pessimistic view of the working class, but what I find most haunting is the fact that I agree with Marx to a degree. I know that there are some jobs in the workforce that require hardly any intelligence, creativity, and are so monotonous that the people could be considered an appendage of the machine with which they are working. Take an assembly line, for example. People working on a line do the same things every day, five days a week (sometimes more) for probably forty-some weeks a year. Their skill level is minimal, and the workers are, in a sense, disposable. There are so many people capable of doing those jobs that if one quits or “breaks,” they are easily replaceable or “fixed,” very similar to a machine. Yet, I would not go as far to call them machines. The workers—no matter how mundane and machine-like they may be—are not machines. These workers breathe, have ambitions (for the most part), and can make their own decisions, unlike a machine. Although their financial situation/need in life may be a strong influence in their decisions, the workers do still have free will—no one is forcing them to do a certain job. All in all, I do find many similarities between Marx’s idea of a proletariat and a modern day assembly line employee.
The other major idea that I agree on with Marx is his notion that the bourgeois “creates a world after its own image.” It has been proven through time that the group in power exerts their power on other groups in order to sway them into change. This dates all the way back to imperialism, when major countries in Europe (i.e. Great Britain, France, and others) traveled to Africa in hopes of making a profit off of their resources. In addition to gaining natural resources, they also pushed their customs and ideals onto the indigenous people. When I read this section, I immediately thought of the war in Iraq and the United State’s attempt at establishing a democracy like ours for those people. In this case, we are the ones in power, and we are trying to reform the Iraqis (or proletariats) into adopting a western style of government/custom. Although the US and Iraq are not exactly the “bourgeois” (then again, it could be argued) and the Iraqis are not exactly “proletariats” in that they are working under slave conditions for us, the parallel is still relevant (whether or not you agree with the situation in Iraq).
Overall, I found Marx’s ideas to be pessimistic, but I did find some major points with which I could agree and relate. It was interesting to think about how some ideas related to contemporary society (bourgeois and mirror imaging). Although I do not believe that Marx’s ideas could ever fully happen, I can definitely see how he would persuade many others to believe it could be done. He speaks with conviction and originality. In retrospect many things seem asinine or unachievable, but Marx uses very persuasive language and seems to have a plan. I can see how the downtrodden or unhappy would gravitate toward this romantic idea of equality. At the very least, Marx’s Manifesto will make one think.

**As a side note, there is a German movie called "Metropolis" directed by Fritz Lang in 1927. Long story short, in the city of Metropolis, the poor working class lives underground and works the machines in order to support the upper class. The poor work like machines and an underlying theme throughout the movie is people turning into machines. Another theme is capitalism versus communism. There are some great parallels between the movie and Marx's Manifesto. It's really a very haunting movie. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_%281927_film%29

Communism = Dictatorship?

Based on our class discussion concerning the question of why countries that practice communism are ruled by dictators, George Orwell’s Animal Farm offers some insight (For more information see Wikipedia’s Article on Animal Farm). In the book, farm animals overthrow their “capitalist” farmer and proceed to make a farm where equality among all animals is the chief concern. However, the pigs eventually take on the role of the farmer who they had helped topple and then effectively destroy all opposition to their plans/ideas. The pigs even post a sign reading “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Clearly, the pigs became the “dictators” of the farm, despite the original purpose of equality for all farm animals.

Overall, Orwell’s purpose in writing how the pigs became just like the farmer conveys the message that communism does not work when brought on by a revolution. Marx’s call for a proletarian revolution does not provide much detail on who will lead the revolution and how the reforms will be carried out. As history has shown, a charismatic leader has led a “people’s revolution” and then proceeds to carry out Marx’s reforms--alone. However, once the new leader has to give up their power for the sake of equality--the leader refuses and destroys all opposition to ensure that no uprising topples their new government.

Today, and especially during the Cold War, the “threat” of a dictatorship has been used to scare people away from Marx and communism. However, it is ironic that Marx’s ideas in the section, “Bourgeois and Proletarians” are very progressive and mirror some of the language used in Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. This is the reason why many opponents of the New Deal like to deride it as “communist propaganda.” However, these opponents fail to realize (as we discussed in class) that communism is an economic program, while a dictatorship is a form of government. Since some of Marx’s ideas have been used in various political movements, it has become common to deride these movements as communistic or socialistic. However, as Marx pointed out:

“Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic
by its opponents in power?” (Paragraph 2)

Therefore, when people call economic ideas “Marxist” and assail them as “dangerous,” the real threat may not lie in what the new programs entail, but how they were carried out. This is true with former Soviet Union and to a degree in current-day Russia. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government has been accused of being involved in the death of a Russian journalist (see ABC news article) who was critical of the Russian Government’s recent slide back towards old Soviet-style practices.