Intresting topic in relation to our course.

Topic for an essay for a program I applied for.

As the United States representative to an international council, you have the unique opportunity to speak before the body as it drafts a strategic plan to address major problems confronting humanity in the 21^st century. As the first speaker, your speech may well set the tone for the direction of the international strategic plan.

UPDATE———————–UPDATE———————–UPDATE—————————

Below is my response to the essay, it is actually a speech. Comments?

 

 

Hello, Hola, Bonjour, Hallo, Ciao, Het hallo, Oi, Привет, Hei, 喂.

My fellow representatives, I stand here before you today, at a pinnacle, in our world’s history, to discuss the issues facing our existence as we enter the 21^st century. While we have come a long way, in working together and strengthening our peaceful resolve, there is still much room for improvement. Over the days ahead, we face the demanding and strenuous task of solving the problems that face our nations. Now, let me warn you, this is no easy task.

We confront growing problems of maintaining world peace, environmental preservation, and economic growth. We have issues with growing factions of strong sectionalism and polarization. We have people blowing up buildings, instead of speaking their mind. We live in a world where it is impossible to tell the difference between peacetime and war time. We live in a world of chaos. We have a responsibility to address these issues and it is our duty; to take peaceful actions, when they are needed. We have the duty to work together, to tolerate one another. We have the obligation and are called upon, by the people of this world, to find new solutions to old problems.

These overwhelming issues may appear to be insurmountable, but my fellow world citizens, I ask you to look beyond this summit, and open your hearts and minds. Let us look for viable solutions, for the future of the world is in our hands. Out of many nations, we come together today, as one world with the potential to shape history. Today we put our world first, for we may address our nations later; let this be our legacy. I ask you for today, and the days that follow, to put your differences aside. We MUST work together, and become accepting of one another, should we have any prospect for success.

The troubles of today, including world wide political volatility, lack of tolerance of other people’s ideas and cultures, environmental preservation and economic sectionalism are all the effects of an underlying issue. One issue fires the uncertainty of our world. That is, we live in a polarized world similar to that of the cold war. Now instead of communism vs. capitalism, we have the haves vs. the have nots. While acknowledgment of religious and cultural differences is important, the problems of today’s world largely stem from the schism that exists between those nations and peoples who are fortunate, and those whom are not. As the rich have gotten richer, or as the powerful have gained more authority, the poor and weak have suffered. We have come a long way since the days of Khrushchev and Kennedy. That polarization is gone, but a new schism controls and dictates our politics and economics, and this must be addressed.

To you, I may seem a hypocrite, speaking to you, as a representative of the wealthiest nation in the world. However my nation faces the same problems as do all of our nations. Sometimes it is very hard to speak truth to power, when the truth is unpleasant, yet the simple truth is that even in my country millions are without medical care, hundreds of thousands are homeless; and many do not have an adequate amount to eat. In fact, my fellow representatives, my country is an excellent model of the schism facing the world. We have parts of our population in my nation with more affluence than they know what to do with, and others who barely survive, if they do. What this division does is create instability within a community, a nation, or in our case, a world. This instability fires the larger problems or often prevents them from ever being addressed. Should we find a way to shrink the schism between first and third world, between rich and poor, between powerful and weak, between the haves and have nots, we would be successful in creating tolerance, starting movements to world peace, stabilizing the world’s economy, and setting a precedent for environmental awareness. As the schism is reduced, people, leaders, and countries will better understand one another and pass ideas, indeed the world’s eyes will be upon those who work with one another. Together, after we curb the elitism and close the gap that currently plagues us, we will work to rid our world of violence, pollution and intolerance.

This brings us to the question of the day; how do we work to reduce the schism that fuels the ills of the world? The rich and powerful of the earth need their worlds turned upside down. No longer is a few million dollars a year in aid packages enough. No longer shall an American life be held as more valuable as any other life. No longer shall we as nations detach ourselves from one another. We as a world need to take on a Robin-Hood mentality. We must look to how we can become a part of this interconnected world. We must accept our global ties, no longer is isolationism acceptable. Further, no longer is it tolerable to have such a large gap between us. We have a chance to accept the fact that our World is very quickly moving together, yet we also have a chance to insure that it is possible for the entire world to be apart of this globalization. Without stability, infrastructure, and educational institutions in many parts of the world, addressing the larger problems will never be possible. Thus, today I call for the establishment of an initiative to aid in infrastructure creating and institution building to any people who require it. Only once this arduous task is completed, might we truly become a global community, with the ability to address complex global issues.

Reducing the schism, with this increased initiative will facilitate our stepping up to larger issues. What will be the next thing that challenges us, that makes us go further and try harder? With a better understanding and equality among nations and people, the sky is the limit, to what we, together, can accomplish.

No matter our failures in the past, and in times to come for that matter, this sumit can be a place where the world can come together, to insure that no one nation is left behind. My fellow representatives, in the days ahead, we have the unique ability and potential to alter the course of history. We have the responsibility of removing the elitism, currently deterring our world’s chances of working out larger issues. We have the choice, to make changes to bring humanity together. We have the ability if we can get over our differences, to create a world, where our nations can peacefully, coexist and thrive. We have an obligation, to your nation, to my nation, to all the nations, to leave this world better than we found it. Thank You.

 

 

 

Response to Adam Smith’s thoughts on Morality

Part of innate human action is a general caring about the well being of others. Because the feelings of others, positive or negative affect other human beings, there is a moral standard. The morals are both individually followed in conscience actions, and socially mandated in societal truths. Thus even if without intentionally doing so, people most defiantly consider others when making decisions, as the effect decisions have on others greatly effects ones life.

Naturally people have certain moral standards they will hold themselves to. Some would call this a conscience. Even if individual moral rights are determined by lessons and not internally, one such lesson to be learned is that self-interest is facilitated by noting the effects on others. In fact individual interests are often determined by others feelings and reactions.

Self-interest is also based often on social reactions and moral codes. Society at large, whether globally, nationally, or communally has certain prevailing moral goals. Certain acts, ideals, and thoughts can be seen as socially morally good or bad. These social standards also help to determine the importance of self-interest in its relevance to others. Because man is a social creature, who requires society, and because society mandates these moral standards, one would choose to follow these standards in appeasement of his self-interest to be active in society. As such, because one followed the moral standards, others were affected, and thus self-interest does take into effect the feelings and reactions of others.

Because individual’s self-interest is based on individual and societal moral codes, the individual will often appease others in his on self-interest. While some individuals tend to be pluralists, who have strong ideals of self-interest engrained both by individual and societal morals, many are polarized by one or the other. Moral relativists believe that morals are established individually, relative to one’s experiences. On the other hand moral absolutists believe that certain things are inherently right or wrong, despite individual thoughts and leanings. This polarization often leads to moral conflict, yet is not able to underscore the important others feelings and reactions have on self-interest. This conflict of morality applies even further, to economics.

The prospective moral authenticity of economic markets has consistently received the attention of noted thinkers. Beginning with Adam Smith, and continuing through modern times, economists have insisted that self-interest is the key to human nature. Part of this self-interest is indeed the joy and happiness of others joy, and the sorrow of others sorrow. Despite thoughts that economics is based on selfish and brutish acts, the fortunes of others matter and render happiness. In fact, while not always intended, self-interest based decisions made within market economies, consistently produce a collective good.

Because others response to ones actions, fuel economic success, individual interest economically is indeed based on the fortune of others. Morally speaking self-interest depends on others, economically speaking self-interest depends on others as well. As such there is a direct correlation between both individual and societal moral standards and market economics. Also, economics change based on the moral standards applied. When individual or relativist morals are used, economics are based on personal choice and rights. In comparison when absolutes take over, economics tend to focus more on societal goods as apposed to individual needs and rights. Simply, pluralist moral standards provide for the best economics, as both society and the individual are accounted for. Having morality in economics is good, as it inherently provides for self-interest which is mandatory in any market economy.

Pencil

Ever wonder where those awesome number two pencils we use daily come from? The truth according to Leonard E. Read is that they are the perfect example of economics and interconnectivity of regions. In his very well known short story “I, Pencil. My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read,” which everyone should read, Leonard E. Read follows the life of a pencil to exhibit various principles of economics and interconnectivity of economic regions. Economics which is the study of the flow of money and goods is central to the theme of I, Pencil. In order for the pencil to be made, both money and goods must flow. Further it perfectly represents what Adam Smith said about the “invisible hand”; that is cooperation without coercion. All of the many factors of production involved in the creation of a pencil are handled by people who don’t know what they are actually creating. The pencil illustrates how things in the economy naturally work themselves out. Basically when people work with one goal in mind, that is to provide services to themselves (including income via working in a plant etc) they in turn provide services for other things, in this case the creation of the pencil. They are cooperating, without coercion. When one buys a pencil, they are also buying the goods and services of thousands of other people. The pencil however is just a simple example of a product which has many factors of production. We use pencils everyday, and yet many people wouldn’t know how that pencil came to be. It came to be, thanks to economics. I can understand the argument brought out by the pencil example. I also understand the purpose of hands off, lassiez-faire economics. However I don’t buy into the fact that creativity is lost with hands on approaches. While the invisible hand theory is one economic theory, I believe that perhaps there is someone, one person who knows how to make a pencil. What I mean by this is that indeed the economy and economics depend on a lot of factors, all of which work towards something, often without knowing, but perhaps there is someone who could change or control that. I believe there is a pencil czar, or perhaps the Alan Greenspan of pencils? Or more practically, I believe there are people who oversee pencil making. Whether it’s the making of a pencil, or the movement of interest rates, someone needs to manage, and someone needs to manipulate. Further I find that Mr. Read’s problem may not be in general oversight/understanding of economics, or in this case pencil making, but rather in the Government’s oversight. So the question arises, what is the government’s role in economics/pencil making? I personally believe that it shouldn’t always be completely lassiez-faire, but rather more watchful of the economy, or in this case the making of those amazingly wonderful number 2 pencils, we use every day. This directly applies to my expert study. The role of the government in economics has been debated for centuries. So when we talk about pencils, or international trade, what is the governments place? This is the question in general I am trying to answer, paired with an understanding of what effect actions taken by the government then have on the economics/globalization, or in this case, pencil making.

Globalization Changing the Canal?

Voters in Panama have decided yesterday by a margin of four-to-one, to go ahead with a proposal to expand their famous canal. The plan which was put to a referendum will open the canal to more and bigger ships. This has been called for by many since the United States stopped its plans to expand the canal in 1940. The canal is often congested, and now due to new technology in ship making, not all ships can fit in the canal. This is especially true of ships which originate out of India and China brining manufactured goods to the United States and Europe. This just goes to show the very large effect that globalization is having even in transforming trade routes. The increased goods and contact coming out of such places as India and China lead to this action. The project which has a 5 billion dollar price tag, has been hailed as showing the implicit soft power that global trade has on even small nations.

The role of the Panama Canal, which played a large role in opening the world up to global trade in the first place, goes to show how much power even a small country with limited economic power can have. It also goes to show, that when the more advanced countries provide infrastructure and assets to smaller ones, they can prosper. What separates Panama from all of its neighbors? The Panamanian government can provide for its citizens because of the 17% of Governmental revenue coming from the canal. If the other “pockets” of the world missing out on globalization had something as nice as the canal, perhaps these pockets would cease to exist.

Expert Study Article

My expert study is going to focus on the role which Globalization plays on American politics, and further the role which American politics plays on globalization. My goal would be to write a “The Prince” type manual for how politicans should handle the issue of globalization.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:1:./temp/~r108RXLO8V:e55491:

This is a log from the Senate floor, in which Senator Hollings (D-SC), who is now retired read a peice which appeared in the Washington Post on March 21st, 2004 which he wrote. The peice entittled “Protectionism Happens to Be Congress’s Job,” highlights one view of the question of what American political response should be to Globalization.

What kind of information is it? Primary? Secondary? Scholarly? Popular? Fact? Opinion?

It is a primary source from Senator Hollings, which reflects his opinion.

What is the perspective of the writer or the publication?

Senator Hollings at the time of publication was a 80 year old Democratic Senator from South Carolina. His perspective is tinted in favor of protecting constituent jobs.

Projected Number of U.S. Jobs to Move Overseas

		Management: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 288,281 Business: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 348,028 Computer: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 472,632 Architecture: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 184,347 Life sciences: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 36,770 Legal: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 76,642 Art, design: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 29,564 Sales: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 226,564 Office: Number of jobs moving overseas by 2015: 1,659,310

Source: Forrester Research, Inc. November, 2002

Salary Comparisons

		Software Programmer, United States: $66,100 Software Programmer, India: $10,000 Mechanical Engineer, United States: $55,600 Mechanical Engineer, India: $5,900 IT Manager, United States: $55,000 IT Manager, India: $8,500 Accountant, United States: $41,000 Accountant, India: $5,000 Financial Operations, United States: $37,625 Financial Operations, India: $5,500

Source: Paàras Group, 2002; International Labour Organization

Govenor Kaine — Virginia a Global Player

In an article, from the Richmond Times Dispatch today, we find that Virginia Governor, Tim Kaine, has global ambitions for Virginia. When speaking about the economic future of the Commonwealth Kaine noted that, “our attitude toward globalization is a key component… so many communities in Virginia have lost jobs overseas, have lost economic opportunities. In many parts of Virginia there is understandable anxiety about the global economy. Can we acknowledge that anxiety but really go after global connections? We are better positioned than any other state to be winners in a global economy.” Is this not the perfect mentality for political leaders to take? Understand that there are real true losses to people, for economic gain, while also understanding that perhaps the gain from globalization outweighs the losses. With Kaine at the helm, I think Virginia can be a political leader of the Globalization movement.

This answers some of the questions I have raised about the real true impact to society and politics.

The Effect of Political Turmoil on Economic Development

We have been discussing the purpose of infrastructure and stability in providing the tools for Globalization to occur. Many people asserted that a nation needs stability and infrastructure to globalize. Perhaps a good question to ask is what brings about the stability and infrastructure? Or better, Hart has asserted that without political stability, these other tools won’t come about. For once, Hart and I agree. In a lot of cases political turmoil prevents growth of infrastructure and institutions of education. This leads to the question of the post: What is the effect of political turmoil on economic growth?

For the sake of ease, let’s use India as an example.

We should look to an article from October 3^rd, by Pranab Bardhan who is a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-chair of the Network on the Effects of Inequality on Economic Performance, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, in which he discusses India Politics in relation to Globalzation. “In general, because of social heterogeneity and economic inequality, the social and political environment in India is conflict-ridden, and it is difficult in this environment to build consensus and organize collective action toward long-term reform and cooperative problem-solving efforts.” Thus the conclusion is that unless India can get over the hump of consensus and work towards political stability, perhaps their economic growth will eventually slow. Bardhan argues that without reform in India’s government, the people are going to begin to reject the economic changes brought about by globalization. “Issues of fiscal and trade policy, financial markets and capital-account convertibility preoccupy any discussion of economic reform. Reform would gain popularity if it were equally and simultaneously concerned with reform in the appalling governance structure in the delivery of basic social and infrastructural services for the poor in large parts of the country – in education, health, drinking water, irrigation and more. In the euphoria with the high growth rates of recent years, one should not forget, for example, that the atrocious condition in India’s health sector is worse than that in even some African countries – for example, the percentage of underweight children in India is not just five times that in China, it is worse than most African countries.”

Perhaps globalization will help provide for the stability of India by opening it up to ideas. Or perhaps, if the governmental and political reformers win, will India cease to be the cradle of outsourcing? Which one comes first? Economic development or political stability? Comments…

 

Gas Prices to Rise?

With the annoucement this morning that OPEC will cut oil supply by 1 million barrels per day as soon as possible, with top world exporter Saudi Arabia reducing its production by 300,000 bpd from September will gas prices rise again? Why is OPEC doing this? Simple economics…”The news shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. Obviously, OPEC has seen that the world economy can keep going at $65 to $75, so they don’t see any reason why prices should fall too much further,” said Andrew Harrington, a resource analyst at ANZ Bank. More importantly in the light of our class is how will Globalization affect cartels such as OPEC?

Reflections on Last Classes Discussion:

During last class, I posted our general claims and comments on the WIKI so everyone could review them at a later point. Upon reviewing them myself this morning, I found what I find to be the most important points, and I came to a few realizations.

1.) We started off on President Frawley’s speech, but that discussion served as a launching pad to a much larger discussion.

Perhaps this was Prof. Greenlaw’s intent, perhaps even President Frawleys. One thing is clear, President Frawley’s assertion that the World is Not Flat, provided the basis for a discussion that could have lasted much longer then our hour and 15 minutes.

2.) Perhaps I am more of a pinko socialist then I realized.

We spent a while discussing property rights, and the assertion which Hart made that the ability to accumulate wealth as a innate right. In tones similar to Nozick, hard argued that the rich have no obligation to the rest of the society, that they should have the choice of what to do with their money. However, I have found that if we consider this in a global context, we can find that the ability for say, Bill Gates, to accumulate wealth comes from his ability to invent/innovate as opposed to survive. To understand what I mean, requires us to go back to the Neolithic revolution, or even Renaissance. With a food and labor surplus, comes job specialization. However, without a food and labor surplus, society remains “backward.” This is important to our discussion because I find that our societies growth and surplus allows for Bill Gates to spend his live working on Windows and Microsoft, because he doesn’t have to go into the woods to find dinner amonst other things. I hold that this makes Gates responsible to the society which gives him this ability. Why shouldn’t he give back to the society, which has provided the stability and institutions which allowed him to accumulate such great wealth.

3.) The gaps in the world were the global economy has yet to have an affect, will remain backward and outside of the global area, not allowing the world to be flat, until WE do something about it.

To understand what I mean by this, you have to go back to President Frawley’s speech.

“it is part of our larger responsibility to send students and teachers out into the farthest reaches of the unflat world and then to provide safe and neutral places for them to speak in substantive, consequential, and even “edgy” terms about what they have seen.”

We have to come to an understanding of the unflat world, and perhaps even help them flatten. So what does it take to flatten? As I asserted in class, I don’t believe it to be possible for the unflattened world to flatten, without the tools and structures we have. This requires as Hart brought up, political stability. But political stability is just the beginning. Infrastructure and institutions such as education must become an innate aspect of any society to become a player in the global world. The reason America is the global leader is the same reason we have the ability to sit in our globalization class. We have stability, infrastructure, and institutions. Look at South Africa and Egypt, they have the tools from the Brits, thus they are the most stable and sound countries in Africa, with the best chance at becoming players in the global economies. Yet most of Africa lacks these tools, largely as a result of the rape and pillage of their resources in short order by the Europeans. Without these tools, it won’t ever be possible for the unflattened pockets to globalized. Does this mean, we need to provide these tools? No, not necessarily. However if we have the means, why not help them? Why is it that half of the world, that is, 3 billion people live in poverty? Because they do not have the same tools we do. Investment in education needs to begin here at home in America, but I would argue that it should be the goal of America to help educate the world.

Come to find out…the UN agrees:
In an article yesterday by Supachai Panitchpakdi from the UN News Centre, some of the points from our discussion last class are developed.

 

 

Developing countries need more aid to benefit from globalization – UN trade official
Supachai Panitchpakdi

4 October 2006 – Openness and market access are sometimes not enough to allow developing countries to benefit from economic globalization because they lack the knowledge and infrastructure to produce goods and services and need increased foreign aid and investment, a top United Nations trade official said today. “In fact, some have argued that trade liberalization has in some cases resulted in de-industrialization and even greater poverty,” UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Secretary-General Supachai Panitchpakdi told a high-level panel discussion in Geneva on the topic of “UNCTAD, development, and the way forward.” “Only investment in the productive sector will create employment, increase household income and reduce poverty over the long term,” he said, citing especially the world’s 50 least developed countries (LDCs). Such countries “simply lack the capacity” to benefit from globalization, Mr. Supachai noted. They do not have “the ability to produce goods and services, the knowledge needed to create a broad industrial base and the infrastructure that enables countries to trade and communicate.” It is necessary to strengthen managerial and entrepreneurial skills in developing countries and to bolster the Aid for Trade programme, which aims at helping such countries take advantage of export opportunities, he added.

 

 

To me its quite simple. In order for the World to be completly flat, we need to help provide tools to the unflattened world and also innovate and increase the tools of our own nation. Comments? Hart?

———————————————————————————————————-
UPDATE: Hart and I had a brief discussion prior to class this morning, I want to clarify a couple of things. First, I am not asserting that Bill Gates owes anything MORE to society then his share of a progressive tax system. I am just making the point, that perhaps Gates isn’t entittled to vast wealth, without reconizeing the tools society provides him to get that wealth. Further, Hart asserted that Gate’s contribution to society is the product he makes. In response I would maintain that our societey is enabled by the stability we have. The stability is created by the pyramid system. While Gate’s who is at the top of the pyramid made an innovation which has bettered the world greatly, the people on the very bottom of the pyramid, the base in a matter of terms, probally doesn’t use Microsoft products. In order to maintain the integrity of the pyramid, that is our stability of institutions and infrasturcture, we must account for all memebers of the pyramid, not just the Gates type figures at the top.