When the government is involved, a nation can reach its full potential, but without government control, societies are destined for corruption. Without having rules and regulations that the government sets, a capitalist society would quickly become overrun with greed, which would eventually lead to destruction. This has been demonstrated by the stock market crash. In the 1920’s, American capitalists had complete freedom and no regulations to follow. The strength of the economy encouraged Americans to take out more loans and buy more stocks, making them susceptible to future changes in the economy.
(always demonstrations when they meet) * Bank of last resort: countries in trouble have no other option * Lends money rather than gives money (countries that it helps already have too much debt) * In order to get a loan, the country must often make sweeping changes, like not subsidizing food * Viewed as the rich countries dictating to the poor countries The Washington Consensus * A conspiracy theory * World Bank, IMF and US government are all headquartered in Washington * US “big businesses” run the US government, which in turn controls the IMF and World Bank (voting rights depend on how much financing each country puts into the WB and IMF; based on GDP – the USA puts in the most financing and therefore has the most power) * Consequently, some people think big American companies control the policy and the fate of poor countries; for example, all economies should be strictly capitalist **International rule maker for fair trading World Trade Organization (WTO) * The only international organization dealing with trade between nations on a global scale * Location: Geneva, Switzerland Established: 1 January 1995 Created by: Uruguay Round negotiations (1986-94) of the
Civil Disobedience Analysis Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience”, brings up many valid points about the government. The essay might be a little ahead of its time but Henry talks about the injustice of the government and how it wrongfully forces people to do its will. The government has gone passed the line and has been abusing its power. Thoreau expresses in his essay “that government is best which governs least”, and then also goes on to say “that a government is best which governs not at all.” What Thoreau is saying is that the people should be making most of the decisions in society, not a group of men in a position of power. In the American government, and many others alike, there are taxes you must pay.
Marxists especially claim that liberal democratic governments favour disproportionately the interests of well funded, well organised pro-capitalist pressure groups because governments depend for their very survival on the profitability and efficiency of private capitalism on which in turn levels of employment, living standards and economic growth depend. Governments are therefore unlikely to introduce policies which are not supported by private enterprise. Furthermore pro-capitalist pressure groups are likely to be granted insider status which means that their negotiations with government are often secret which undermines both their own and the government’s accountability to the general public. Furthermore most pressure groups, apart from trade unions, are joined mainly by relatively affluent middle class people and most pressure group leaders [who may not be chosen by especially democratic methods] are even more likely to be middle class although we cannot automatically assume that pressure groups’ middle class members and leaders will not attempt to represent the interests of other social groups. However these points taken together do suggest that the poor and otherwise disadvantaged groups such as many disabled people and members of some ethnic minority groups are themselves relatively unlikely to be involved directly in pressure group activity and relatively more likely to be represented by under-funded outsider pressure groups which despite their best efforts may be unable to greatly influence government.
Political figures across the world have argued that there is no alternative to the Global Free Market however Gray challenges this opinion using Russia and Asia countries where an American model of the free market simply don’t fit. He also conveys that the state is weakened by free markets and suggests the possible dangers of this. In the first chapter Gray sets the scene with a description of mid centaury England where the prime objective was to free economic life from political control. This change was called the Great Transformation; however Gray takes a negative stance on such transformation. He states immediately that although a free market might bring short term economic benefits, it brings social breakdown.
Economic/Political Analysis -Are the poor and the wealthy equally concerned about the “freedom from fear”? Compare and contrast both speeches to answer this question.- From President Franklins Roosevelts speech and Barack Obamas speech, the poor and wealthy people are fairly concerned about “freedome of fear.” There are quite a few things that a lot of people in this world are in fear of. President also said in his speech that we shouldn’t fear anything, but fear itself. It also, doesnt mean if you are not as rich in this world as others around you, you can not do the things wealthy people do to improve in the world. President Franklin Roosevelt also said in one of his speeches that, you dont have to be rich to be happy in life, happiness in life comes from accomplishment.
Power can lead anyone to be selfish. This is why we have to keep them contained. Andrew Kohut in his research paper “The people and their Governments” states “Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed. With the exception of greater regulation of major financial institutions, there is less of an appetite for government solutions to the nation’s problems –
Refutation of Moral Relativism p.17 “Most Americans see two very different kinds of countries in the world: free countries—pluralistic democracies—and monolithic countries that enforce their version of moral absolutism, some official orthodoxy—whether Islamic or communist or whatever—and they simply do not tolerate dissent, or pluralism, or diversity. Most Americans see much bigger problems in absolutist societies. That’s why they opt for a pluralist, free society despite all the problems that so much freedom brings with it.” The social importance of moral absolutism is less of an issue than the philosophical importance. Society is made by people, and made of people, and made for people. President Lincoln’s formula: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Read Mussolini’s Diuturna, pages 374-77.
Direct exports subsidies for manufactured goods are prohibited by GATT, but most industrialized nations do not obey to the treaty. I believe that the economic, political, and social consequences of subsidies can generally not be justified. However, arguments such as the protection of national security and the protection of infant industry can, in some cases, justify the implementation of subsidies in certain industries and nations. ECONOMIC ASPECTS: One of the most important argument against subsides is based on economic theory. Subsidies and price supports have existed for centuries, but now they are incredibly wasteful and completely outmoded for world markets.
Immigration, damaging or helpful? Immigration has been a problem in the United States since before the country was established. Many citizens and politicians claim that illegal immigration is a hindrance to the country’s economy because immigrants take American jobs and that they don’t pay taxes. They also agree that our government spends too much money in keeping them out. People on the other side of this argument claim that immigrants help by taking unwanted jobs with very little pay, and in doing that they are helping keep the prices of domestic goods down across the country.