How is Gold valued?

The Egyptian dynasties were noted in history as some of the first to use the gold standard. The Egyptians also found creative and sophisticated ways in making fine jewelry. Gold has now been valued at $54.98 for simply a gram. I wonder how they came up with such a number, and if it was anywhere near the same value in the Egyptian dynasties.

Source: http://www.onlygold.com/tutorialpages/value_of_gold.asp: The Value of Gold

How is gold used?

The gold standard uses money backed up by gold. Ancient business used goods as a way of exchange. As trades grew, metals were also used as a way of trade because they were much easier to exchange. Gold was the best and looked up an as the "GOD" metal. The making of coins, made it even easier to exchange. The use of silver and gold coins spread across the trading world, and even till today. That's how the Gold standard was created

Source: World of Scientific Discovery; Gold

Intro

Gold is a precious metal. It has become famous for it's qualities. It is a beautiful color, and comes in many forms. It is durable and tough. All this made it the metal of choice for Jewelry and art. Gold has also been the standard of wealth for seven thousand years, all the way from ancient Egypt. Gold has also become the standard of currencies.

Source: History of World Trade Since 1450 , 2006; Gold standard

What are the effects of the Recession on Business?

Before getting into how the Recession affects counties on a global scale, understanding the Recession's negative effects on business is necessary. Economists officially defined a recession as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP or Gross Deomestic Production. The GDP is most commonly used as a countries indicator of it's economic health and standard of living.

Obviously our GDP is low and declining because we're in a recession, but what does that mean for our big corperations?

Well to start off the businesses effected by the recession will lose profit and as the revenue declines so will the rate the companies hire workers. The companies can also freeze hiring all together which puts the extremely high unemployment rates in a bad position. The firm might also stop buying new materials/resources to maintain the quality of their product. A business might also will cease devolopment of new products depending on the price which is steadily increasing because of the recession. This will effect all other business large or small and is bad for the economy.

While all of this is happening shareholders aren't investing as much because of the lack of production or positive income being made by the big time firm but thats another story.






My question for the bloggers is:
What effects does big business have on small business?

Enron Conclusions

So what is there to be learned from this? I think this example shows that it is apparent that deregulation bolsters competition and drives prices down, which is great. Competition and good prices are a more effective way of improving markets, or at least the energy markets. However when markets are only partially deregulated it allows for companies like Enron to "game the system" and manipulate advantages for themselves and create profit squeezes. My point is that you can not have a market such as electricity being partially deregulated. This is a small step towards forwarding my goal at discovering the proper amount of regulation, but this example is eye opening.
In its paradox, this event has also shed light on how something needs to be done to prevent fraudulent accounting methods that were demonstrated by Enron accountant Andrew Fastow. As well as better overseeing done by the Internal Revenue Service.

What do you think should be done to prevent these types of things from happening again?

The Government is just trying to protect us

Many people argue that the government has too much control over our economy, and they claim that they want more of a free market.  However, what they do not realize is that a lot of the regulation that the government imposes is there in order to protect us.  I agree that the market should be more free than regulated, but there are certain areas in which it is necessary for the government to intervene.

When the government regulates industries such as farming, they are trying to make the profession more safe for those who are involved.  For example, the government puts a regulation on the price of crops because farming is a risky job and it doesn't always produce.  However, these regulations make sure that the farmers make some sort of money because otherwise no one would want to be a farmer which would affect the whole country and possible certain parts of the world. Another situation in which I feel the government should be able to regulate is when people's well being is at risk.  An example would be the U.S. Food and Drug Administration because they make sure that there are no harmful food or drugs in the market.  The reason why the government's intervention is necessary is because the American people are simply too uninformed to know what is truly good and bad because companies will say anything to get people to buy their products.  Another example would be if the government were to put regulations on an industry in order to reduce their pollution.

http://economics.about.com/od/howtheuseconomyworks/a/regulation.htm

This source is from About.com from the U.S Department of State section so I want to say that it is pretty relevant.



http://blog.charitynavigator.org/2009_10_01_archive.html
To what extent should the government be able to control industries?

Corporate Tax Rates

The United States has one of the corporate income tax rates in the industrialized world. Along with one the highest corporate income tax rates, the United States has one of the most complex and unpredictable set of deductions in the federal tax code. According the the Internal Revenue Service, Corporations paid $248 Billion in income taxes to the federal government in 2009 and claimed $1.34 Trillion in deductions at the same time. Currently corporations can claim up to 100% of their gross income for several federal tax deductions. In order to lower and tax rates from 35% to 25% the federal government could reduce the 100% allowed deductions to 70% of income. While most suggest that the corporate tax rate should be cut they must also realize that such a cut would be universally unacceptable if the taxes did not remain revenue neutral. In the current presidential election there is a stark difference of opinion between the two candidates. While President Obama does not have a platform to run on for his second term and has only resorted to criticizing his opponents plan, he has suggested his desire to raise the corporate income tax rate to 43%. The goal of the President in this instance is to bring down the $16 Trillion debt by bringing in more revenue to the government from corporations that have often taken huge deductions. He is right that corporations have enjoyed large deductions for many years, however, there is much question as to how such a policy would foster job creation and investment. Mitt Romney has proposed to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% if he is elected president. However, his plan needs to be revenue neutral, therefore, he has proposed to close federal income tax loopholes for corporations. By doing this, all corporations will be able to play by the same set of rules and larger corporations that have traditionally resorted to deductions will have to pay more and smaller corporations will be able to enjoy a lower tax rate and will have an incentive to hire workers and invest in the United States.

Sources: Pozen, Robert C. "The right way to cut corporate taxes." Washington Post 5 Oct. 2012. Global Issues In Context. Web. 26 Oct. 2012

The Big One

Brett Goss I am passionate about how much the government should regulate the economy because it plays a major role in where the future of the economy is headed and it affects everybody. In our classes debate, I mentioned how are I viewed regulation on a large spectrum (China being one end and any other extreme socialist country being the other). I want to find the perfect balance or median of that spectrum. I want to discover the best way to regulate an economy. Of course my ending conclusion will be subjective to a certain extent. with that being said, there are certain aspects of regulation and deregulation that I believe need to be implemented in the economy.
 I lean towards neither complete deregulation nor absolute regulation. Also I have some aspirations to enter politics one day. I am aware of how highly debated regulation is and very confident that the economy/regulations will still be the highlighted topic in all political races when I am off that age. To start increasing my knowledge of the topic of regulation and or deregulation will only benefit me in the long run.


Vandals of Regulation

In order to establish any sort of  consensual agreement on how much regulation is the perfect amount, a different agreement needs to be formed first. Too much deregulation can and will be detrimental, and too much regulation will be a detriment as well. In this blog post I want to demonstrate how deregulation can lead to positive and negative outcomes, and what can be changed to eliminate the bad. I will use the infamous electric power shortage in California in the summer of 2000 as my example.

In order to help understand what happened in California in 2000 I will give a brief summary of the late scandalous giant: Enron. Please understand that the history of Enron is long and complicated, so pity my attempt to give a quick description (If you wish to understand more, tread the book, “The Smartest Guys In the Room,” it is Enron’s biography.)

-Basically, in the beginning, Enron was a builder of natural gas power plants.  These plants burn natural gas and produce electricity.

-Enron had a bunch of shady/criminal accountants (one of them, Andrew Fastow, rose thru the ranks to Chief Financial Officer).

-Enron started building power plants for different customers (power producers like Commonwealth Edison) as well as building them for other countries.

-Enron was getting contracts to  build these plants by underbidding the contracts.  (ie, they’d say to ComEd: “hey, we can build you a plant for $45 million dollars”, when in reality, it cost Enron $60million to build the plant- thereby losing money).

-They would do this just to get the contract to build it.  Then, to hide the losses, they figured out fraudulent ways to manipulate their accounting statements so that it appeared as though they were actually making a profit.

-After they discovered they could fool everyone with their accounting gimmicks, they noticed that their accounting fraud (hiding the losses and making it appear as if they were making a profit) caused Enron’s stock price to increase.  Then, basically, they figured out “hey, lets keep this fraud going, make it even bigger, and since we are all stock holders, we’ll get rich on our own stock!”

-So, they kept it going- building more plants at a loss and keeping the accounting fraud going and the stock price went higher and higher- and all the executives of the company were “in on the game”.  And they all got rich and were on the covers of magazines “One of the Top Companies in America”……….how do they do it”?  Nobody knew, but nobody asked any questions.

-As all this was going on, they started trading Natural Gas (as they had expertise in this area, as well as expertise in electricity buying and selling).  The natural gas trading portion of their business became hugely profitable.  They also traded electricity.

-They used the profits from their natural gas trading operations to offset the losses in their power plant buildings.  They continued this for a few years until the California power-shortage situation.

-In the California situation, the US Government and the California state government said, basically, “You can’t sell electricity above a certain price”.  Well, Enron said, “OK, we won’t make any money on it, so we won’t SELL IT AT ALL to California!)

-That summer, it caused a blackout in Los Angeles because they didn’t have enough electricity.  Enron sold the electricity to surrounding states at a decent profit.  Enron actually made tons of money on it.  California eventually had to buy power from other states at incredibly high prices just to get power.

-Many Enron traders were caught on tape saying things like “burn baby burn!” as they were making money in their trading rooms on this debacle.  This gave Enron a bad image.  Then, the government started looking into this.

-I forget what eventually happened in California, but they eventually lifted their regulations and California got electricity at decent prices.  But this put Enron in the spotlight.

-As far as the regulation piece goes----it goes to show you what happens when government tries to artificially fix prices in a free market.   Basically, the government came in and said “you can’t raise prices above a certain level in California”.  And the market (ie Enron)said “OK- that’s fine.  But we won’t sell to you at artificially low prices.  We have other customers (ie, Arizona and Nevada, and others) that we WILL sell to, at normal prices.  So- hey, California, go get your power from someone else!). And California didn’t have electricity and experienced blackouts.

-Eventually, Enron collapsed.  But not because of what happened in California.  They collapsed because of the other shady accounting stuff they were doing to hide their losses in the construction of power plants.

My discussion Q would just be to ask any questions that someone might have about the history of Enron, since there is so much that is misinterpreted and or unknown about it.

Source: "The Smartest Guys In the Room" Pub. Date - September 30, 2004

Global warming effects YOU everyday.

Our planet has severely changed in the pas 50 years. The average temperate in the United States has gome up by 2 degrees. Although that may seem like nothing, Earth what we call home, is a very sensitive place. One thing changes and now you have yourself a domino affect. These little changes that happen to our planet  impact our daily lives in great ways.

-Food
           Prices are rising as climate change makes it more difficult to maintain conditions that crops are able to grow in.



-Fresh Water
                    1.) severe droughts
                     2.) snowpack declining in mountainous states
                     3.) pollution


-Coastline Damage
                 Rising ocean levels destroy coastlines causing to destroy homes and businesses.


-Fire
                 Fires are breaking out because of severe droughts, quickly destroying people's property.





http://greenliving.nationalgeographic.com/global-warming-affect-daily-life-2680.html

Globalization- should it be regulated or not?

Globalization of a product is something that can change an entire world depending on its effect. In some cases Globalization has been good in bringing countries out of poverty. In other cases, globalization has caused local economies to suffer. It is certain that Globalization comes with some costs, but are they too big to ignore? Should the government regulate globalization?
One of the major costs of Globalization is outsourcing. When a company outsources it jobs, it moves its work overseas, so it can pay people for labor for less than minimum wage. The studies prove this point. For workers who were displaced from their jobs between 2001-2003, it shows that 35% were unemployed in January 2004, and of the 65% who were employed, only 43% earned at least as much as they did before displacement. This is one of the costs of Globalization. Yet some say outsourcing jobs can be positive. Globalization can help big businesses and consumers: prices move lower for consumers and profits rise for corporations. Are the benefits worth the costs? Some may say yes, others no, and it is still being debated in Congress today.

(Outsourcing Harms America- Gale Opposing Viewpoints) http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&zid=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010382258

(Outsourcing Benefits America- Gale Opposing Viewpoints) http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&zid=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010382257

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=gpna33eTxcTrEM:&imgrefurl=http://www.mcmcapital.com/2011/04/globalization-shapes-u-s-manufacturing-and-mcm-investment-strategy/&docid=ymlpNtsqb5EW5M&imgurl=http://www.mcmcapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Globalization12.png&w=1024&h=768&ei=dJCKUKnwDrODyAHEuIGoCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=874&vpy=185&dur=1131&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=103&ty=83&sig=107541973519984642371&page=1&tbnh=133&tbnw=178&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:150

Recession vs the world

The US recession is the worst economic downfall in America that we've seen in recent history. This recession being the worst since World War II. The US isn't the only nation to feel the downfall, it seems like all across the world the recession has impacted various markets and nations. Since 2008 personal income and employment continue to be on the decline and most people demand a change. But what impact does one nation's economic problems have to do to the rest of the world?

Ever since 2008, after the US started declining in employment and personal income, fifteen other countries including Great Britain and Japan started having the same problem and are driven into a recession. With less personal income US investors find it harder and more unstable to invest some money into developing nations such as India, and because of this the WTO noted that since the Recession(s) have started, the global trade growth has decresed from 5.5 cents to 4.4 cents. Which means countries around the world isn't selling merchandise to other nations.


http://spoonfeedin.blogspot.com/2008/12/world-impact-of-us-recession.html




Who is to blame for the downfall in personal income?

Who owns bodies of water?

The Colorado River is a primary source of water for the Western United States and has long been debated over concerning water rights.  When urban water demands increase, the value of transfers, agricultural to industry, also increases.  Having these water rights is a postive thing, however, the next step is to decide who should control these rights in order to minimize transaction costs.

A.  Give control to states and let them oversee water transfers for the public

B.  Give control to vested right holders who would voluntarily transfer those rights in almost the same way that private property rights are made

The point is, is that having water rights is important because it helps to keep the cost down for transferring and providing water to different regions of the United States.


Should all bodies of water, big or small, have water rights?



SOURCE:  http://search.proquest.com/docview/214799184/139F6568FAD35F03980/3?accountid=6222
Author:  Megan Hennessy




SOURCE:  freefoto.com

Want to own your own forest?

Property rights can help save, preserve, and improve the environment by increasing their security.  Doing so would lead to:

*deforestation decreases
*access to safe water
*improvements in sanitation facilities
*increases in production, exchange, economic developement

When we better secure property rights, people have desires and motives to maintain and protect the environment.  It's like having a house.  You pay to live there and therefore keep it clean. 

If you owned a local forest, would you maintain it and encourage others to as well?



SOURCE: http://search.proquest.com/docview/875293493/139B57D5E8432DC6C0B/3?accountid=6222
Author: Carrie B. Kerekes



SOURCE: freefoto.com

Property Rights & Economic Growth

1.  I am passionate about this topic because I want to know as a citizen of the United States, what I own.  By being a part of this nation and going beyond what is required of me as a citizen, I feel I should know my property rights.  I also want to know and take polls on the different responses people would have if they owned different things.  For example, if someone owned the air, would they change things they do in order to preserve and protect it.

2.  Beginning this project, I know that a property right is when you have a legal right to or in a particular property.  However, I am not aware of anything in further detail.

Capitalism negative affect in american

Capitalism is far from perfect and when over emphasized can be negative.  Some people believe capitalism has turned American into a consumerist societies by trying to increase the circulation of capital.

As we become a more consumer bases society;

• confuse needs with wants
• spend over are mean 
• "Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns." - Jimmy Carter

This information is from; http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~waldr20m/classweb/worldpolitics/consumerism.html

This is a quality souse because is an .edu, it was published 22/12/09, so it is a little dated but still relevant 

meaning of capitalism.

Capitalism is a system which goods and service are produced and distributed with out reagulations but by the natual forces of the market.  Like most theories complete capitalism only only exists on paper, but mix forms of it are used all over.  Capitalism is capable in any type of government; the government is main influence is to distinguish property right.  Over all capitalism is a practical system based on a free market.

The source I got my information from I believe is a reliable but biased; It is a .org which is usually a positive sight for the quality of the info, Their is specific no date on the article but the article was mostly general facts that haven't changed.;
http://capitalism.org/category/capitalism/

Do donations really help?

Whenever there's a new crisis somewhere in the world, Americans whip out their wallets and throw donations at the cause. Does this really help? Do you ever stop to wonder where that money is going and how it is actually going to help end the problem?

As Americans, we have a tendency to demand fast solutions and instantaneous change. However, this is extremely unrealistic. Change is gradual and throwing money at a cause isn't going to speed the process up. Poverty has existed for centuries, which means it will take an unknown amount of time to end. Donations and money will help, but resources, time, work and education are the key assets.

                                                                                                                          detroitareadiaperbank.org

In the Wilson Quarterly, Ed Jesteadt shares his experiences working to end poverty in rural villages in South Africa. He states, "Giving poor people valuable assets without their having done anything to earn them does not make a viable program. People must earn what they receive. A microloan program that requires payback, for example, gives people dignity and self-respect and empowers them to take control of their own destinies." This provides an example of how to help impoverished areas succeed, but with dignity. He goes on to say, "And donated assets such as equipment, vehicles, and buildings often go to waste because poor people lack the resources to maintain them. Or worse, they will trade goods they are given for something else they would rather have--sometimes good, other times alcohol or drugs."

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/MagazinesDetailsPage/MagazinesDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Magazines&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CA166821512

We want to help end poverty in poor countries, while looking out for the best interest of the people in those nations. Poor people may not necessarily benefit from donations. Then again, a lot of people do benefit from organizations to reduce poverty. World Vision raises money to dig fresh water wells in many countries in Africa. This has drastically improved the living conditions in these poor countries. So donations to organizations, such as World Vision, do help. But then, what determines if a donation helps or not? How can you trust an organization to do the best thing possible with your money?

kabarnes.wordpress.com

Wal-Mart, Sustainability & Cameron Diaz?

Sustainability Conference - Graphics from newyorktimes.com

Four years ago, I was living in Hong Kong, when my Dad was in Beijing at the Global kick-off Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Conference with its suppliers, Wal-Mart executives and Cameron Diaz, in the polluted capital of China.   It made for a strange mental montage. It was cover page news in the Wall Street Journal and many other publications and newswires the world’s largest retailer really serious about sustainability leadership is it PR fluff? I mean, how does Cameron Diaz fit in? Fast forward to October 22, 2012 - it would seem that Wal-Mart was very serious about their realization that sustainability matters to everyone and it pays to begin to lead.  They created The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) of which now 90 multinationals have joined over the past 36 months and it is having significant influence in the world as it creates global sourcing standards regarding environmental and social compliance, transparency and accountability.

It would seem that Wal-Mart decided to get out in front of a what was becoming a potential serious liability in terms of sourcing issues out of difficult to manage & geographically remote places like China. Evidently, 90 other members of the independent organization that Wal-Mart founded think so too.  Ralph Gardner Jr.’s article Serious 'Sustainability' in the recent October 3^rd WSJ cites the President of the Rain Forest Alliance, Tensie Whelan……“The reason that multinationals are jumping aboard, she said, isn't because they’re do gooders, but that they see the writing on the wall. “Big companies are seeing the risk to their supply chains,” from factors such as deforestation, drought and civil unrest, she said. The practices the Rainforest Alliance promotes, and that the frog signifies, “becomes core to their business.”.   

It is easy to be cynical but this what we want our biggest companies to do – take action.  I suppose the motivation can be suspect but through action it becomes real and moves thousands of suppliers in the right direction.  The big companies have influence and through better practices make a difference.  And as Ms. Whelan points out – it becomes core to the way they behave.

So what do you think? Are big retailers like Wal-Mart trying to make themselves look good  (Cameron Diaz) or really trying to make a difference because it is the right thing to do?

The article was written by Ralph Gardner a journalist for the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. It was published on October 3rd 2012.

Attitudes towards the rich

   People all around the world complain about the wealth divide in the world and they preach for economic equality except in former ussr countries. Here in post-soviet countries the idea of equality means going back to the bad times. They have seen what it did to their economies and how it essentially doesnt work and they are speaking out to their governments.

• Total financial equality is socialism
• post-soviet countries were crushed by this idea
• killed several markets
• there needs to be a minimum divide at least in the market place.

I found this article on the Global issues in context database and the title is Attitudes to income equality: the 'socialist legacy' revisited.

Would you choose equality or not?

Is the gap getting bigger?

   Over the years the ability of our governemt to keep a tab on the wealth divide has been relatively decent we havent seen many times where the middle class and the upper class are extremely far apart until now. With world problems such as the economic crisis and the financial strain of the war in Iraq the governmetn has lost its grip in regulating the wealth gap and we are starting to see the effects.

• between 1979 and 2006 the upper class saw a tax increase of 256%
• middle class saw 21% rise
• lower class saw 11% rise
• deeper changes also played a part such as cheap chinses goods, outsourcing and other countries increasing education.

I got this article from the global issues in context database and the title is The broken contract: inequality and American decline.

Should the government be responsible for controlling the wealth gap.

Like Night And Day: Obama's And Romney's Views on the Environment

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama may seem to hold similar views on some issues in this election, but the environment is not one of them.  President Obama believes there should be more environmental regulations, while Mitt Romney believes in fewer regulations.  This article thoroughly covers the differences in their two perspectives on the importance of government in regulating the environment.

President Obama:

-Backs EPA-proposed regulations that will limit the CO2 emissions from power plants that run on fossil fuels.

-Wants to control and reduce the emission of mercury from power plants—a plan that was proposed by the EPA.

-Wants to allow the federal governments to continue regulating gas and oil drilling on federal lands.

Mitt Romney:

-Against regulating CO2 emissions as proposed by the EPA.

-Notes that regulations by the EPA on limiting toxins from coal-fired power plants puts too much of a monetary burden on plant operators.  

-Wants more oil and gas drilling on federal lands

-Believes the EPA has "gotten out of control"

-Wants less regulation on nuclear power to help the industry grow again

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/obama_vs_romney_a_stark_contrast_on_the_environment/2572/
"This article was written by Yale Environment 360 senior editor Fen Montaigne, with research assistance from Rebeka Ryvola, Aliyya Swaby, and Jacob Cohn."  It cites numerous documents, including the US Department of Energy, and it was published on September 17, 2012.

Source: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/

How will climate change negatively effect the economy?

Fracking; Putting a price on our state parks

Blackwater Falls State Park, West Virginia

 - budgettravel.com

American National and State parks are being destroyed because of the process involved in fracking for natural gas. There are many negative effects of tracking that far outweigh the benefits of cheap gas.

Environmental issues include:

• Roads constructed through pristine forest
• Forests are clear cut
• Fracking creates toxic water as a byproduct
• Can poison the water table

There also are negative effects on the economy. Although fracking is a cheap new way to access natural gas, its not as good as one would think.

Economic Issues include:

• Overzealous drilling and complex financial deals resulted in a price tailspin
• The price is low for consumers, but companies are not making money - there is too much
• After most recent boom, areas with high drilling have now dwindled and local economies are suffering.

States converting their state parks into drilling hubs have had only negative results, and it has ended up hurting the economy more then helping it. Consumers may have a lower price for gas in the short term, but they will lose their State Parks. State Parks are places of beauty, and a place to enjoy nature. The marginal benefit is much higher for people to have the valuable resource of nature, verses a few cents less a year in gas bills. Is fracking really a good use of our country's resources?

The Authors are from the New York Times. Clifford Krause and Eric Lipton are both Business and energy corespondents for a highly reputable news paper and magazine. The Articles were both published in on 10/21/12.

Sources: Budget Travel Magazine : State Parks In Peril

              New York Times: After the Boom In Natural Gas

Green Isn't Mean to Job Growth

The common belief among conservatives that "green" regulations kill jobs is false.  Yes, the unemployment rate is not as low as it should be, but this is not an effect of environmental regulation.  This regulation actually helps the American economy.

1.  New environmental regulation neutrally impacts a good economy.

Instilling a new regulation, such as regulations on air pollution, requires companies to buy equipment to lessen their air pollution. This creates jobs because more people will have to be hired to install things like filters for coal plants.  The jobs lost do to rising costs of good (therefore, lower demand of the good) is cancelled out by the jobs created by the regulation.

2.  Environmental regulations create jobs in a bad economy.

Investments in controlling pollution do not crowd out other investments by raising interest rates since financial capital is not limited in a poor economy.  However, investment projects like those created by environmental regulations are scarce.

The increase in energy costs will most likely not be passed to consumers because businesses do not want to raise prices in a bad economy (and risk losing many customers).  Plus, corporations' profit margins are at "a 45-year high," and according to empirical research, these high margins provide barriers against increases in prices.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328576.500-going-green-wont-kill-jobs-during-hard-times.html

The author—Josh Bivens—of this article is a writer for New Scientist.  He is "acting research and policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank based in Washington DC."  Bivens references The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule.  The article was published March 28, 2012.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157646/little-appetite-gov-regulation-business.aspx

Why do environmental regulations continue to be voted against by conservatives?

The Government Can Control the Economy

http://search.proquest.com/docview/507896696/139EBD69B4F5D04AF2B/2?accountid=6222

The government actually does have a lot of control over the economy but they need to be very careful with their intervention because things can go very wrong.  The article I will be referring to in this post gives some examples of times where governments have intervened with the economy and things have not turned out well.  The role of the government in the economy is very important not just for the government, but also for the businesses involved.  However, the argument is over the amount of influence the government should have. 

A completely free market or a laissez-faire economy means that the government has absolutely no control over the economy at all.  There has never been a completely laissez-faire economy simply because everyone knows that it would never work.  Basically, if companies were all allowed to control their competition and prices, the consumer wouldn't have a chance.  Companies would be able to take advantage of the now uninformed consumers so government regulation is clearly necessary.  So it's decided that at least some government regulation is necessary, but now the question is how much.  

This article talks a lot about Keynesian economics of which the basis is that the government needs to increase spending on public works such as building roads, schools, hospitals, etc. in order to decrease unemployment which would eventually increase the overall market activity.  The idea of this is to get people jobs with hopes that these people will add to the demand in the market and stimulate the economy.  It sounds easy enough, however, the tricky part is exactly how much to spend.  The article mentions some examples of some western economies that decided to put these Keynesian principles into action and ended up being horribly unsuccessful.  The mistake that these governments made was that they didn't give themselves any limits before hand on how much they were ultimately going to spend and they all ended up in economic depressions with an even larger gap between the rich and the poor.

I found this article on Proquest Platinum

Political Economy of Government Intervention in the Free Market System

Written by Stephen K. Aikins

The author is an assistant professor in the Department of Government and International Affairs at the University of Southern Florida so I would say he is pretty credible.  The author cites many different works in this article and the it was written in 2009 so it is still applicable.


Would a free market system actually work? 

Why shouldn't Obama be president?

Why shouldn't Obama be president?

http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/the-agonyf-an-iowa-democrat-convention/ 

Obama claims he will cut the deficit by 4 trillion dollars in a decade. Here is Obama’s plan.

Part 1: Raise corporate taxes as well as the wealthy citizen’s taxes by almost 20%.

                Part 2: Cut Medicare by 400 billion in the next ten years.

Obama has made it obvious that he will increase the taxes on the rich. But, what else is he planning on doing to our economy? It is almost impossible to find Obamas plan for the national debt online and this has to be saying something. He doesn’t know what to do!

Obama does not address the problem with social security and what is going to become of it. Our fund for social security is running low and it is predicated that it will run out by 2033. So anyone under the age of 44 have a blast working your whole life.  This should be a huge eye opener for us Americans.

Second, Obama wants to cut Medicare by 400billion dollars over the next decade. So what do you suppose we do with all the sick elderly that cannot pay to be hospitalized? Only 2% of the American citizens are wealthy, while the rest fall under the middle and poor class.  Cutting Medicare will not affect the wealthy people of America, but it will affect the middle class and especially the poor. Medications and treatments are extremely costly in today’s society.

Obama is planning to significantly raise taxes for businesses and wealthy. But, what is he going to do with that tax money if he is not going to spend in towards social security or health care for the people? Is our tax dollars going to be spent on more wars?

Sources:  
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/23/151231569/how-long-will-social-security-last
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-budget-national-debt-will-be-1-trillion-higher-in-a-decade-than-previously-forecast/2012/02/13/gIQA2Rn1AR_story_1.html

Where has YOUR tax money gone?

Where has YOUR tax money gone?

Our national debt has just passed 16 trillion dollars. The U.S government is expected to collect 2.9 trillion dollars next year in tax money. How will our government ever be able to fix the debt without taking some of our privileges  away?

Our first problem is every year our government spends almost a trillion dollars on national defense.  We spend more money than every country in the European Union combined. We owe so much money yet we don’t stop buying new bombs and tanks to protect a country that hasn’t been attacked in 10 years.

The debt cannot be fixed in a day, or even a year, it is going to take time. Instead of the government cutting programs to help the average American such as Medicare or social security we should cut our budget on national defense. In time we would make a lot more money to create lives much simpler for the American person.

What we need to understand is that our country has never not been in debt. The debt has increased a substantial amount, but it could all be solved. We do not have to eliminate the debt we are in, but we do have to lessen it.    

Our second problem as a country is war. If we ever want to fix our debt we need to stop going into war with other countries. The Iraq war totaled to over 1.5 trillion dollars. On average in one year we spent about 600,000 dollars on one soldier and now while we are in debt are spending 1.2million dollars per soldier in the afghan war. Is this necessary, who are we fighting?

Our government is fighting a war on terror while more than 10% of our country is without a job. Have you ever thought about the war on terror? What is it? The war on terror will never end, because you cannot get rid of terror.

If you were to eliminate or dramatically cut these two factors then in some time our country would become financially stable again. So, what will our government do to fix our debt?

Sources: http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/revenues/

Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments http://www.npr.org/2011/12/18/143916137/the-cost-of-war-in-dollars-and-lives

 

Can businesses really help?

What Can Companies Do to Help the Environment?

2020env.com

Even if businesses don't help with the environment, they still have the ability to.  Here is a list of seven ways that businesses can save the planet one small step at a time:

1. Newsletters to PDF

2. Online Seminars

3. eBooks

4. Resumes by Email

5. Work at Home

6. Digital Business Cards

7. Online Invoice Delivery

Although I do not thoroughly go into depth with these ideas, it is very easy to do each of these tasks.  These are things even individuals can do, not JUST businesses.  I believe that people, as individuals themselves, need to think more before they act, especially about the environment if they can save it easily.

You can do more than you think.

My question for the readers is, what would you do to help save the planet?

SOURCE: http://www.verticalmeasures.com/tips/7-ways-your-business-can-help-the-environment/

-Authority: Kristi Hines

China associates with Pythagoras Solar

Pythagoras Solar Announces Photovoltaic Glass Unit (PVGU), First Green Building Material to Combine Energy Efficiency, High Density Solar Power Generation and Transparency.
Global Issues in Context

http://www.design-buildsolar.com/news/pythagoras_solars_window_technology_wins_ge_award/


In this brief article it is stated that, Pythagoras Solar is a company that creates solar windows,  curtains, and skylights. Pythagoras Solar also announced that it has established formal relationships with Arkema, China Sunergy and Flextronics, that way it will be easier to distribute the production. With this company it will be easier for engineers, architects, and business owners to be eco- friendly. 

Do you think this association with Chinese companies will be beneficial ?

Why is Solar Energy Becoming Popular?

Solar energy is becoming more practical and affordable.

Global Issues in Context 

http://www.solardaily.com/reports/China_Sunergy_and_Pythagoras_Solar_Advance_Development_Of_Solar_Windows_999.html


Now of days it is becoming more popular to see houses with solar energy,but there is some pluses and minuses to that. Even though solar energy is good for the environment, having solar energy could be expensive.  But in the long term paying more for solar energy will save you money and you will help the environment. There is also, different kinds of solar energy, one is photovoltaic pannels and cells to transform sunlight into energy. If extra energy is produced it will be stored into the battery. Solar energy is also used to heat up water.   So, the government is intervening to lower the taxes. Do you think it the government should intervene?    

Oil: the energy that hurts?

Oil is the main energy source for the entire world. It makes many countries rich. But it also causes turmoil in many others. 

Qatar
-considered the 2nd richest country in the world
-oil accounts for 60% of the country's GDP
-country has free health care for all
-capital expected to keep growing
Source: Gale Opposing Viewpoints Other Rising Middle East Nations in the Twentieth Century and Global Issues in Context Qatar

Iraq
-oil production jumped 20% in this year alone
-threat to the shaky democracy
-filled with corruption and greed
-disagreements on oil-production and revenue sharing
Source: Gale Opposing Viewpoints  Iraqi Oil a Double-Edged Sword

You could take examples from the Persian Gulf monarchies or Saudi Arabia who all benefit from their oil or you could look at Venezuela, Nigeria, and Russia, all who were harmed by their abundant oil.
The real question is does having oil make you better off in the end? 

Taken from: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_platform 

Regulation- helpful or not?

One of the major topics being debated between Obama and Romney is regulation.When it comes to regulation, the right and left could not differ any more with their political views. While one side (Republicans) believes that regulation will hurt businesses, the other side (Democrats) believe that deregulation will help business and create jobs.

When it comes down to which side is right, the Democrats seem to support a better case for regulation. Regulation saves businesses, as well as consumers' health, rights, worker's rights and the environment. An example of this is the regulation that protected American consumer from a financial collapse. According to US Government Corruption , 2012, "The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 [also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act] formally repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (also known as the Banking Act of 1933) and related laws, which prohibited commercial banks from offering investment banking and insurance services." The deregulation of banks is what many economists think caused the collapse, including Paul Krugman. Hopefully, American society will realize when it comes to regulation, the Democrats are right.


(Opposing Viewpoints- Financial Corruption By A Corrupt Congress And Executive Branch Lead To Deruglation and a Financial Meltdown)
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010764212
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&safe=active&sa=N&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=Vejiam-s24ACrM:&imgrefurl=http://www.ldjackson.net/dodd-frank-financial-regulation/&docid=m-WSN19psw7ktM&imgurl=http://www.ldjackson.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bank-regulation.jpg&w=470&h=282&ei=44qKUIqaNdTyyAH83oHIAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=905&vpy=163&dur=2861&hovh=174&hovw=290&tx=173&ty=129&sig=107541973519984642371&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=235&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0,i:83