“America is a large, friendly dog in a very small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.”
-Arnold Toynbee
On a global scale, America is the greatest good. America’s desire to do good in the world is unmatched by any other hegemonic force. The author of the text classifies America as a “benign hegemon”. This is a stark contrast from the opposing viewpoint of America as an empire imperializing other nations with their own beliefs. Some of the most important keys to the U.S. being such a positive force are due to the fact that America does not fight religious wars, nor expansionary ones, nor ones driven by capital. America is always seeking to free those who may not be able to free themselves.
From the time of the 20th century, until present day, we have seen America go through a process of warfare that has been completely selfless. The push to liberate Berlin in the Second World War, the effort to liberate South Korea, and the capture of Sadam Hussein, are all examples of liberation from the hands and sacrifice of the United States. This was in order to achieve a greater good in the world, not advance an American agenda.
Leaders around the world often cast America in a negative light. However, during a time of need, the hand they bit usually does the feeding. The author acknowledges this by stating, “In many parts of the world, the United States serves as a convenient scapegoat for governments, a kind of political lighting rod to draw away from themselves the popular discontent that their shortcomings have helped to produce” (pg 50). Many times, America is charged with the fluctuation world economy, and sometimes rightfully so. However, other nations play their parts.
So much good has been done on the part of America in so many areas of the globe. Many of these cases are militarily, as stated by the author. He recognizes that since the Cold War, we have occupied, “…Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq” (pg 47). If one looks back at these instances, though, they were in the name of liberation and freedom across all spectra. The United States occupies nations for one reason, and one reason only – to free those who cannot free themselves.
From a humanitarian aspect, one may argue that the U.S. is liable to help those who cannot help themselves. A common Democratic Party theme is to install these social safety nets for the poor and unfortunate. Well, what about the poor and unfortunate of the world? The U.S.’s military and economic strength put them at a tremendous advantage to do some great things in this world. The author ends the discussion with what should be viewed as an altruistic quote, “About other countries’ approach to America’s remarkable 21st-centruy global role, however, three things may be safely predicted: They will not pay for it, they will continue to criticize it, and they will miss it when it’s gone” (pg 50).
Cited:
Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Rourke, John T.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Is Globalization a Positive Trend?
“The speed of light does not merely transform the world. It becomes the world. Globalization is the speed of light.”
-Paul Virilio
Imagine a world in which you were limited in communication to those who lived in the same region as you. The effects of globalization have had a positive impact worldwide. Not only freedom of capital flow, but also freedom of information flow has greatly increased the value of every single nation’s GDP. The development of technology will always be the leading factor in making the world economically expansionary.
Ronald Reagan once spoke of a shining city on a hill, one that was full of promise. The city’s people didn’t necessarily have an equal result guarantee, but they did have a level playing field. When countries are put on a level playing field, and not burdened with trade restrictions, it benefits each and every participant. The philosophy is one that is known as comparative advantage. As each country searches for their strongest product, it becomes valuable to the rest of the world. For example, the United States, with their technology improvements, educated workforce, and reasonable wages, was once on top in automobile manufacturing. It became very profitable for a long period of time. However, with rising healthcare costs, higher wages, and a closing gap in technology with China and Japan, the United States is close to losing their comparative advantage in auto manufacturing.
Ignorant minds and Marxists would lead everyone to believe that the North-South gap makes globalization an evil threat to the global South. That globalization exploits the South for their natural resources, and they are helpless to do anything about it. Hugo Chavez states, “The countries of the North with 15% of the world population count with over 85% of Internet users and control 97% of the patents. These countries have an average of over 10 years of schooling, while in the countries of the South schooling hardly reaches 3.7 years and in many cases is even lower” (pg 15). Maybe people like Hugo Chavez, guitar player Tom Morello, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter should step back and realize that without globalization, it would actually be more devastating to Latin American countries, and others of the South. What one really has to keep in mind is that everybody is a consumer in this world. Globalization makes consumers the winners. With competition from every corner of the globe in industries, they are forced to lower prices in order to generate business. So maybe Tom Morello should take a step back from his Rage Against the Machine lifestyle, and realize that the stop of expansion in globalization is only going to give more power to the large corporations and industries that are already established in the world.
Eastern and Western Europe have seen the positive impacts of globalization after the Second World War. Anne Krueger claims that, “In part, the recovery from wartime conditions and growth of GDP spurred trade growth” (pg 8). We have now seen enormous expansions in almost every sector of their economies, from GDP, to per capita GDP, to gross exports and imports. This is all made possible by the expansion of globalization.
Sources:
Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Rourke, John T.
-Paul Virilio
Imagine a world in which you were limited in communication to those who lived in the same region as you. The effects of globalization have had a positive impact worldwide. Not only freedom of capital flow, but also freedom of information flow has greatly increased the value of every single nation’s GDP. The development of technology will always be the leading factor in making the world economically expansionary.
Ronald Reagan once spoke of a shining city on a hill, one that was full of promise. The city’s people didn’t necessarily have an equal result guarantee, but they did have a level playing field. When countries are put on a level playing field, and not burdened with trade restrictions, it benefits each and every participant. The philosophy is one that is known as comparative advantage. As each country searches for their strongest product, it becomes valuable to the rest of the world. For example, the United States, with their technology improvements, educated workforce, and reasonable wages, was once on top in automobile manufacturing. It became very profitable for a long period of time. However, with rising healthcare costs, higher wages, and a closing gap in technology with China and Japan, the United States is close to losing their comparative advantage in auto manufacturing.
Ignorant minds and Marxists would lead everyone to believe that the North-South gap makes globalization an evil threat to the global South. That globalization exploits the South for their natural resources, and they are helpless to do anything about it. Hugo Chavez states, “The countries of the North with 15% of the world population count with over 85% of Internet users and control 97% of the patents. These countries have an average of over 10 years of schooling, while in the countries of the South schooling hardly reaches 3.7 years and in many cases is even lower” (pg 15). Maybe people like Hugo Chavez, guitar player Tom Morello, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter should step back and realize that without globalization, it would actually be more devastating to Latin American countries, and others of the South. What one really has to keep in mind is that everybody is a consumer in this world. Globalization makes consumers the winners. With competition from every corner of the globe in industries, they are forced to lower prices in order to generate business. So maybe Tom Morello should take a step back from his Rage Against the Machine lifestyle, and realize that the stop of expansion in globalization is only going to give more power to the large corporations and industries that are already established in the world.
Eastern and Western Europe have seen the positive impacts of globalization after the Second World War. Anne Krueger claims that, “In part, the recovery from wartime conditions and growth of GDP spurred trade growth” (pg 8). We have now seen enormous expansions in almost every sector of their economies, from GDP, to per capita GDP, to gross exports and imports. This is all made possible by the expansion of globalization.
Sources:
Taking Sides: Clashing Views in World Politics. Rourke, John T.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Sign of the Times
A Sign of the Times
The United States economy goes through periods of rapid growth, and rapid contraction. In the short history of the U.S., free market capitalism has dominated the marketplace. Recently, we have seen a populous outcry for more regulation, especially on banks. Some policies that have been enacted have done much to expand government power in the economy, and introduce moderate amounts of nationalization and socialism. The American public is very divided on how they want the government to balance regulation and free market principles in weathering this economic storm.
In the first days of October 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average evaporated around 20% of the nation’s wealth. Investor confidence waned on news that lending institutions were no longer stable, due to the sub-prime lending market collapse. Mortgage backing giants, and government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, lead the charge of economic uncertainty. The American public was blood thirsty, and wanted to know who was responsible for regulating these industries.
Coming off the back of insolvent banks, George W. Bush authorized $700 billion worth of funds to be allocated to the United States Department of Treasury. Under the command of Hank Paulson, the Treasury Department was to inject liquidity into major baking institutions that were no longer seen as viable. This TARP (troubled assets relief program) plan was a plan to thaw credit markets in order to spur economic development in the short run, and turn into sustainability in the long run.
George W. Bush always touted free market capitalism throughout his 8 years as President. The American public generally accepted capitalism, and his approval numbers did not fluctuate much after the economic collapse. According to Rasmussen Reports, then President Bush’s approval rating was 34% in August 2008, compared with 33% in October of 2008 (Rasmussen 1). In a second poll by Rasmussen Reports, they examined a specific clip of a George Bush speech. “In mid-November, 44% of adults agreed with President Bush’s statement that ‘free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility - the highway to the American Dream.’ Twenty-two percent disagreed, and 33% were undecided” (Rasmussen 2). This demonstrated a plurality of support for capitalism.
Capitalism works by allowing markets to adjust to where they can be sustained. It’s a natural reaction to a simple economic theory of supply and demand. N. Gregory Mankiw compares The Wealth of Nations, a book that was written by Adam Smith, to the Declaration of Independence. He says, “…the two documents share a point of view that was prevalent at the time: Individuals are usually best left to their own devices, without the heavy hand of government guiding their actions” (Mankiw Pg. 11). Mankiw also hits on a point that can pull the U.S.’s capitalistic system out of the current recession. It is the basic economic concept that people respond to incentives (Pg. 9). Once producers lower their prices to where consumers will again be able and willing to purchase said goods, the economy will begin to produce at levels seen before the economic collapse.
Consumer confidence is a key in weathering any economic storm. Consumers must feel comfortable in spending their money, or savings will pile up – leading to smaller amounts of economic output. A recent Gallup Pole suggests that consumers are starting to gain confidence in the economy. 15% of Americans were optimistic about the economy during the first weeks of February, compared with 32% at the end of March (Gallup 1). With this level of up-tick in optimism among consumers, we may see retail markets bounce back, followed by many other sectors of the economy.
Recently, signs of frustration from the American public have come in the form of low support for capitalism. In a recent Rasmussen survey, only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. However, only 20% of respondents said they felt socialism was better than capitalism (Rasmussen 3). This seems to be a gauge of how frustrated the American people are.
Socialism stems from the belief that the government should step in to monitor and regulate businesses and marketplace interactions. The government also plays a larger role in making sure income is evenly distributed throughout the population. Western Europe has fallen into this sort of behavior with their socialized healthcare system. Healthcare is provided for each citizen, regardless of ability to pay for it. Teemed with a progressive tax system, this healthcare is often financed by the upper class. Americans have been reluctant to give the government this much power, due in large part to our founding fathers’ beliefs in a small government that should be restrained by the people.
Partisanship can be a key factor in deciding the attitudes of American citizens in regards to the economy. Typically, the Republican Party is more favored toward free market capitalism, where Democrats favor tougher regulation, and sometimes socialism. Democrats typically believe the government can solve the problem, whereas Republicans often believe government is the problem. In the Rasmussen Reports poll, Republicans favored capitalism 11-to-1 over socialism. Democrats still favored capitalism, but only 39% said it was better than socialism, while 30% supported socialism over capitalism (Rasmussen 3). Independents played their part as well. “As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism” (Rasmussen 3). The key factors of the ideological split in both parties come from each party’s respected leaders. Democrats tend to follow the ideological path of Barack Obama and Barney Frank, who believe that tougher regulations need to be put in place in order to correct the financial systems. Republicans, however, are more divided. Some favor complete free market principles penned by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), where many others believe in a moderately regulated system touted by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).
One thing is clear in this situation: the American public is very divided on how they want the government to balance regulation and free market principles in weathering this economic storm. The United States is a country that remains to lean center-right on economic principles, and it shows with some of the wide gaps with independents asked about the capitalism vs. socialism dispute. In conclusion, these polls show that although Americans are reluctant to champion the likes of capitalism in these tough economic times, they are not anywhere near embracing socialism.
References
Gallup. 2009. “Economic Perceptions: Personal vs. National.” Gallup Polls, April 9.
Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2008. Principles of Macroeconomics. Mason, OH; Cengage
Learning.
Rasmussen Reports 1. 2008. “44% Agree: Free-Market Capitalism is Highway to
American Dream.” Rasmussen Reports, November 18.
Rasmussen Reports 2. 2009. “President Bush Job Approval.” Rasmussen Reports,
January 5.
Rasmussen Reports 3. 2009. “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.”
Rasmussen Reports, April 9.
The United States economy goes through periods of rapid growth, and rapid contraction. In the short history of the U.S., free market capitalism has dominated the marketplace. Recently, we have seen a populous outcry for more regulation, especially on banks. Some policies that have been enacted have done much to expand government power in the economy, and introduce moderate amounts of nationalization and socialism. The American public is very divided on how they want the government to balance regulation and free market principles in weathering this economic storm.
In the first days of October 2008, the Dow Jones Industrial Average evaporated around 20% of the nation’s wealth. Investor confidence waned on news that lending institutions were no longer stable, due to the sub-prime lending market collapse. Mortgage backing giants, and government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, lead the charge of economic uncertainty. The American public was blood thirsty, and wanted to know who was responsible for regulating these industries.
Coming off the back of insolvent banks, George W. Bush authorized $700 billion worth of funds to be allocated to the United States Department of Treasury. Under the command of Hank Paulson, the Treasury Department was to inject liquidity into major baking institutions that were no longer seen as viable. This TARP (troubled assets relief program) plan was a plan to thaw credit markets in order to spur economic development in the short run, and turn into sustainability in the long run.
George W. Bush always touted free market capitalism throughout his 8 years as President. The American public generally accepted capitalism, and his approval numbers did not fluctuate much after the economic collapse. According to Rasmussen Reports, then President Bush’s approval rating was 34% in August 2008, compared with 33% in October of 2008 (Rasmussen 1). In a second poll by Rasmussen Reports, they examined a specific clip of a George Bush speech. “In mid-November, 44% of adults agreed with President Bush’s statement that ‘free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility - the highway to the American Dream.’ Twenty-two percent disagreed, and 33% were undecided” (Rasmussen 2). This demonstrated a plurality of support for capitalism.
Capitalism works by allowing markets to adjust to where they can be sustained. It’s a natural reaction to a simple economic theory of supply and demand. N. Gregory Mankiw compares The Wealth of Nations, a book that was written by Adam Smith, to the Declaration of Independence. He says, “…the two documents share a point of view that was prevalent at the time: Individuals are usually best left to their own devices, without the heavy hand of government guiding their actions” (Mankiw Pg. 11). Mankiw also hits on a point that can pull the U.S.’s capitalistic system out of the current recession. It is the basic economic concept that people respond to incentives (Pg. 9). Once producers lower their prices to where consumers will again be able and willing to purchase said goods, the economy will begin to produce at levels seen before the economic collapse.
Consumer confidence is a key in weathering any economic storm. Consumers must feel comfortable in spending their money, or savings will pile up – leading to smaller amounts of economic output. A recent Gallup Pole suggests that consumers are starting to gain confidence in the economy. 15% of Americans were optimistic about the economy during the first weeks of February, compared with 32% at the end of March (Gallup 1). With this level of up-tick in optimism among consumers, we may see retail markets bounce back, followed by many other sectors of the economy.
Recently, signs of frustration from the American public have come in the form of low support for capitalism. In a recent Rasmussen survey, only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism. However, only 20% of respondents said they felt socialism was better than capitalism (Rasmussen 3). This seems to be a gauge of how frustrated the American people are.
Socialism stems from the belief that the government should step in to monitor and regulate businesses and marketplace interactions. The government also plays a larger role in making sure income is evenly distributed throughout the population. Western Europe has fallen into this sort of behavior with their socialized healthcare system. Healthcare is provided for each citizen, regardless of ability to pay for it. Teemed with a progressive tax system, this healthcare is often financed by the upper class. Americans have been reluctant to give the government this much power, due in large part to our founding fathers’ beliefs in a small government that should be restrained by the people.
Partisanship can be a key factor in deciding the attitudes of American citizens in regards to the economy. Typically, the Republican Party is more favored toward free market capitalism, where Democrats favor tougher regulation, and sometimes socialism. Democrats typically believe the government can solve the problem, whereas Republicans often believe government is the problem. In the Rasmussen Reports poll, Republicans favored capitalism 11-to-1 over socialism. Democrats still favored capitalism, but only 39% said it was better than socialism, while 30% supported socialism over capitalism (Rasmussen 3). Independents played their part as well. “As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism” (Rasmussen 3). The key factors of the ideological split in both parties come from each party’s respected leaders. Democrats tend to follow the ideological path of Barack Obama and Barney Frank, who believe that tougher regulations need to be put in place in order to correct the financial systems. Republicans, however, are more divided. Some favor complete free market principles penned by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), where many others believe in a moderately regulated system touted by Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).
One thing is clear in this situation: the American public is very divided on how they want the government to balance regulation and free market principles in weathering this economic storm. The United States is a country that remains to lean center-right on economic principles, and it shows with some of the wide gaps with independents asked about the capitalism vs. socialism dispute. In conclusion, these polls show that although Americans are reluctant to champion the likes of capitalism in these tough economic times, they are not anywhere near embracing socialism.
References
Gallup. 2009. “Economic Perceptions: Personal vs. National.” Gallup Polls, April 9.
Mankiw, N. Gregory. 2008. Principles of Macroeconomics. Mason, OH; Cengage
Learning.
Rasmussen Reports 1. 2008. “44% Agree: Free-Market Capitalism is Highway to
American Dream.” Rasmussen Reports, November 18.
Rasmussen Reports 2. 2009. “President Bush Job Approval.” Rasmussen Reports,
January 5.
Rasmussen Reports 3. 2009. “Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism.”
Rasmussen Reports, April 9.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Obama Gaffes the Special Olympics
In a week that has Americans questioning executive bonuses being handed out to insurance giant AIG employees, Barack Obama has found himself in even more hot water. As if it wasn't enough that we've heard Tim Geithner and the Obama Administration may have known, or even written into the stimulus package, about the executive bonuses, President Obama decided to walk on stage with comedian Jay Leno late Thursday night. It marked the first visit to a late night comedy show by any sitting President, and now Barack Obama may have been wishing to go back into history and give up that seat. In an offhand comment, President Obama compared his less than stellar bowling skills to those who participate in the Special Olympics.
The exact comment was captured in this CNN article:
This is what struck up the controversy. Now, this blog is not used to smear the President, but it is used to speak out against policies we may disagree with. Especially those that create roadblocks for ingenuity and long-term prosperity.
Right Wing Reform believes that although what Barack Obama said was utterly inappropriate and disrespectful - these things happen. We understand that Mr. Obama was referring to his own bowling skills, and not purposely trying to humiliate anyone. But what we are outraged about is the attitude coming out of the left-wing media. MSNBC buried the story on their website this morning and CNN had it with the less important stories. What we want to know here at Right Wing Reform is this:
What if George W. Bush had made this remark? You can rest assured Keith Olbermann and the left-wing elite would have sounded their political correctness horns and circled their limousines to do some hard hitting smear journalism the way they know best.
Just something to think about.
The exact comment was captured in this CNN article:
While joking on The Tonight Show about his bowling prowess (during last year's campaign trail he shamefully scored 37 in a game), Obama said he'd been practicing at the White House.
He told Leno that he bowled 129 in the White House bowling alley and said his bowling skills are "like Special Olympics or something."
This is what struck up the controversy. Now, this blog is not used to smear the President, but it is used to speak out against policies we may disagree with. Especially those that create roadblocks for ingenuity and long-term prosperity.
Right Wing Reform believes that although what Barack Obama said was utterly inappropriate and disrespectful - these things happen. We understand that Mr. Obama was referring to his own bowling skills, and not purposely trying to humiliate anyone. But what we are outraged about is the attitude coming out of the left-wing media. MSNBC buried the story on their website this morning and CNN had it with the less important stories. What we want to know here at Right Wing Reform is this:
What if George W. Bush had made this remark? You can rest assured Keith Olbermann and the left-wing elite would have sounded their political correctness horns and circled their limousines to do some hard hitting smear journalism the way they know best.
Just something to think about.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Stock Market Balks on Big Moves
At around 11AM today, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order reversing the Bush Administration's ban on federal funding for stem cell research. I am not going to use this forum to voice my opinion of this policy, rather, I want it to resinate with people how shocked I am that the market didn't really move on this information. On a day that I expected to see an explosion of investment in pharmaceuticals and stem cell companies, the market simply yawned. Let's dig into a couple of the big moves that took place today.
The market opened strong for stem cell companies today with President Obama's executive order. Stocks such as Advanced Cell Technology, INC., Cord Blood America, INC., and Stem Cells INC., all saw gains of around 80% by mid-trading day. However, the powerful voice of Barack Obama after his John Hancock presentation seemed to drag down these surging stock prices. Closing rates were between +25%-+40%. This is seen as a very modest gain for such a huge announcement. Many day traders were counting on these stocks for some added revenue.
Another move that should have helped pharmaceutical companies was a merger between Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough. This deal was worth $41.1 billion in cash and stock. However, Merck closed at 20.99 (-7.7%), while Schering-Plough closed at 20.13 (+14.8%).
Finally, a topic that hits home for me and many Michiganders. Dow Chemical Co. settled their merger deal with Rohm & Haas. This new sense of stability should have reassured investors to go out and purchase Dow stock - but it didn't. Dow saw losses tally up throughout the day. This stock should be a very solid long-term investment, but who knows when it will pick up again. It closed at 6.33 (-10.97%).
In closing, it's hard to tell when we will find the bottom of this market. The market rests, right now, at the same resting points it settled at in the 90s. Some say this points to a mushy bottom of the market, but nobody can be sure. It seems that if we were at the bottom, these stocks would have taken off today with the big news they were surrounded with.
The market opened strong for stem cell companies today with President Obama's executive order. Stocks such as Advanced Cell Technology, INC., Cord Blood America, INC., and Stem Cells INC., all saw gains of around 80% by mid-trading day. However, the powerful voice of Barack Obama after his John Hancock presentation seemed to drag down these surging stock prices. Closing rates were between +25%-+40%. This is seen as a very modest gain for such a huge announcement. Many day traders were counting on these stocks for some added revenue.
Another move that should have helped pharmaceutical companies was a merger between Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough. This deal was worth $41.1 billion in cash and stock. However, Merck closed at 20.99 (-7.7%), while Schering-Plough closed at 20.13 (+14.8%).
Finally, a topic that hits home for me and many Michiganders. Dow Chemical Co. settled their merger deal with Rohm & Haas. This new sense of stability should have reassured investors to go out and purchase Dow stock - but it didn't. Dow saw losses tally up throughout the day. This stock should be a very solid long-term investment, but who knows when it will pick up again. It closed at 6.33 (-10.97%).
In closing, it's hard to tell when we will find the bottom of this market. The market rests, right now, at the same resting points it settled at in the 90s. Some say this points to a mushy bottom of the market, but nobody can be sure. It seems that if we were at the bottom, these stocks would have taken off today with the big news they were surrounded with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
