there can be no winners without losers. do you agree?

1042 Words5 Pages
Question: "There can be no winners without losers." Do you agree? - define: what makes a winner/ loser. - Stand: it depends on the parties involved. Conflict can result in only losers and no winners too. - Case study: Thailand's power struggle over sovereignty; Current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva VS. "Red Shirt" Movements who're loyal to ousted Former Premier Thaksin Shinawatra. - For this example, both parties are on losing ends although one of them [Thai Prime Minister Abhisit] is still in political power. How so? Political/ social unrest: the recent summit of Asian leaderrs meeting was disrupted and postponed due to the breakout of a rally against the Thai government. Resulted in 2 deaths and 123 people injured. Economic downfall: Thailand economy is anticipated to shrink by 5%. Also a probable loss of 190 billion baht [5.36 billion US dollards] in tourism revenue and the fall in visitors by 3.2 million people according to the Tourism Council of Thiland. Some countries have also issued travel warnings resulting from the recent turmoil in Thailand. Neither parties are satisfied. The Red shirts said protests will continue against Abhisit and wants him to quit and call for Elections to be held. Stand: Inequality, especially economic inequality, can show how the removal of public safety nets exacerbates existing disparities and causes the disadvantaged to fall even further behind. Example of inequality: In the United States today, the wealthiest one per cent of the population owns more than the bottom 95 per cent. The United States has the greatest disparity of wealth in the entire industrialized world. That fact is a national disgrace, though it is largely invisible both in the media, and in the endless accolades about the wonders of capitalism. While America seems to be enjoying a banquet of unbelievable richness, most Americans
Open Document