When defining what the political actually is you must first be able to understand what the relevant extremes are that actually define the political. Through Schmitt’s words, “the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy” (Schmitt, p. 26). When you are making friends and enemies through certain actions, then you are actively participating in the political. “The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other…so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible” (Schmitt, p. 27).
With Mr. Parker being clearly motivated to merge, I would like to consider motivations for Mr. Baily to oppose the merger. When Mr. Bailey was initially approached regarding a merger with USO he expressed concern regarding the financial stability of the UOC versus the financial stability of the USO. The UOC is financially stable due to a reserve fund that is in place due to their current business model. These funds allow the UOC to be flexible and maintain stability if they only cut projects that do not meet their fund-raising goals. The USO does not have this flexibility and could not operate within their current successful business model.
It is important to recognize the regulation impact statement that is not prepared in connection with the issuance of AASB 13 as the amendments made are minor in nature. What can make AASB is adoption of a wider scope of proposed issues. Some of these issues are write-downs of sound assets required under the current implementation of fair-value accounting which adversely affect market sentiment. The provision on AASB should accommodate well the write-downs margin that impacts in a downward spiral that may lead to large-scale fire-sales of assets, and destabilizing, pro-cyclical feedback effects. These damaging feedback effects worsen liquidity problems and contribute to the conversion of liquidity problems into solvency
However, it also states that Henry was concerned with risings in Yorkshire and Country Durham, which is where the Pilgrimage of Grace originated from. “Unless this rising was quickly dealt with” (1), Henry would not be able to attack France. Source 3 supports this idea as it states that if Henry wants to win against France, “with Scotland let him begin” (3), therefore Henry must deal with Scotland first, then with France. Therefore, Scotland’s unrest was proving to be a threat to Henry’s foreign ambitions. Source 2, despite also showing that Scotland was proving to be a threat for Henry to have to deal with, offers evidence to suggest that Scotland was not actually a threat to his foreign
When the government prevents prices from adjusting naturally to supply and demand, efficiency is improved in the economy. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxviii]. A market economy cannot possibly produce a socially desirable outcome because individuals are motivated by their own selfish interests. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxix]. While the invisible hand cannot guarantee efficiency, it is better at guaranteeing equity.
However, I appreciated the book’s objective as well as, a political statement regarding some realities that seemed stark and may threaten, or undermine, the economics of wellbeing, national security, as well as, the society unless they are addressed in a more effective manner. In his book, Peterson mentions Margaret Thatcher who says that it may be easy for the politicians to opt for the current gratification while they make other people pay the price for the future. However, that does not really change the reality that there is a price, since the price has a potential of being truly terrible. I do agree that the prospects of twin deficits, as mentioned by Peterson, have had some effect on the confidence, easiness, as well as on consumer and business behavior; although the effects have not yet been felt on the interest rates. The main reason for this is that the private demand for the investment capital is very weak.
The Prince has elicited debate amongst generations of readers for its seemingly ruthless approach to statecraft and its abandonment of conventional morality. What Machiavelli recommends may seem, in a different political context to the stability of interstate relations today, to be shocking or immoral. However, such an interpretation fails to consider that The Prince is very much made by and for the real world. Machiavelli’s prescriptions are tailored to circumstances where society is already immoral by human nature and is blighted by disorder. Thus this essay will posit that Machiavelli is not motivated by immorality but rather pragmatism, in his advocacy of the means necessary to achieving an ‘end’ of stability and security for the collective good of the people.
As long as there are threats in the world against the American people, privacy will be limited. When the civil liberty of privacy is in the path of the national security threats, the government can infringe on the
However, because foreigners are willing to work for less money, it gives them a more adept position in the American economy and working force, regardless of their education. Therefore, the abundance of labor creates a shortage of jobs which in turn leads to a “rough estimate that suggested that as many as 42 million jobs, or nearly one-third of the nation's total, were susceptible to offshoring” (Gosselin, pg 2). In essence, it doesn’t matter how much you know, but rather how little you will work for. The Social Problems textbook states that “the globalization of the economy is not a neutral process. Decisions are based on what will maximize profits, thus serving the owners of capital, and not necessarily workers or the communities where factories are located” (Social Problems, pg 427).
Some authors argue that this presents a conflict of rights between liberty and liberty: freedom of expression versus the liberty that comes from public peace. (PAGE 39) others hold that calling this a 'conflict of rights' ignores the character of fundamental rights: it assumes that the right of the majority is a competing right that must be balanced against the rights of the individuals. according to Dworkin this is a confusion that threatens to destroy the concept of individual rights. Nevertheless, public order can still be regarded as an important interest that many overrule freedom of expression in particular instances. (PAGE 40) A danger with the 'harm to public order' argument is that states tend to interpret it very broadly and thus restrict many types of speech, including criticism of the government.