A Brief History

Source:  http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=SUIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&currPage=&disableHighlighting=false&source=&sortBy=&displayGroups=&search_within_results=&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CCX2830600099

This article begins with talking about how the ideal level of government intervention in the economy is one the is right in the middle between a total capitalistic approach and the opposite end of the spectrum. It then describes the history of the government's control of the economy in the U.S. since the start of our country.  It talks about how the government originally did nothing to control the economy because they thought that would be the best way for it to grow.  However, due to the extremely poor working conditions of factory workers, the government decided they need to step in. Ever since, their mentality has been to do whatever it takes to make sure that the economy stays healthy and grows properly.  Basically, ever since then, the government has just been adding regulation with hopes of keeping a high level of jobs and a strong market. When programs such as Social Security were started under FDR, the goal was to directly put money into the pockets of consumers so they could then stimulate the economy with all of this new spending money.  Another important program that was started under FDR was the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which insures people who put money in banks.  Clearly this intervention by the government was extremely helpful in a time when the economy was the worst it has ever been.  But one question that the author has is whether or not all of this regulation is still what is needed.  Clearly is has been proven that some regulation is necessary in order for an economy to succeed, but the question is really just finding the perfect amount.

http://mashedpotatobulletin.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/regulation-scales.gif

This source is from a data base so I assume that both the information and the article are both very credible.

Has the government already found that perfect amount of regulation? Or do we need to keep looking?

The Airline Industry Example

The airline industry operating in America today is vastly different from the way it operated prior to 1978. It was regulated and overseen by the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB). However the needs of consumers were not being meet under the regulatory influences of the government and pressure was applied for deregulation. In October of 1978 Jimmy Carter dereguated the industry, signing the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Enough time has elapsed for a concrete comparison to be made of the industry with regulation and without it.
The decision to deregulate the airline industry was made for numerous reasons; the years leading to its deregulation were not favorable. A middle eastern oil embargo in 1973 aided by inflation caused the price of jet fuel to soar, strangling all airlines. The manner in which the CAB responded was rejected. They allowed airlines to raise fares and restrict compacity, which ultimately did not help the airlines handle the volatile jet fuel. Earnings were sub par during this time for companies in the industry. With signs of improvement ceasing, and continuous rising prices, deregulation became the unanimous solution.
The deregulation process began in November of 1977 when the restrictions of air cargo were lifted. This deregulation sparked the beginning of air express/overnight delivery. The new operating freedoms allowed companies to provide more efficient services, which evoked greater competition, leading to lower prices; greatly benefiting the consumer. Then came Jimmy Carter's signing of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. This transferred the control of domestic airfare prices to a free market.
Since deregulation, prices of airfare have steadily declined. The Heritage Foundation has reported that prices have fallen 40% since 1978. This drop in price resulted from fierce competition entering the airline industry, which was welcomed due to the barrier to entry being weakened upon deregulation. The service provided by airliners, however, did not seem to see much of an overall improvement. The government has since passed a number of bills protecting the rights of airline passengers. These are examples of the sort of regulatory services libertarians promote; acting as a referee type figure. Congestion and delays have seemed to bother consumers consistently since the industry's deregulation, as well. This congestion, however, can be viewed as a deregulatory success due to falling prices compared to the increase in consumer volume.
With the current success of the airline industry, and the government working to improve the conditions of its passengers, the future looks bright. Perhaps this industry will one day present itself as the most properly regulated sector in America. ****Does anyone think that the deregulation of the Airlines Industry was actually a detriment?

France is Falling

France is Falling

It is said that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. World War II shed great insight as to what can happen when power is given to the wrong people. This transference of power led to great tragedy and millions upon millions of deaths. Man has promised to never let something like that happen again. Due to the atrocities that took place, man learned valuable lessons and has ceased to travel down that path since. Similar historical lessons can be learned when dealing with our nation's economy. France offers advice to the rest of the world through their strict regulation of the labor market.

The unemployment rate in France has not been seen below 7% for thirty years, and many acclaim this to be the fault of strict regulatory influence over the product and labor market. The cost of labor has been set high in France, and this marks a direct correlation to the lack of competition seen in France. When big firms are forced to pay higher wages that they do not see as fit, they are collaterally forced to cut back their workforce. Yet if there are also restrictions on hiring and firing, firms become absolutely strangled, and competition among firms gradually plateaus. This has helped put France in a perilous economic situation.

France has a number of issues that are degrading its economy other than its restricted labor market. However reform has been just about forced on Mr. Hollande (President of France), and this is only because it is so badly needed. It is important to note what other countries are doing and learn from their successions and failures in addition to our own. Updates will be made on this blog as I follow the upcoming reforms and deregulation to be made to France's labor market. Will it lead to prosperity and growth ala The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978? Time will tell.

*** What are some industries of any country, of any sector, that are regulated and prospering?

The Government's Help Isn't Really Helping

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1002718573/13A7C4B93D161289DEA/6?accountid=6222

This view this article takes on how much control the government should have over the economy is different than most of the articles I have read on this topic and I think it may have opened my eyes to a whole new view.  The main idea of this article is that the government makes all of these rules and spends all of this money, then when their plan doesn't work, they blame it all on the private sector.  They then make additional rules and spending to counteract the problems that in reality, they caused.  It is easy to blame the private because the general consensus among people is to trust the government so when they blame the private sector, everyone is willing to jump on board because that's what the government says is right. The bigger issue is more specific to our government and their bad decisions in the past.  For example, the government made it a priority to bail out the auto industry and financial firms, but they were spending money that they never had.  Unnecessary spending is one thing, but when it is money that you don't have, then it's a whole different problem.  The point is that the government doesn't always know what's best.  For this reason, the author of this article believes that the amount of power the government has should be greatly decreased and the future of the economy should be more left up to the private sector.  I'm not saying that I completely agree with this idea.  But I do agree with the fact that the majority of Americans are not educated enough on these issues to be responsible for their future.  The government should just have to answer to someone instead of them just being able to do whatever they feel is truly the better decision. 

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5087d226/turbine/va-essay-where-to-cut-defense-budget-20121024/400/16x9

I found this source on Proquest Platinum so I am assuming that both the information and the author are credible.  

Should the government have to clear their decisions with the private sector?

The Two C's That Run China's Economy

Communism, coupled with Capitalism, is what has turned China into the strong economic nation it is that is greatly overlapping the United States.

Official Economic Policy: a "socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics"

When private enterprises allowed in 1978:

    -business and companies have been created rapidly

    -fierce competition has ensued between them

Communist Party of China carefully follows and controls the country's growth

   -state-owned enterprises maintain a dominating presence in the domestic market

   -often prevent competition 

  

The Government's careful direction has helped China weather the storm of the global economic crisis

-from 2003-2007 China experienced  13% GDP increase

"The centrally controlled market economy allowed the government to disperse the funding quickly with acute oversight and influence as the investments were financed by state-backed enterprises"

So although communism is viewed as somewhat of a taboo considering the dictators that have manipulated its true teachings, China is able to successful run on either a more strict version if capitalism or a more lenient version of communism depending on how you look at it

Either way it seems to be working tremendously for China. 

Would our country ever benefit from giving more economic control to the government?

Source: China's Economy dances between Communism and Capitalism http://www.policymic.com/articles/7356/china-s-economy-dances-between-communism-and-capitalism

Date: 7 months ago so timely

Writer: Warren Rizzi received a BA from Boston college and recently finished a year long fellowship teaching and studying at a university in northeast China 

although the article is opinion based he backs it up with facts taken from other reliable websites and is also a very reliable source in that he understands China's economy from studying there

policymic is the website used and although it is not completely credible the source is

Natural Gas Is the Best Solution For Now

Global Issues In Context - There is some life yet lingering in fossil fuel.

A new technology advancement is allowing there to be an increased amount of natural and gas to be extracted from the earth. With this, natural gas became the greatest contributor to America's energy this year. Although it may not seem like an entirely good thing, this is actually good in every aspect with regards to the environment as well as the economy.

Coal is a large part of our energy still today, but we're replacing that with natural gas soon. This is important because although natural gas is not necessarily good for the environment, it only has 60% of the carbon footprint of coal.

This means that we can increase our energy production without having to sacrifice the time and energy (no pun intended) on alternative energy sources. We can also reduce our carbon foot print by using more natural gas than coal; good for both the economy and the environment.

Source: eia.gov

Do We Need a Carbon Tax?

Wall Street Journal's "Should There Be a Price On Carbon?"

The carbon tax is something that has been discussed for quite some time, and it is becoming a more and more contentious topic as our country's emissions continue to rise exponentially.

It is a tax on the emissions that are produced by people and businesses, and there are different plans that could be set in order to put forth the carbon tax. The policy could force industries that burn fossil fuels pay more for the carbon emissions, or the cap-and-trade system which puts a limit on emissions and leaves the policy to individual firms, which allows free market to do it most efficiently, or just simply tax those who emit carbon.

The policy which would drastically reduce the amount of emissions and veer toward greener energy from all business and all individuals would be the most beneficial to our society, and more importantly our environment. This is the policy which would tax everyone who emits any carbon. This is effective since it would cause a widespread movement of clean energy.

Those who oppose this idea just may not want the extra added cost on nearly every good he or she buys. However, this carbon tax would put very little strain on individuals, since they produce little carbon compared to large firms which put out millions of tons of carbon dioxide every year.

Not only does this plan incite more development of cleaner technologies of every type of firm, but also the revenue gained from the tax could also help to subsidize clean energy developers or clean the environment.

Source: en.wikipedia.org

Which tax do you think would be the most effective?


The Wall Street Journal is a daily newspaper which has a focus towards business and economics, making it a credible source for topics such as alternative energy affecting the economy. The article is written by Michael Totty, who is, according to SWMS Editorial Teleconference Series, a "reporter, editor and 
podcaster, but most of all he's a shrewd judge of the subtle, a rare commodity in a breathless, breaking-news environment such as the Journal."

Is the Government Subsidy on Wind and Solar Power Worth It?

Wall Street Journal's Article "Do We Need Subsidies for Solar and Wind Power?"

It is a highly contentious topic whether or not there should be subsidies for solar and wind power companies who are new and developing. It is necessary for them to receive subsidies in order to be able to put out energy that is comparative to that of oil and coal.

Due to the subsidies that have been provided in the past, alternative energy sources have been doing much better, and as a result, "onshore wind and solar voltaic installations are way up, and the price of delivered renewable energy is way down." This is only possible due to the governments help which will create greater energy diversity and eco-friendly energy. Not only is this beneficial to the environment, but it will be beneficial to the economy in the near future if we can gain energy independence while preserving the environment for society's later reaping of its resources.

What negatives do you think there would be in providing subsidies for these energy sources (wind and solar)?

Source: solarenginc.com

The Wall Street Journal is a daily newspaper which has a focus towards business and economics, making it a credible source for topics such as alternative energy affecting the economy. The article is written by Mark Muro, who is a senior director of policy on the Metropolitan Policy Program, which indicates his credibility. 

Synthesis and Plan

I learned a business that is ecologically friendly has better approval from consumers and strengthens their name and products. Actually when a company becomes more environmentally friendly they end up saving money by being more efficient. In addition nature has a lot more to offer than just natural resources, but also efficient designs that can be mimicked by a business. Ecologically conscious businesses can also have a positive impact on the environment.

I want to know to what extent is being ecologically friendly beneficial to businesses and consumers? What can we learn from nature?  As well as, how business can have a positive influence on the environment.

The Superior Engineering of Nature

Nature's spiral as seen in the shell above helped Harman
and Pax Scientific develop their highly efficient impeller

          --madliketesla.com

Jay Harman is a featured engineer in Tyler Hamilton’s book “Mad Like Tesla”  is interested in what we can learn from nature and how designs inspired from nature are highly efficient. This is a key principle of biomimicry which is the "the practice of developing healthier, more sustainable technologies inspired by ideas from Nature." Finding new ways to generate clean electricity is only part of the challenge the world faces. We also need to “use less energy to accomplish the work we desire, and some inventors are taking their cues from nature.”

Harman's  company Pax Scientific is bringing "the exceptional efficiencies of natural flow to fluid-handling technology, such as fans, mixers, pumps, turbines, heat exchangers, ducts, propellers, and other applications." All his designs are built around nature's principals, and have shapes utilized by real living organisms. His domestic exhaust fan is half as noisy and three-quarters more efficient than the average fan. Other designs are 75% more efficient than traditional designs. “If you use three-quarters less energy, then you have three-quarters less pollutants going into the atmosphere." says Harman. It goes to show how Mother Nature has an advantage over humans with a few billion more years of design and efficiency development.

If efficiency of the things we use is one of the main problem of excessive energy consumption. Should investments in improving existing practices and products efficiency's be a priority before we try finding new and expensive ways to provide cleaner energy for them?

Tyler Hamilton has been writing about green tech for the Toronto Star for six years, and recently published “Mad Like Tesla” in 2011. The Scientists featured in mad Tesla, keep trying to change the world, despite "scientific groupthink, bad timing, entrenched corporate interests, misplaced public fear, gaps in available technology, high cost, resource scarcity, personality clashes, lack of financing, resistance to change, complacency, competitive rivalry, misguided policy, lack of vision, and general ignorance."

Turning to Tornados for Green Energy

Above: The AVE engine system design.

Below:  Michaud working on a vortex

    --madliketesla.com

Atmospheric vortex engine inventor Louis Michaud, featured in Tyler Hamilton's book" Mad Like Tesla", is trying to capture the energy of tornados, in order to provide clean, and cheap energy. Developing the Atmospheric Vortex Engine will require extensive resources, but Michaud is gaining support through interested investors. Developing technology that mimics nature, and uses renewable resources like air movement to lower energy prices, benefits businesses, consumers, and the Earth. Michaud's idea may seem farfetched, but the author states in the beginning of the book that "many great inventions were once doubted, dismissed, and ridiculed- only to emerge triumphant."

Michaud has designed an atmospheric vortex engine (AVE) uses a "controlled vortex to capture mechanical energy produced when heat is carried upward by convection in the atmosphere." A tornado-like vortex is produced and the "work of convection is captured with turbines located at ground level of of the arena." The heat source can be solar energy, warm water or waste heat from buildings or other power plants. The system would generate 200 MW of electrical power at a cost as low as $0.03/kW, which would mean reduced prices for consumers and larger profits for energy companies.
 
The vortex engine alleviates global warming by reducing fuel required to meet energy needs and literally cools the earth at the same time. It would be the first energy source that pro-actively combats global warming.

Do we need to consider more alternative ways of attaining power (such as artificially created vortexes), or should we focus on the "green" technology we already have (conventional wind turbines, hydroelectric turbines, and solar panels)?

Tyler Hamilton has been writing about green tech for the Toronto Star for six years, and recently published “Mad Like Tesla” in 2011. The Scientists featured in mad Tesla, keep trying to change the world, despite "scientific groupthink, bad timing, entrenched corporate interests, misplaced public fear, gaps in available technology, high cost, resource scarcity, personality clashes, lack of financing, resistance to change, complacency, competitive rivalry, misguided policy, lack of vision, and general ignorance."

Why we Need to Put a Price on Carbon

Should There be a Price on Carbon? By Michael Totty
The Wall Street Journal



http://econews.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/fossil.fuel_.pollution.jpg


Michael Totty argues that the government should put a price on carbon. Supporters of this say that if there is a price on carbon industries they would be encouraged to use a cleaner alternative. But, others believe that a better approach would be for the government to invest directly in clean- energy technologies.In the article it is stated that , "U.S emissions are declining more rapidly because of cheap natural gas."  With a price on carbon people will feel the need to look for alternatives.

Do you think the government should put a price on carbon?

Welfare Reform- Is it necessary?

On Aug. 22, 1996, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The bill ended the legal entitlement to welfare benefits, established time limits and work requirements for participation in the program, and gave states much more authority to establish other requirements and restrictions.

Most fiscal liberals thought that this would result in financial disaster but the results say differently. As [the Department of] Health and Human Services statistics show, roughly 2.5 million families have left the program, a 57 percent decline (Tanner). The reform helped everyone. According to the Census Bureau, child poverty rates declined from more than 20 percent in 1996 to 17.8 percent today [2006]. Roughly 1.6 million children were lifted out of poverty. Also, since 1996, the poverty rate among black children has fallen. Dependent single mothers, the group most heavily impacted by welfare reform, account heavily for this decline (Tanner). 

These facts prove that making reforms to welfare programs will help everyone, especially the recipients of it. Basically, most of those who left welfare found work, and of them, the vast majority work full-time. For these reasons, welfare reform is not only a smart economic idea, but a wise one.

Is welfare reform fair to the recipients of it?

Welfare Reform Has Helped People Out Of Poverty (Gale Opposing Viewpoints)

(blog.anderson.us)

Spending Money by the Pound

Should We Put A Price On Carbon?

inedc.com

I would say Carbon Tax is a pretty touchy subject for a lot of companies.  It's because of the fact that either way we go, the the environment still gets hurt.  So what I'm arguing is that why wouldn't we put a price on Carbon?  It would slow the use of it thus creating less pollution in the world.

Carbon is one of the most emitted gasses in the world.  And if it keeps getting more and more into our air, it's going to create an even bigger problem with global warming than what we already have.

We can stop this.  How? By taxing the Carbon.

"As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere soar towards levels defined by scientists as ‘dangerous’ it has become apparent that traditional mitigation approaches might not be enough to ensure a stable climate and healthy oceans over this century.  Increasingly, the concept of negative emissions—activities that go beyond ‘zero carbon’ by actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it permanently on a globally significant scale—has become integral to strategies which aim to ensure that humans avoid causing dangerous climate change" -Nigel Moore.  In a nutshell, Nigel is basically saying that we won't be able to handle more carbon emissions soon enough.  It will devastate everyone globally.

My question for the readers, should Carbon be taxed?

SOURCE: http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/blog/view/140

-Authority: Nigel Moore

Can gold stop inflation?

You can't inflate the price of gold. Unless there was a sudden inflation in gold,and  begin to sell it. This would drop the price, but goods would accommodate with the new prices.

"Gold is an inflation hedge because is it an ancient yardstick of the value of durable goods- an ounce of gold now will purchase about the same quantity of goods as it did in ancient times. No matter what numbers you may apply to it, an ounce of gold reputedly can purchase about the same number of loaves of bread as it could in biblical times" -Rogers

The 1980 Republican party announced ''the severing of the dollar's link with real commodities in the 1960s and 1970s,'' was then blamed for inflation. ''One of the most urgent tasks in the period ahead will be the restoration of a dependable monetary standard,'' they added

Gold can very much stop inflation and bring back the stability of our country. Which also, with the major debt problems the US is in, it could very much help us and bring us out of it. 

It Looks Like We Might Be at a Standstill

The main topic of this article is government debt and whether or not it is affecting the economy.  Some say that they massive debt that our country hurts the competition and business in the private sector because people are more cautious with their money due to the uncertainty of the future.  Others argue that if we were to cut the deficit spending that we are currently doing in order to decrease our debt, the economy would tank.  This is an issue in which it really depends which side you are looking at it from.  The people who want the spending to stop so we can eventually make it out of this massive debt we are in feel that not only their businesses, but the market in general would improve.  However, the people on the other side think that this spending is the only thing keeping the economy alive.

Another interesting point this article is that countries with high national debt have much lower job growth.  Meanwhile, countries such as Germany who has a low national debt also has high job growth.  Maybe President Obama would like to look into this statistic if he is really serious about creating more jobs.  However, even if Obama decided this was the ticket to creating more jobs, he would still have to work to lower the national debt, a lot, before he could potentially start to see some improvement in the job market. I believe the thing holding President Obama back is the risk that would come along with cutting the spending because if he cuts the spending and the economy does fall apart, then he has a broken economy and he still has national debt to pay off.  But if he continues to do what he is doing now, he is banking on he the hope that it will at least stay the same.

Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/07/18/138474504/does-government-debt-really-weaken-the-economy

This article was written by Jim Zarroli who works for NPR so I would say that this information is credible.

Should Obama cut deficit spending in order to decrease the national debt in order to eventually create more jobs?

A New Term Means New Hope for the Environment

With President Obama's election comes a new term of opportunity for the environment.  Although the environment was not an issue in the election, President Obama made it clear in his acceptance speech that climate change will be a major issue he will address.

According to individuals who have communicated with senior administration officials, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue regulations on the production of fossil fuels and promote cleaner energy.  The EPA plans on enacting stricter restrictions on pollution from power plants, soot emissions, fracking, and truck efficiency.

There are high expectations from environmentalists for the President's second term.  Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, is no exception, "What we expect is the president to deliver on climate, roll up his sleeves and build on the modest success of what he's done so far."

But, more than just environmentalists are excited for the future of American energy.  Since Obama adopts a energy strategy that includes the advancement of basically all domestic energy, even the oil and gas producers agree with Obama's view on energy.  American Petroleum Institutes' president Jack Gerard claims the President's second term could be good for the oil and gas industry, saying "the president's views have moved 180 degrees from where they were two years ago."

With all this speculation of how strict regulations will be or if a carbon tax will be enacted, the EPA will probably utilize its authority from the Clean Air Act to improve the efficiency of buildings to avoid controversy.


Eilperin, Juliet, and Steven Mufson. "Federal Efforts to Curb Greenhouse Gases to Continue." The Washington Post Nov 08 2012: A.25. National Newspapers Core. 16 Nov. 2012 .

Source: http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/epa-clean-air-regulations-save-lives-and-money-according-new-study

Will the Democrats and Republicans be able to agree on a plan to enact environmental regulation?

Obama Care Regulation and Taxes

The Affordable care act was a sweeping healthcare reform law that was enacted with zero bipartisan support  in March of 2010. Obama care is the largest overhaul of the US healthcare industry since 1966 when medicare was established by President Lyndon Johnson. The goal of Obama care is to ensure that all Americans are insured and that those with pre-existing conditions will not be denied coverage. While the premises of this law is one that should be encouraged and supported to protect the uninsured and the sick, Obama-care is also an overwhelming tax and regulation burden on the economy. Obama care forces all businesses to provide employees who work more than 30 hours a week with healthcare, however, the law does not prevent them from cutting hours to 29 or taking the small tax increase if they don't comply. The bill also includes a mandate for all Americans to purchase health insurance or they will face a tax increase. AS much as 40 million Americans currently use flexible spending accounts for their healthcare expenses and are able to do so on an unlimited tax free basis. Obama care will place a limit on those contributions to just $2,500 which is below the healthcare spending of the average american family. Because the law requires insurers to provide more and sometimes not needed benefits, The congressional budget office says that premiums on working families will go up by 5.7% next year.   Obama care hits wealthier individuals even more and will most likely discourage them to invest in america. Under Obama care dividend tax will increase from 15% today to 43% next year for high income earners. The federal government wants to ensure that all Americans have health insurance but but limiting competition and raising premiums it does just the opposite while passing the cost on to working families around the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/04/how-obamacare-affects-health-plan-premiums/

http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217.

Foreign Exchange with Gold

In 1933 the US dropped Gold standard also with many other during the '30s. Switzerland was one of the last countries to drop the gold standard  in 1999.
As much as I would love the US to go back on the gold standard, no other country would recognize our currency, because no other country recognizes gold. 

"But wait, our dollar is the world reserve currency and we are boss, so therefore what we say goes because we will see how long other countries can go without corn if they do not recognize our gold currency. Also, Under a gold standard, the dollar would be valued at a certain number of grams of gold, and the government would be ready to buy or sell gold to anyone based on that value." -Ron Paul 

But other countries were very unsuccessful when trying to go back to the gold standard. 

"There was no reason for the gold standard because we could just back the dollar by the GDP like Japan do. The Gold Standard would destroy the government's ability to exert control over the economy."  -Ron Paul; Blogger

 

Poverty Reduction in Thailand

We tend to believe that most countries are in ruin, as we are in an economic crisis, but Thailand has proved differently. Thailand has remarkably flourished in globalization, growth, and poverty reduction over the past years.

When regarding the reduction of poverty, Thailand came up with multiple new ways of thinking and methods. First, they have learned how to accurately measure poverty. They learned not to measure poverty solely on income, but on other factors too. Next, they compared the measurements of poverty over different years and found trends and comparisons. They also learned to neglect personal opinion from measurements of poverty. Over time, Thailand's poverty measurements have decreased immensely.

How to we apply this poverty reduction example of Thailand to America?

http://www.jstor.org

Globalization, Growth, and Poverty Reduction in Thailand

Peter Warr

ASEAN Economic Bulletin , Vol. 21, No. 1, Thailand: Economic Challenges and the Road Ahead (April 2004), pp. 1-18

Published by: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)

Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25773799

Synthesis and Plan

The presidential debates have been a notable place in where people may determine who may be better for the environment. Romney and Obama have quite different plans on oil and on clean energy, although their end goal is the same in some fashion. Obama and Romney both advocate energy independence in which American won't need to depend on foreign energy as much in the future. Romney wants to increase subsidies on oil companies so that we can drill on more domestic land which will increase energy independence: great for the economy, bad for the environment. Obama wants to decrease subsidies on oil, although during his administration domestic oil production has risen. Also, he wants to continue alternative energy sources which may involve future or the extension of current subsidies for clean energy such as wind and solar; good for the economy; good for the environment.

In the end, although Romney's plan may be better for the economy in the manner of heavy oil production it will hurt the environment. Obama's plan will still produce benefits for the economy while increasing production of clean energy. It is clear that Obama's plan will create more benefit, especially for the environment


Questions:
How can the government better off the environment?
Are subsidies for newly growing green energy companies necessary?
How does the government incite individuals to be more eco-friendly?

Which Side Is Moral?

Morality Compared to Regulation and Big Government

There are monster disputes over morality in America's political system in regard to how much control and responsibility the government should have over its citizens. Acutely in the field of regulation. Both sides have nothing but good intentions for America and its people. Both sides wish to grow America and see it compete at its highest level. Yet both sides see very differently when the word moral begins to get thrown around. Equality essentially is morality when it comes to the principles that this nation was founded on, and it is concerning that now partisans cannot agree on these basic principles. Let's look at both sides.


One partisan would say that moral is starting on the same slate, being given the same amount of opportunity as the man on his right and left. Once any man steps off this slate it is up to himself to provide his own fortune. This man can do whatever it is he deems necessary to be complacent with his life. He is given the liberty to control how hard he works, what choices he makes, etc. There is no one to fault but himself for his outcome. His government is there to oversee what decisions and transactions he makes and to ensure that they are conducted in a fair manner. One partisan ultimately calls this freedom and a moral approach to life.


Another partisan might argue that not every man starts on the same slate, and that some start on slates much higher or lower than others. This partisan would argue that the government should provide a crutch for those who were born onto lower slates, and provide other compassionate services. Not always is it one's own responsibility for their outcome. This partisans government is always looking out for its citizens and makes some decisions for them, because it needs to ensure its citizens safety. This is apparently the moral choice compared to the former. However this method of compassion and providing for its citizens creates a dependence between the government and the former.

When this relationship of dependency is seen, similar to a baby to its mother, it becomes reliant on the latter's services. Now of course a mother will one day send her baby off to support for itself, but when does the government "send off" its people to prosper for themselves? It ceases to happen. This is when the dependency becomes dangerous. This government's people will be complacent with mediocrity and walk on on a plateau until the end. The latter partisan might argue that he is fine with the level path of his route. The former partisan finds this constant to be depressing. For clarification of the prior analogy, one can look to the film directed by Adam Mckay, Stepbrothers. The two main characters demonstrate precisely the attitude that appears to be promoted by the dependency that Big Government - the dispenser of favors**- has to offer. The two are forty years old that live at home and are completely unambitious. An argument against the latter partisan's morals can be made. Steve Forbes puts it best when he asks readers in his book Freedom Manifesto, "...is it truly compassionate to create passivity and destroy human initiative?"


One's opinion will truly come down to their belief of morality. " 'To be moral,' says economist and Nobel laureate Edmund Phelps, 'is to foster the betterment of humankind.' " ** Ambition is a trait that has single handedly driven man kind to unparalleled achievements. Ambition brings competition which brings innovation. To take away ambition from man is to attempt to rob him of a piece of his identity; his soul. Not to better humankind.

**- Freedom Manifesto


Which side do you believe holds higher morals?

What arguments can made against the first example?

Eurozone Double dips into Recession

Its the second time since 2009 that the Eurozone has fell into a recession on Wendseday, November 15. With Eurozone's leader in GDP, Germany, cutting halves at the end of the third quarter. That growth was cut to .9. Germany's GDP growth last quarter was 1.9. The Netherlands shrank a whole 1.1 percent and Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Italy, and Portugal are experiencing austerity such as cut wages and pensions and even raising taxes just to stay afloat. Spain and Greece both have an unemployment rate of 25%.  

What do you think about a nation like Germany who has a good GDP among the Euro Nations?

Convince America

So many people today in America are hesitant to change. When it comes to energy, rising gas prices have made some cry out for the use of more renewable energies in America. Others opinions remain the same, keep oil until it runs out and then, the country will just figure it out. There are two problems with that statement. First, if the country waits until it runs out of oil, there will be a major energy crisis and the country will have suffered major environmental blows. Second, There are numerous reasons, why starting renewable energy production now is beneficial. 

http://atom.smasher.org/gas-station/

For strictyl economic purposes, increasing the investments made into renewable energy could create 1.7 million jobs. If these jobs are created it could reduce unemployment by a full percent. That seems to be enough reason alone, but there is more. If we became more reliant on renewable energy it would only cost each household about $175 per year in energy costs. This would free up more money for consumers and could also possibly stimulate the economy. The environmental benefits would be the greatest. The country could cut it's greenhouse gas emissions greatly. It would also reduce deforestation around the world which the EPA estimates would reduce pollution by one billion tons. The benefits are just to great not to take advantage of.

Overall, the U.S. has a great investment waiting for it. If this can gain support throughout the people the government would have no choice but to being developing renewable energies across the world. These benefits could be here in only a couple of years if we start now.

How do you view investing in renewable energy?

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/news/2009/07/20/6446/a-dozen-reasons-for-clean-energy/

This website is a not for profit website stating the reasons why the U.S. should invest in renewable energies.

Geoengineering?

Scientist are now saying that we can artificially cool the Earth. In theory - reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strikes the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect. Scientists are saying this could work but the downfall would be it would take some time to figure out how exactly to make it happen. Time is something we do not have anymore.

In the United States, a group of 18 U.S. experts from the sciences, social sciences and national security made a report urging the federal government to begin research on the potential effectiveness of geoengineering.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2069449/Could-scientists-reverse-global-warming-The-U-N-discusses-plans-reflect-sun-cool-earth.html

Mandated Healthcare Insurance is Constitutional

With the recent signing of Obamacare, many people argue whether government provided health insurance is constitutional. Republicans say that it is unconstitutional and the government is overstepping its boundaries. The Democrats say that it is constitutional and is necessary for the aid of the working class people.

The truth sides with the Democrats. Government provided health insurance is not unconstitutional. When Republicans argue that the individual mandate is just a tax, they are incorrect. Saying that an individual mandate applies solely to the individual is false. The mandate applies to everyone. Also many Republicans claim the money taxed for the mandate is just a tax for the government. Not necessarily true, it is given to private insurance companies.

For these reasons, claiming that it is unconstitutional is based on misleading information and untrue. As a nation we need to start caring for one another and realizing that the benefits of government provided health insurance are greater than the costs.

Is the mandated health insurance good or bad for America?

A Government Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Constitutional (Gale Opposing Viewpoints)



http://echealthinsurance.com/health101/history-of-health-insurance/ 

Obama and Romney? Obama For Sure!

The overall theme of the 2012 election between Obama and Romney is probably their economic plans, and which one is more beneficial to the economy.Romney's tax plan consists on lower taxes on wealthier people,  and less regulation of business. Obama's plan consists of higher taxes and more regulation. Which one is more applicable in today's economy?

The answer is simple. Obama's plan is much better.

The United States is currently in debt, and there is no mathematical way of removing debt without raising taxes. The debate of where the debt came from is often blamed on Obama, but the 3 trillion in debt originated from Bush's intervention in Iraq.

Both parties are both beginning to see how higher revenue is necessary for the economy.. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, last week said higher revenue is necessary for the economy. This shows how Republicans are beginning to accept the position we are in, and realize the only way to avoid the fiscal cliff is to raise taxes on the rich.

Since Romney has vowed not to raise taxes on the wealthy, Obama's tax plan is more logical.
How can we avoid another recession without raising taxes?

"Obama stands firm on tax hikes" (Opposing Viewpoints)


http://www.progressive-charleston.com/

Something In the Air

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/216985

With all this talk about Jobs in the previous election, no one talked about where those jobs can come from. The alternative energy buisness is booming. The best part about this is that there is plenty of room for growth. Currently, the amount of people employed due to wind power is 85,000 people.  However, wind power is only 2% of the country's energy supply.

By harnessing more renewable and clean energies not only would the U.S. be reaping the environmental rewards, but also the economic ones. It seems to be that renewable energies such as wind still remain to be untapped resources. Yes, the field has grown in the last couple of years, however, energies such as wind are the future. By investing in these energy sources now and developing them now, the country will see the economic benefits soon. Big companies such as GE have seen the economic benefits and have developed some of the worlds largest wind turbines. Just last summer GE created a 131 foot turbine.

The U.S. has a great energy source as it's feet. With only 2% of the country's energy coming from wind, it is time for the U.S. to take action and call for more reliance on wind energy. Countries like China have already begun to rely more heavily on wind energy. By increasing the reliance on wind energy more jobs will also be created for the U.S., giving the economy a boost.
How do you see the countries future in energy? 

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/increase-renewable-energy-sources-generate-more-jobs/
This article was published in June 2010 by Alternative Energy, a website promoting the increase in reliance of alternative energy.

Is a Carbon Tax Unlikely or Inevitable?

About a week after Hurricane Sandy hit and left the coast battered, new talks about climate change have been started by both Republicans and Democrats.  Residents of New York and New Jersey want answers on why this record-shattering storm happened.  And somewhere in these climate conversations by both parties, the highly controversial carbon tax was discussed.  

A carbon tax is a tax that will make people pay more for fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere—the most common being oil, coal, and gas.  


Two Major Effects of a Carbon Tax:

• The Brookings Institution claims a "modest carbon tax" would generate $150 billion a year for the government
• The increased prices would curb the usage of fossil fuels that are used to power America

This idea of a carbon tax was once faced, and still faces, opposition.

Mark Muro of the liberal Brookings Institution claims that a hypothetical tax of $20 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions would increase the price of gas and electricity by up to 9 to 10 percent.  In fact, President Obama tried to pass a moderate climate change bill to limit the amount of pollution from power plants, but the idea never passed through the Senate.

But, even with its opposition, the idea of a carbon tax is being discussed by both parties.  A 19 page paper was released by the Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday discussing ways to make a carbon tax less impactful on the poor, and the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning institute, held a discussion of it on Tuesday.

For now, we will have to wait and see if anymore develops since a White House official said the administration has no plans to advocate a carbon tax yet.  

 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57550240/climate-change-talk-heats-up-revisits-carbon-tax/
This article was published November 15, 2012 by the Associated Press and included research and opinions from both Republican and Democratic people and institutions.

"Blue line: MIT reference case with no carbon tax. Black line: EIA reference. Green line: Scenario with MIT carbon tax in place."
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/27/how-a-carbon-tax-could-help-the-u-s-avert-the-fiscal-cliff/

How would carbon taxes affect American car companies?